This is a place for asking simple questions that might not deserve their own thread. For example, if you have a question about a rules interaction, want sleeve and accessory recommendations, or suggestions for your new deck, then this is the place for you.
We encourage that you post any questions that you may have concerning Magic the Gathering here rather than make a separate thread for each question, though for now we won't require that you do so.
Rules Questions
Rules questions and interactions are allowed to be posted here, but if you need an answer quickly it may be best to use a dedicated resource like the 24/7 Magic the Gathering Rules Chat.
Deckbuilding Questions
If you're trying to get help with a deck, it is recommended that you post your decklist to a deckbuilding website so that it is easier to view. Some popular sites are Aetherhub, Archidekt, Deckbox, Deckstats, Moxfield, MtgGoldfish, and TappedOut.
Additionally, please include some description of what you are trying to accomplish. Don't just give us a decklist with no explanation, and don't ask extremely vague questions such as "what cards should I add to my deck to make it better?", because it's hard to give good advice in those cases. Let us know details, the more the better. Are you building with a particular strategy or theme in mind? Are there any non-obvious combo lines or synergies that people should be aware of? Are you struggling with a particular matchup, or are you finding yourself missing consistency in an important area, and need some help specifically for it? Let us know.
Commonly Asked Questions

I opened a card from a different set in my booster pack, is this unusual?

Don't worry, this is completely normal. If you opened a set booster, you have a small chance of obtaining a bonus card from a previous set. This is an extra card that does not replace any of the other cards in your pack, and is from a curated set of past hits that Wizards of the Coast has selected, which they call "The List".
You can view the contents of The List on Wizards of the Coast's official website. For example, the contents of The List for Streets of New Capenna boosters can be found here.

My foil card has a shooting start symbol over the bottom left. I can't find anything about it online.

All old-bordered foils have the shooting star symbol. Most sites that display card images just overlay a generic foil graphic over all foil cards, which doesn't include the shooting star. Your card is normal.

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

I've met a wonderful girl whose an aspie too. I'm not entirely sure about my feelings yet but there's definitely something. There's just a few difficulties...
The first one is her thinking way too much. Every week I've asked to see her. Oftentimes she says yes but last week for example she said no because "she has a bad feeling about me not wanting to deal with her disabilities" which is not true at all. I mean I might not know all her problems yet because she said she's been masking a lot but I think I could handle it. She told me about some of them and even though they might be a hurdle it won't stop me from liking her. Luckily we have been able to establish a pretty open communication style which makes it much easier. Without that I wouldn't have known. And I was able to ease her mind multiple times already due to that. I'll have to get used to this I guess.
Another thing that slightly annoys me is her not wanting me to go to her place. On every date we just went for a walk. Different ideas I had simply weren't possible due to her ASD issues. At home we would be able to do more things like cooking, playing games, watching movies (while cuddling... i really need that, cant wait for this to happen), and more stuff like that. To my home is currently not possible and she sees hers as a safe space which she hates letting other people in so she said that she doesn't want to do that yet. I understand this and didn't continue pressuring her into going to her place with me but it would be nice...
thats it. feel free to give advice if you want to

Here are some important concerns for customized furniture in Dallas:

Schedule a Consultancy Session

When you have a proper consultancy session, you ensure that your contractor is well informed about all crucial decisions regarding furniture design and build.
Prepare for the session before hand by listing out all the questions you have about customized furniture Dallas including safety of all age groups, Energy efficiency, local laws etc.

Review Practical Limitations of Your Design

From shuttered windows and roof gardens to a ceramic bath and custom sliding door Dallas, every design choice is certain to affect your home and lifestyle in a number of ways.
Some other practical limitations of custom furniture design include higher cost, longer production time and challenges in achieving replication.

Prioritize Comfort and Efficiency

To prioritize comfort and efficiency in custom furniture, we must lay focus on ergonomic designs, efficient space utilization and easy movement.
Further, such choices must go hand and hand with safety concerns. For example, if you love open spaces, a sliding door Dallas that opens into your backyard will greatly improve your day to day standard of living. However, if you have a very young child, you might want to go for a collapsible gate instead!

Shortlist Raw Materials

In order to achieve an experimental design, it is a must that we get hold of high quality materials. Such materials which are usually used for customized furniture Dallas are very difficult to find!
One way in which you can solve this issue to a great extent is to short list alternatives for each material your contractor is going to use. You can present this list to them in the very beginning and make it clear that you are not open for low quality swaps!

Create a Budget Buffer

Imagine creating custom bedroom furniture Dallas. Every step is bound to produce new challenges and a shower of new ideas! Because of this, custom furniture always Cost A little more than what we anticipate. Unlike readymade items, we can't set a single budget for them.
Creating a budget buffer involves setting aside additional funds beyond the estimated project cost. Usually, for residential projects it is good to allocate around 10-20% of the total budget for future changes.

Understand Your Residential Space

To measure residential space accurately we can take the following steps. Alternatively we can also get a professional furniture design company to help us out!

• Use a tape measure to record room dimensions, including length, width, and height.
• Note the positions of doors, windows, and other architectural features.
• Consider clearances for furniture placement and movement.
• Leave out regions that we will be adorning with home decor
• Create a scale drawing or use digital tools to plan an overall layout with space measurements in the sketch.
• Schedule a Consultancy Session

I'd like to address the issue of griefing that's plaguing "high-level" ARAM matches. It seems like every other game, there's at least one player who intentionally ruins the experience for everyone else.
These people get triggered over the smallest things, some examples from my last games include them not getting the preffered champion, enemy team having champions that are annoying to play against, you not playing the way they want you to, or even someone simply picking exhaust. They know that they will go unpunished so almost all of them openly snitch on themselves in chat typing stuff like "ok now i troll", then they proceed to intentionally die or afk between towers acting once in a while like they're participating.
I exclusively play ARAM so i often find myself in matches with the same pool of players and sometimes i can recognize names of individuals who have repeatedly griefed in previous games, yet despite numerous reports they continue to play (and do the same shit over and over again) without consequence. I've never received a notification that someone was penalized for griefing after reporting them.
I understand that it's harder to get punished in ARAM since it's considered a "fun" game mode, but these players are blatant in their behaviour and either openly admit to griefing in game chat or attempt to hold you hostage in champion select.
We need a more efficient system for identifying and banning griefers within the ARAM player base.
TL;DR: ARAM is overrun by griefers who openly admit to trolling and face no punishment. This is especially noticeable for those who mainly play ARAM. This needs to change.

This post felt rambly but they're just some cool ideas, I didn't care for its' structure
Underwhelming Major Cooldowns
A few long cooldown spells still feel very underwhelming to press. Trueshot, Beastial Wrath, Berserk, Icy Veins, Recklessness, Avatar and the likes. Comparatively, think of Metamorphosis and how much it does by pressing one button. It's a really long leap with customized distance and landing spot, a very strong stun, an incredible animation, visual character transformation, modifies your abilities AND provides rotational changes. And I felt that the hero talent trees would be a great way to fix this issue, or at least try to fix that.
For example: Icy veins would now have a long cast, and would throw three Glacial Spikes at 50% (or 75% or some other percentage, insert a fair % here) effectiveness on use as a baseline. With the Frostfire hero talent tree, Icy Veins would now throw 3 pyroblasts at X% effectiveness on top of that. Fun, strong, useful, more dynamic, balanced and extremely appealing visually.
A similar approach could be taken with Trueshot and other underwhelming CDs. Just as a another comparison for context, Arcane Mage used to have Arcane Power, and extremelly undewhelming "press this for 35% more damage" button. It was then transformed into Arcane Surge, a long-cast very hard hitting ability that changes your rotation even more than AP did, and now even has a lot more interactions with talents and Mana, your main resource as arcane mage. It was very well received by the mage community and, personally, I now like a lot more playing the spec just because of that. Ascendance for shamans received somewhat of a similar treatment.
On the recent topic of remaking some hero talent trees, here are some ideas
What if Trickster Rogue would have Tricks of the Trade as its' main functionality, and it could work kind of like a soft support spec, buffing party members and mainly your Tricks target. So for example, Tricks would now give a massive buff (either damage, HP, survivability or some or all) to your Tricks target, on top of doubling its' threat effectiveness (or some percentage).
Your major cooldowns could be then amplified, either receiving all the bonus you've given with Tricks upon activation aswell as spreading your tricks buffs to more party members.
What if Rider of the Apocalypse Unholy DK would have the mounted combat while army of the dead is up, not only in open world. Makes a lot of sense thematically and gameplay wise. DKs need mobility, they're a wheelchair class, this would make it much more fun, engaging and fair to DKs.
Edit: alright I kept cooking, here's a few more examples on the CD changes
Berserk could apply a rake, a thrash, a fully stacked rip AND a fully stacked ferocious bite to your target, on top of what it already does regarding rotational changes, resource management and ability priority.
Celestial Allignment could cast a wrath, a starfire, a starsurge and a fullmoon on your target.
Tree of Life could cast a Tranquility at 1/4 the duration on use.
Elementals could do a lot more for Ele shaman. It's their main spec thematic but currently it does not feel like that at all. Elementals could have a cast time to summon, could be visually bigger, deal a lot more damage, do a massive ability when they're summoned, and last a little shorter. Fire makes lava burst have NO CD AND NO CAST TIME during its' duration. Same for storm ele and lightning spells. Earth ele could make your earth spells deal a little less damage, but have no cost and no cd.

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.

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

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.

TL;DR
Me (25M) have been dating my girlfriend (24F) for just over six months now. I really love her and she loves me so much.
But, I have been feeling very emotionally alone recently. I feel like she never wants to acknowledge my emotions and dismisses them, and I don't know what to do about it. There have been some serious instances and several minor ones, where she hardly ever seems to apologise or even acknowledge my feelings when she hurts me. Sometimes, she would say hurtful things, sometimes say that I cook up stories in my head etc.
For example, once we had an intense conversation about my law career where she insulted my idea of getting into academia. She called me a coward and even insulted my father. She said many other things which truly broke my heart. The next day, when I poured my heart out to her about how her words broke my heart, she went silent said sorry over text. When she did talk to me, she said she never disrespected me or my father. She also said that I always dump all my emotions on to her without any regard for her.
Another example is when she out of the blue told me that she made out with her guy best friend a couple years back and I should be jealous of him. I was really thrown by that, and felt a little uncomfortable in that moment. I was hurt too, but I understand that it was a long time ago and it should not affect me as much. The problem was how she reacted to me feeling hurt and uncomfortable the moment I found out. Only half an hour into our conversation, she said that I was obsessing over all this.
The bottom line is that I feel every time I bring up any negative emotion, especially one towards her, she simply gets aggressive, says mean things and resorts to hurting me in some way or the other. Now I am stuck in a paradox, where I cannot talk to her about this issue or any other things she did that have been on my mind, knowing she will simply dismiss them. I have brought up this problem about me not being able to open up to her when she hurts me, but she did the same thing as always, i.e., she made mean comments, said that I make up stories in my head etc.
What should I do?

I am really happy to introduce Loopple Boilerplate Builder - a tool that will help you accelerate your development in just a matter of days.
Our powerful tool integrates the best technologies to streamline your development process:

• Next.js for robust performance
• Tailwind CSS for sleek designs
• Paddle for hassle-free payments
• Open AI for intelligent features
• Supabase Auth & Database for seamless user management and data handling
• Loopple Drag & Drop for effortless customization
• 7 pre-built pages examples

Whether you're a seasoned developer or just starting out, Loopple Boilerplate Builder helps you launch your projects in days, not weeks!
See how you can boost your development speed and build amazing web-based software with ease.
Let me know what you think about it!
Below are some useful links if you want to contribute and give feedback:
Website: https://www.loopple.com/boilerplate

I call it a "rendering" bug because that's the main issue I can see, though it may also be causing other issues I haven't yet seen. It usually goes like this: YouTube pauses for a second and goes to a black screen, then returns a few moments later. Then, a few seconds later, it goes black again, and this time returns in something like 480p. I tried to use an extension that locks the resolution of YouTube videos, and while it stopped the resolution going down, it still goes black and rewinds a few seconds like before, but now it sometimes comes back with weird coloured lines through it.
Another example is Twitch, very often the stream will crash after just a few seconds of watching, with the error code 3000. This can happen several times in a row before it finally calms down.
If either YouTube or Twitch bug out while I have Google Maps open, when I go back to that tab, it just goes pure white, and I will get a small pop up saying that something went wrong and I need to refresh it. When I do, Google Maps becomes unbearably slow to load map chunks, and 3D viewing is disabled completely, not even showing me a button for it, almost as if hardware acceleration has been turned off, even if it's still on in settings. Then to fix it, I have to close Chrome down and re-open it, fixing the maps, at least until they bug out again.
Any ideas what could be causing this?

TW: discussion of ED Please note that this is my own (rambly) personal experience; I’m putting it out there in hopes it resonates with others. I am also not discussing any specifics of my ED.
Lately, I’ve become aware of the impact my Mothers shaming has had on my development. I (F19) recently started seeing someone, and they met my Mother. I’ve seen people in the past, but this is the first time that I genuinely feel there is good potential, and they were the one to ask to meet my Mother which I happily obliged too. At various intervals throughout their dialogue, my Mother put me down. It was nothing serious, but little comments; for example she had just come back from the supermarket and started unpacking. As she unpacked, she made comments along the lines of me eating most of it, and just generally being unhealthy. Now, the guy I’m seeing appeared unfazed by all this (which makes sense because why would he care about the exact foods I am eating) but I was deeply uncomfortable. I am now recovered but have a history of insecurity regarding food and body image, culminating in about 2 years of ana. This dialogue got me thinking about my Mothers propensity for putting me down around others.
Another recent example not related to body image is I’m interested in solo travelling, albeit just in the research stage. My Mother brings this up to most new people we meet in a negative light, even when it is completely irrelevant to the topics at stake.
This same kind of propensity occurred throughout when I had ana. She would brag to family members about her current diet, slim shakes, whatever she was taking, and within moments comment on the meal plan I was on in an attempt to recover.
When I had ana, other people’s perception of me was the worst part. I didn’t want to be perceived as skinnier, so much so I would wear baggy clothing and avoid situations such as sport where more revealing clothing would be required. I didn’t want people to be concerned; I was deeply insecure about taking up space in general. I believe she was frustrated with this; and drew attention to my issues in hopes that would make me get over them.
Thinking about this stuff made me go back further. To when little me, initially oblivious to my appearance, started covering up. And I thought about why that was. And I remember that my entire life, around strangers, she was always commenting something. When I was a kid and she’d joke about my arms being chubby. So I started wearing bomber jackets, even during summer, to cover up. I believe she was the biggest cause of my ED.
For as long as I can remember, when I am around strangers, or I am introducing my mother to new friends, she makes comments like this. Not just related to food, but generally small comments aimed at diminishing my presence. But, I notice that around old friends she doesn’t feel the need to act out in this way.
What all these things have in common is they are not so individually significant as to be abusive, but when they pile up they are exhausting. As a result, I was painfully shy as a kid in fear of being judged. For a long time I lived with so much internalised hatred of myself.
Looking at the big picture; it’s because of this behaviour I don’t unhealthily crave external validation. Unlike other friends whose parents brag about them and I notice fish for complements, I don’t feel the need to draw attention to myself in an excessive way. I am able to hold myself accountable and go after realistic goals. If I’m sick of tired I continue working hard (for better or worse). In the long run, I think it’s instilled me with resilience and a level headed outlook.
But I still struggle with introducing her to new people because of this. I’m aware that most people aren’t aware of my insecurities, and likely don’t pay attention to her comments. I also know that anyone truely right for me will see me well enough to know these comments are not a reflection of who I am.
I have this self awareness, but it doesn’t change that in the moment, her behaviour is exhausting. When I have confronted her about this in the past respectfully, I’ve been met with gaslighting and a complete lack of accountability on her part.
I apologise for the ranty nature of this all. In many ways saying it openly is therapeutic. I hope that if you’re in a similar situation you understand their behaviour is not a reflection of who you are; and those that care about you know that.

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

Potassium nitrate mix is one of the easiest ways, to make the chased influenced by a chemical that can be gaseous, in closed spaces.
Ever had a situation when you knew the chased was in the room, but you did not know where exactly? You know they are hiding in one of the corners, but which? If you search the wrong one, they will escape the room. You could wait outside, but you might not have the privilege to wait. So your best way is to make it harder for them to stay hidden or even just run. Druging them with gas is ideal.
Potassium nitrate is ideal for smoke bombs. An recepie is concluded down below in the post for a normal smoke bomb. Smoke bombs with potassium nitrate can be mixed with some compounds that are NOT from 16 or 1 group ( you will make an explosive possibly). Other than that , you might want to avoid group 2 as well. Other stuff should be safer. Use organic compounds and block d oxides for low hazard poisonous gasses. They should be alright. Examples of such stuff would benzene (aromatic groups are more hazardous for lungs than normal carbon chains) or CuO. Remember that elements with higher atomic number than Pb might stop cell mitosis and be harder to treat, so preferably don't use during practice anything higher than Pb. Such example is U which would be used in form of UO2. Smoke bombs should cover a good area, be visible ( so you can avoid the cloud) and stay in the air for long but short enough periods to clean up the room. later you can look for the chased if they don't go out or run. Don't lick the walls after such a smoke bomb. Remember to wait a minute or two after some clears., if you want to enter contaminated area. Wear safety googles and heat proof gloves when you make the product for safety.
Use responsibly.
So... If you want to be a Scrooge, you can make a fuse out of animal hair, wool or protein fibres. Do not use plant based stuff. It won't burn. You can also use bird guano to get potassium nitrate. But it takes some time, as it needs to be filtered out in hot water until you get crystals.
Recepie
Open your soup can, empty, and clean it out. Do not disregard the top. Mix together 3 parts potassium nitrate, and 2 parts granulated sugar. Bring your frying pan to a low heat and add your mixture from Step 2. Continue mixing with a plastic whisk until the powdered mixture fully liquefies. While waiting for the mixture to liquefy grab your soup can top, drill five circles an 1/8th of an inch in from the edge and one in the center. Pour the mixture into the soup can place the top of the soup can on top of the can. Insert your fuse through the center hole until it reaches the bottom, trim excess according to desired time to ignite. With the lid off allow 6-8 hours to fully harden. After the mixture has hardened put the can top back on threading the fuse through the center, and seal to the can with a 1/16th in bead of silicone.

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

Believe it or not, offshore bookkeeping offers more than just a scenic backdrop. In today's global economy, businesses are setting sail towards offshore solutions for their financial needs, and the advantages are as vast as the open sea. Therefore, it is essential to know how it can help you achieve your financial goals in life.

Offshore Bookkeeping: What's the Buzz About?

Offshore bookkeeping is when you hire a team in another country to handle your financial record-keeping tasks. Some people might worry about sending financial data abroad, but the benefits often outweigh any concerns.

1. Cost Efficiency

One of the biggest perks of offshore bookkeeping is cost savings. Thus, outsourcing your bookkeeping services to countries with lower labor costs, you can significantly reduce your expenses. It’s like getting top-notch financial assistance without breaking the bank. Here are some sample scenarios:

• Labor Cost Savings. For example, a small consulting firm in Australia can save money by outsourcing bookkeeping to countries like India or the Philippines, where labor costs are lower.
• Reduced Overhead Costs. Offshore outsourcing minimises overhead costs associated with in-house staff, such as office space, equipment, and benefits.
• Access to Specialised Expertise at Lower Costs. Offshore firms provide access to specialised expertise in accounting and specific industries at a fraction of the cost of hiring locally.
• Scalability without Increasing Costs. Offshore bookkeeping allows businesses to scale services according to their needs without incurring additional costs.
• Risk Mitigation. Diversifying service providers geographically reduces the risk of disruptions due to local issues, ensuring continuity in bookkeeping operations.

2. Time Savings

Outsourcing your bookkeeping tasks frees up your time to focus on core business activities. Instead of drowning in spreadsheets and receipts, you can invest your time and energy into growing your business. Therefore, offshore bookkeeping helps you work smarter, not harder.

3. Access to Expertise

When you opt for offshore bookkeeping, you gain access to a pool of skilled professionals who specialise in handling financial matters. These experts are well-versed in the latest accounting standards and technologies, ensuring accurate and efficient bookkeeping help for your business.

4. Scalability

As your business grows, so do your bookkeeping needs. Offshore bookkeeping provides scalability that allows you to expand or scale back your services according to your requirements. Whether you need help with day-to-day transactions or year-end financial reports, offshore bookkeeping has you covered.

5. Enhanced Data Security

Concerned about data security? Offshore bookkeeping firms understand the importance of safeguarding your financial information. They implement robust security measures to protect your data from unauthorised access and cyber threats, giving you peace of mind.

6. Flexibility

Offshore bookkeeping offers flexibility in terms of service options. Whether you need full-time support or occasional assistance, you can customise your bookkeeping services to suit your business needs. It’s like having a financial team that adapts to your schedule, not the other way around.

7. Focus on Core Competencies

By outsourcing your bookkeeping tasks, you can focus on what you do best—running your business. Leave the number crunching to the experts while you concentrate on delivering value to your customers and driving growth.

Offshore Bookkeeping with Alli Accounting

Remeber, offshore bookkeeping isn’t just a trend; it’s a strategic move for businesses looking to streamline their financial operations. With cost savings, time efficiency, access to expertise, and enhanced security, offshore bookkeeping offers a plethora of benefits. So why not explore this option and give your business the bookkeeping help it deserves?
Offshore bookkeeping with Alli Accounting provides businesses with a reliable solution to manage their finances efficiently while reducing operational costs. Our team of experienced professionals ensures accurate recording of financial transactions, including accounts payable and receivable, payroll, and general ledger entries. Reach out to us to learn more!
Believe it or not, offshore bookkeeping offers more than just a scenic backdrop. In today's global economy, businesses are setting sail towards offshore solutions for their financial needs, and the advantages are as vast as the open sea. Therefore, it is essential to know how it can help you achieve your financial goals in life.

Offshore Bookkeeping: What's the Buzz About?

Offshore bookkeeping is when you hire a team in another country to handle your financial record-keeping tasks. Some people might worry about sending financial data abroad, but the benefits often outweigh any concerns.

Before we begin, I apologize in advance if this is long and rambly. Just trying to organize my thoughts and get some input from people who may have had similar experiences and/or are willing to read through my meandering bullshit.
I am a 25 year old EI with two years of experience who is currently unemployed. I started working with a mid-sized consulting company once I got my Bachelor's degree, brought on as an hourly employee in the geotechnical department while a full-time Master's student. I got my Master's in geoenvironmental engineering back in May, stuck around the company until December. Decided to take a break after leaving as one final hurrah in honor of being done with school, and am now starting the job hunt again.
There were a few different reasons I left my previous company, but one of the big ones is that I'm mainly interested in environmental work, and despite management saying they'd transfer me to a more environmentally-focused position, it never came to fruition. I wanted to try out geotechnical work because I really liked the geotech classes in uni, but I absolutely despised the work I was doing in geotech; field work was ok, but geotechnical reporting is absolutely soul-crushing. All that being said, the company I worked for also did environmental work, and I've had some low-level interaction with the department; realistically, it seems like it was just the same shit as geotechnical but with a different coat of paint. Somewhat interesting field work, followed by hours of templatized report writing and scraping the bottom of the barrel for billable hours.
Basically, I don't like geotech, and I'm worried that environmental engineering is going to be a lot of the same shit I didn't like about geotech, just under a different name and with different terms. I originally wanted to do remediation, but a lot of people I've talked to who did remediation absolutely fucking despised it. I've been looking at different jobs and subsets of engineering, and I really think something along the lines of coastal engineering would be something I'd love; the Army Corps of Civil Engineering specifically has some amazing sounding job openings, full of shit like stream and marsh restoration, jetty and coastal structure design, etc., but I really don't want to get my PE working in government, as that goes against everything I've ever been told in terms of career development. The big problem is, there are no private coastal opportunities in my city (somewhat expected, as I'm about four hours from the coast...), and I'm not planning on moving until I'm done paying my student loans.
One of the things that appeals to me with coastal engineering is that, I assume just from being a specialized market, the work looks a lot more in line with the shit I got into engineering for in the first place; design, modeling, that kind of thing. I don't want to be a project manager, I want to do technical and design work. Additionally, I want to work with water resources; this is one of the entire reasons I got into civil engineering. With that in mind, I've been looking into some local positions that I feel have some transferable skills, water resources type jobs, and it seems like nearly all of them are either stormwater or wastewater oriented, neither of which I'm particularly interested in. This is where I'm having some trouble trying to figure out what to do next.
I guess one of the big questions would be, would a job like this even exist? As in, a water resources oriented job that doesn't pertain to stormwater or wastewater? I've used a dozen different variations of searches on Indeed using keywords like modeling, water resources, water quality, etc., and it just gives me search results for wastewater work. Some examples of what I'd love to do are the things I did in my groundwater resources engineering and surface water quality modeling classes; in groundwater resources engineering, my final project included modeling the groundwater table for a local area based on well data. It was a little bit ago, so I'm a little fuzzy on the details, but another student used my model in his project and did something pertaining to contaminant transport in the groundwater. In surface water quality modeling, we did a lot of Simulink programming to model a large local watershed area. Is this kind of shit unique to academia, or can you score a job like this in consulting? If so, what are some companies I should be keeping an eye out on for job openings?

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