My wife and I live abroad in a low tax jurisdiction. We have saved about 250,000 and are looking at houses back home in the 750,000 range.
We intend to stay here another 2 years and in that time we can save another 250,000.
We will also have another 100,000 accrued in end of service benefit which we intend to use as an emergency fund back home. We can’t access this until we leave.
I cannot work out if we would be better off (from a purely financial perspective obviously it would be nice to have a house to come home to) (i) buying a house now. In this scenario we would need to put down 250,000 and we could start paying off the mortgage immediately. We could also rent the house out for some time before we return or (ii) waiting to buy a house when we return meaning we would only need to put down 75,000 and we could invest the rest.
This is all the money we have. We have no pensions or other assets but we are both only 31 so have time to accrue.
Any thoughts would be very much appreciated!

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

Almost 6 months after DD and we hit a rough patch, WP’s guilt has been holding him back from being affectionate without him even realizing, he feels undeserving of my love and is working on recovering from that self-loathing. He’s also autistic and has trouble identifying his emotions, so he thought he had fallen out of love, when really he’s been depressed and hasn’t felt love towards anyone else around him either, due to his emotions being suppressed. He’s had intrusive thoughts and been struggling with anxiety. We had been doing good up until two weeks ago when i pressed more details about DD and found out more info, the details didn’t change much but those feelings re-emerged and it restarted his depression as he felt more guilty. Because of this, he’s withdrawn and has been acting more of a friend than a partner.
Last night we had a talk, and he realized those feelings all started when i admitted to him that a month after DD, we had broken up and i ended up being manipulated into a rebound. I wasn’t exactly forced, but i didn’t actually want the dude, he knew i was vulnerable and told me everything i wanted to hear. I didn’t sleep with him, but did other sexual things, and the situation lasted a little over a month. I never lied about it to my WP, and answered any questions he had, since i honestly didn’t do anything wrong. He was very upset at first, but came around realizing he had no where to speak, since my actions were a reaction to what he put me through. He said that day was the source of his depressive feelings, and he says he doesn’t blame me, but he’s been focusing on repairing his ego and reminding himself that our situations are not comparable.
Anyway, i want to revisit the topic and suggest that that day being the source might have revealed to him how serious it was and how much damage it had really made, and how it affected me. We’ve agreed to leave the past in the past and not bring up details anymore since our last conversation, but i wonder if telling him just how shitty my situation was with the guy would help him see that i really wasn’t thinking rationally. I worry that it might make him feel worse, and i worry that bringing it up might make us take more steps back. We had a really loving day today and i dont want to bring us back to square one.
It sucks that i have to tiptoe around the subject he caused but what else am i to do. I also really want him to get back into therapy and journaling, things he did at the beginning, but he kinda brushes it off. I wanna trust that he’s making the right decisions for bettering himself, but I also worry that he’s stalling. Any thoughts?

Background Information on 2024 L4 AM (University Hired; External) Offer Letter:
62.5k salary; start date is 07/08
5k sign on bonus = 1st year
3k sign on bonus = 2nd year
18k in Amazon Stocks: 5% on anniversary date on 1st year 15% on anniversary date on 2nd year 20% every 6 months after until vested = 4 years until stocks fully vested
No relocation bonus given in offer letter even tho 150 miles away from home address. HOWEVER, Graebel Relocation Services is saying in the F&Q PDF that it may be given 30 to 45 days away and will be lum sum of 7k.
Have 1 week exactly to decide on accepting or declining offer.
Hey Everyone,
I just got my offer letter from Amazon as an L4 Area Manager (University Hire) and idk I'm not exactly happy with my salary. I'm in FL and the state have a extremely have a High COL and rent. Even when moving away from South FL, I was surprised to read my offer letter has the lowest/minimum in terms of salary of 62.5k. I thought maybe it be like NY or CA where I get higher salary to justify the means of living. I thought I would get 65k as like a happy medium.
I read the terms of the AM offer letter and it says that the salary is not negotiable. In the letter, Amazon says the following:
"Our team believes in providing the best offer up front ! The compensation for this position was crafted and approved by our finance team prior to the start of the season.
This value was determined based on the position’s responsibilities and the cost of living surround your assigned location.
No part of your offer is negotiable."
Normally I would accept it and move on but is it worth reaching out on that or will my offer be revoked? I'm concerned in surviving with rent, groceries, bills, student loans and etc after taxes using a online salary calculator for FL to get an estimate biweekly & monthly. Can I trade a couple thousand in stocks for a boost in salary?
Should I just take the L seeing I have no other job offer and just hope I get promoted to L5 in a year so I can feel more comfortable in salary before trying to pivot to corporate once I finish my contract/obligations for sign on & relocation expense?
Am I stupid for pausing at the salary and not immediately agreeing to the terms that is sent in the middle of the night since beggars can't be choosers?
Do you still keep your stocks when pivoting to another Amazon career field such as corporate or will the amount vested be eliminated? The letter makes that confusing to know since it says if you leave before stocks gets vested, you will lose it.
Finally, can I move my start date since it's Early July. I think it's Prime Week in July so I'm assuming I be blacked out if I try to start in late July or early Aug?
Thank you all for answering my questions and concerns, I really appreciate it.

I was reading Keith Baker's blog about Spelljammer today (he said he'd rather do a campaign about the people of Eberron discovering Spelljamming, rather than making it part of the Spelljammer setting), and I had an idea for a campaign, and thought I'd run it by people who know Spelljammer better than me. I'm curious if this campaign idea seems interesting, or makes any kind of sense. Basically, Spelljammer meets Eberron meets Galactica 1980.
For a while now my headcanon has been that the entirety of Siberspace was purposefully shielded from outside influences by Siberys (or possibly all three Progenitor Dragons). So, any god who tries to extend their influence into Eberron is basically fried to a crisp instantly, hence the lack of true gods.
However, I started to wonder about the possibility of Siberys having protections in place for other influences that normally kept Spelljammers away. Basically, if the people of Eberron figure out Spelljammers on their own, they can leave Siberspace. BUT, if any technology they don't have yet is brought in from outside, it immediately starts malfunctioning, so Spelljammers all know to avoid Siberspace.
But, at the start of the campaign in an emergency a Spelljammer enters Siberspace and is forced to make an emergency landing on Eberron due to the malfunctions (one issue: if they started malfunctioning the instant they entered Siberspace would they be able to make it to Eberron?). They find Eberron is right on the cusp of building primitive Spelljammers.
Other complication: While Siberys' enchantment won't kill the party directly, if they give certain information (like "We're from another sphere") they die. I'll work out the exact parameters later.
So, to get home they have to subtly nudge the people of Eberron towards Spelljammer technology, then steal that technology. I'm also assuming no one in the Party could build a Spelljammer from scratch, but they know the basic principles, and could potentially upgrade a primitive Spelljammer once it's built.
Does this seem stupid?

I've been unemployed for more than 2 months. I chose to leave the job in anticipation of an upcoming reorientation rather than being fired.
My previous job required me to ensure that I always used birth control, which can lengthen my time with my enterprise to at least 2 years. I had no plan to have the first baby then, so it was not a challenging choice. Furthermore, despite a suspicion that things might not work out, I decided to give it a shot in that new field after talking with the line manager about the scope of work, which was very different from what I had done before. Eventually, the final decision was made.
After 6 months of working, I started a series of rest days after submitting my resignation letter here. The primary cause was my disappointment since most of the tasks did not correspond with the job description provided during the interview.
Anyway, even though I had to give my decision a lot of thought—resigning from a job during a recession is a risky move—I am still happy with it. I am currently putting the required skills into practice and registering for a few professional knowledge-based courses. I want to be a better version of myself when I go back into the job market.

My wife quit her job as a software developer for a large multi national bank.
They have a policy that leaves assigned for a year don't carry forward. New leaves are granted at the beginning of the year.
So she quit her job in October with a 3 month notice. Her exit date was on 10th January. She had 20 days of encashable leaves when she put in her papers.
They also have a policy that once you put in your papers you cannot take a leave unless you have an emergency otherwise they can extend your notice. So she didn't take leaves.
Now they have given her one day of leave encashment for 10 days worked in January.
They say her leaves expired on the 31st. It just feels wrong because their policy prevents her from taking those. Now their HR has replied in writing that she should have worked out something with the manager and taken the leaves that were expiring. Even though the policy is quite clear.
Do we have a case? Also, can you guys recommend a good labour lawyer in Bangalore?

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

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

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

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

"Why Did Jesus Die on the Cross?"

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

Why Penal Substitution Is Unbiblical

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

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

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

The Content of Paul's Gospel Message

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

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

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

Justification, and the "New" Perspective on Paul

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

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

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

TW suicidal ideation
I’m dreading going home.
I have to go and stay with my mother for a few days because I can’t move in to my apartment until the first and I need to get some of my stuff. We haven’t talked in a month and I already know it’s going to be a mess. I thought I’d be okay because it’s short term and I have a plan to leave. But I really don’t want to go home. I ended up in the hospital last night because I did something stupid to cope with the stress.
I just feel so alone and terrified. I have been thinking a lot about ending it all, just to escape the pain. I know this sub isn’t for any emergency mental health stuff, I just wanted to include it for context. I have a therapist and a support system that are helpful. It’s just really difficult to explain to people not in this situation how painful it is. When my friends need someone to turn to, they can call their parents or siblings or a family member. I can’t. And my friends are also 20 and have no life experience in the sense that they can’t help me with taxes or renting apartments or learning to budget.
I just wish I had someone who could hold me and tell me it would be okay, that I wasn’t alone. I feel like my entire life, I’ve face the world and all my problems all alone. I’m tired of being strong and alone. I’m burnt out and have nothing left to give.
Idek why I’m making this post. Maybe I’m hoping that I’m not alone in how I feel. Maybe I’m looking for hope. I don’t know. I just feel so broken. I wish I could disappear for a while.

Part 1: https://www.reddit.com/OffMyChestPH/s/JPmEf0aCn6
So since people were asking for an update. Here we go.
We did not end up having a following date. She got tired from paragliding the next day(yesterday) I even went and nag relax sa beach malapit sa resort n'ya para if ever na mag reply s'ya na gusto n'yang lumabas eh malapit na'ko hahah. So when I asked her to hangout today she declined dahil she's done going outside. And she's leaving tomorrow morning na ren. She's introverted autistic so understandable. I respect it. But I tried asking for one more night kahit na sa hotel lang at mag usap just like the first night. I was gonna get flowers otw pa naman and give her my bracelet that I'm wearing during the time na I was with her and one of our photo booth picture na may hand written letter ko sa likod. But oh well 🤷‍♂️. Am I upset? A lil bit but I came in terms with it. She was probably overwhelmed den dahil sa bagong experience at talagang I did my best talaga.
Now, were just chatting online na lang pero not like fast replying talking stage type shit.
Honestly, I wasn't expecting anything naman talaga after she leaves dahil considering every circumstances I know na di kame mag wowork as an ldr. Pero I love to think na what made it special between us was the underlying bittersweet part nga na we know there's an ending and have an idea about it. Just like a movie, may umpisa at may katapusan. Yes, it was like a movie(pinanood ko yung Before Sunset na sinabe nung unang comment sa first part ng post ko) so yeah for the most part it was really like that.
So now, from what I'm seeing between us we would just keep in touch through discord pero that's about it. I didn't ask her to get connected sa socmed na ren. Because it would make me keep my memory of her from those nights. This beautiful, interesting, mysterious, and weirdly fun woman I met.
I even told her to my friends. I told them the story and what happened. I told them what I'm telling you guys rn.
I honestly just wish she had an amazing time with me. Like something she'll remember for good amount of time. I really hope the best for her. I hope I've set the standard for her and she won't settle for less than me if she ever starts dating.
As for me? She changed me. Remember how I said I'm not the ideal guy sa first post ko? Yeah. I would frequently hookup. Had fwb/fubus. Would to multiple girls at the same time. I was like that.
But after meeting her and finally experiencing something like that and romanticizing everything about us, I liked it.
I long for something like that again but not right now. In the future sure.
So I deleted all my dating apps. Kinausap ko mga current girls na kinakausap ko and told them what happened which is unusual for me dahil almost everytime when I'm done talking with a girl I would just ghost them because it's easier for me. Stuffs like that, talagang binago n'ya ako. One of my friends is even proud of me. Kaya I even gave them the condoms that I'm supposed to use pa. Some of them aren't fond den sa lifestyle ko e hahah
But yeah, I'm done chasing girls and being sexually motivated. I would rather instead romanticize my own life. Make my own adventure and connect with people I meet along the way.
I even had my friend help me to make a bucket list for me. After namen mag usap kanina I submitted my leave request. I'm planning on going to a vacation on a different place na ren. Who knows? I might find someone who I'll go out with on wherever I go. I'm not gonna actively chase it but that does sounds fun naman haha parang sa perspective n'ya.
It might be not the kind of ending that you guys were hoping(me too) but it's an ending. So yeah, I hope she'll have a good life. I told myself na babatiin ko s'ya ng happy birthday ever.
And thank you everyone sa mga comments. I didn't expect to have people actually get invested on it and ask for updates.

Introduction:

In the vibrant city of Pune, where creativity thrives, there exists an educational haven dedicated to nurturing design talent - the International School of Design (INSD). Renowned as the best designing institute in Pune, INSD stands tall as a beacon for aspiring designers, offering a comprehensive array of courses and fostering an environment conducive to innovation and excellence. Dive into the world of design with us as we explore what makes INSD the unrivaled choice for design enthusiasts in Pune.

Introduction to INSD

Established with a vision to revolutionize design education, INSD has carved a niche for itself in the realm of creative learning. Situated in the heart of Pune, the institute boasts state-of-the-art facilities, seasoned faculty, and a curriculum designed to meet the evolving demands of the industry.

Why Choose INSD?

INSD offers a diverse range of design courses, including fashion design, interior design, graphic design, and textile design. Its comprehensive curriculum is designed to provide students with a strong foundation in design theory, practical skills, and industry knowledge. The institute's state-of-the-art facilities, experienced faculty, and industry collaborations ensure that students receive a holistic education that prepares them for successful careers in the field of design.
Textile Design Courses at INSD
INSD's textile design courses are ideal for students who are passionate about textiles and want to pursue a career in textile design. The institute offers a Bachelor's degree in Textile Design, Master's degree in Textile Design, and Diploma in Textile Design. INSD is Best Institute of Textile Design in Pune. These courses cover a wide range of topics, including textile printing, dyeing techniques, fabric manipulation, and sustainable textile design. Students also have the opportunity to collaborate with industry partners and gain hands-on experience through internships.
Fashion Design Courses at INSD
INSD's fashion design courses are among the most sought-after in Pune. The institute offers a range of programs, including a Bachelor's degree in Fashion Design, Master's degree in Fashion Design, and Diploma in Fashion Design. These courses cover various aspects of fashion design, including garment construction, textile design, fashion illustration, and fashion marketing. Students also have the opportunity to showcase their designs at INSD's annual fashion show, which is attended by industry professionals and media.
Interior Design Courses at INSD
INSD's interior design courses are designed to equip students with the skills and knowledge needed to succeed in the competitive field of interior design. The institute offers a Bachelor's degree in Interior Design, Master's degree in Interior Design, and Diploma in Interior Design. These courses cover a wide range of topics, including space planning, furniture design, lighting design, and sustainable design practices. Students also have the opportunity to gain hands-on experience through internships with leading design firms.
Graphic Design Courses at INSD
INSD's graphic design courses are tailored to meet the needs of aspiring graphic designers. The institute offers a Bachelor's degree in Graphic Design, Master's degree in Graphic Design, and Diploma in Graphic Design. These courses cover a variety of topics, including typography, branding, digital illustration, and motion graphics. Students also have the opportunity to work on real-world projects and build a professional portfolio that showcases their skills and creativity.

The Pedagogy at INSD

At the core of INSD's success lies its holistic approach to education. The institute emphasizes hands-on learning, encouraging students to explore their creativity through practical projects and industry collaborations. With a perfect blend of theory and practice, INSD ensures that students are well-equipped to tackle real-world challenges in the field of design. INSD is Best Designing Institute in Pune.

Courses Offered

INSD offers a diverse range of courses spanning various disciplines of design, catering to the interests and aspirations of students. From fashion design to interior design, graphic design to textile design, the institute leaves no stone unturned in providing comprehensive education tailored to individual preferences.

Faculty Expertise

INSD prides itself on its faculty, comprising seasoned professionals and industry experts who bring a wealth of knowledge and experience to the classroom. With a focus on mentorship and guidance, the faculty at INSD plays a pivotal role in shaping the future of budding designers.
Industry Collaborations
To bridge the gap between academia and industry, INSD actively collaborates with leading design firms, brands, and organizations. These collaborations provide students with invaluable exposure to the real-world workings of the design industry, helping them build networks and gain insights that are instrumental in their professional journey.

Alumni Success Stories

The true testament to the quality of education at INSD lies in the success stories of its alumni. From budding entrepreneurs to seasoned professionals, INSD alumni have made their mark in the world of design, showcasing the institute's commitment to nurturing talent and fostering innovation.

Campus Life and Facilities

Beyond academics, INSD offers a vibrant campus life enriched with extracurricular activities, workshops, and events. The institute's modern infrastructure, well-equipped studios, and libraries provide students with the perfect environment to unleash their creativity and realize their full potential.

Admission Process

Interested in joining the ranks of aspiring designers at INSD? Learn more about the institute's admission process, eligibility criteria, and selection criteria to kickstart your journey towards a rewarding career in design.

Conclusion

As we conclude our journey into the world of INSD, it's evident that the institute stands as a beacon of excellence in design education. With its unwavering commitment to innovation, industry relevance, and student success, INSD continues to set the benchmark for designing institutes in Pune and beyond.
In conclusion, INSD emerges as not just a designing institute in Pune, but a hub of creativity, inspiration, and excellence. Whether you aspire to be a fashion designer, an interior decorator, a graphic artist, or a textile expert, INSD provides the perfect platform to turn your dreams into reality. Join us at INSD and embark on a transformative journey towards a fulfilling career in design.
​
#designinginstituteinpune
#bestinstituteoftextiledesigninpune
#bestdesigninginstituteinpune

I have to go and stay with my mother for a few days because I can’t move in to my apartment until the first and I need to get some of my stuff. I thought I’d be okay because it’s short term and I have a plan to leave. But I really don’t want to go home. I ended up in the hospital last night because I did something stupid to cope with the stress.
I just feel so alone and terrified. I have been thinking a lot about doing something drastic to escape the pain. I know this sub isn’t for any emergency mental health stuff so I just want to make it clear that I’m not looking for anything like that, I just wanted to include it for context. I have a therapist and a support system that are helpful. It’s just really difficult to explain to people not in this situation how painful it is. When my friends need someone to turn to, they can call their parents or siblings or a family member. I can’t. And my friends are also 20 and have no life experience in the sense that they can’t help me with taxes or renting apartments or learning to budget.
I just wish I had someone who could hold me and tell me it would be okay, that I wasn’t alone. I feel like my entire life, I’ve face the world and all my problems all alone. I’m tired of being strong and alone. I’m burnt out and have nothing left to give.
Idek why I’m making this post. Maybe I’m hoping that I’m not alone in how I feel. Maybe I’m looking for hope. I don’t know. All I want is to be held.

So imma start by saying I’m terrible with money. So much so that I’m living down by the river in a van. 5 year goal is to buy property in Uruguay, 10 year goal is to gtfo of USA.
But I have a job with easy OT access and no rent. Currently I have 36% of my income going into a 401k. 12% pre 12% roth 12% post tax. (Yes I know that means 24% post tax because Roth is post tax, but growth isn’t taxed in Roth and is capped at 23k/yr) rational behind this is the 24% in trad/roth won’t be touched if I left my job, while the 12% non tax advantage account will be for emergency savings.
I’m working 50hrs/wk, paid 55/wk. minimal expenses are ~150/wk. beyond that everything is fair game. After taxes and other benefits like health insurance that leaves 400/wk above the 401k contributions. Should I increase my 401k contributions or what? I need it to be somewhat harder to pull this money out, otherwise I will spend it frivolously.

A few weeks ago, I felt dejected upon seeing my results for the USTET and ACET, both were my dream schools but unfortunately I didn't get in. I hoarded the past posts of people in Tomasino and the ateneo sub especially in the megathread in hopes I may be able to get myself reconsidered, from getting details such as the formatting to understanding the purpose, contents, and such of the reconsideration letter which I was able to make at least a week after the results were released. There was this one particular comment though which set me interacting with people of prestige and that involved the letter of endorsement.
The comment detailed how his friend was able to get into UST after talking to a Dominican Priest whom she was able to show her masterful works. That drove me into actively looking for priests to talk to myself. I didn't know anyone, nor did I know the process, but I was ready, I was ready to be interviewed, ready to show my works, ready to endorse myself to whomever was willing to help me in my endeavor, which also involved helping my friend attain a letter of his own. I asked my church friends if they knew any, and even joined religious groups on facebook to see if I could get into contact with anyone and after a while in passivity, a church leader friend messaged me. Apparently, he knew a Dominican friar and so, I pleaded with him which I really didn't have to given we were close and he was really willing to help. After detailing my situation, he set us up with the said friar in the Sto. Domingo church.
Fast forward to a week later, we were able to have an insightful conversation with him, but unfortunately he said he couldn't help our situation but recommended me to go into UST to talk to the priests there, or as an alternative which my aforementioned church leader friend and a priest from the church endorsed, approach the bishop of Cubao himself. I do admit that the meeting demoralized me, and I went home rather broken but a good sleep, short conversation with a friend whom I was also helping get into UST, and Miki Matsubara's Mayonaka No Door later, and I'm back in the game. I wrote a letter to the bishop for the both of us and asked his hand in endorsing us, especially that we were alumni in the school that housed the seat of the Diocese with weights to carry. Honestly, I wasn't really able to pour my heart and soul into that letter, unlike my reconsideration letters for ADMU and UST which I worked on in a computer shop for better focus, and I thought it wasn't written that well, but I gave what I could give, and was ready to face the uphill process I thought it was going to face. It helped that we had a late mother's day dinner to seal the day too.
A day later, I went to the obispado and gave the letter to the guard with whom I conversed with again after an errand in school regarding my DLSU grades form. He told me to come back yesterday and I did, unfortunately, still nothing but this time the different person on the desk asked me for my contact details. I was optimistic, and was willing to wait even more, but I didn't think it would be as quick as one day later. This morning, at least hours after I had once again checked my emails for updates, they called and told me to return. I was excited, and rushed to leave. "This is it" I thought. "We finally got an endorsement letter!" The guard enthusiastically gave them to me and the sister, whom I assume was Bishop's secretary, asked me to check if it was alright to avoid any issues and after reading the short but meaningful contents, I was happy.
My happiness was fanned further by seeing the K-Wave canned coke finally arrive in the Philippines after having it in Osaka.
Although right now time and slots are our enemy, being endorsed by the bishop is a good thing, a relatively big milestone, and a good impression I suppose to both universities run by Catholic orders. I didn't get any letters from either the Jesuits or Dominicans, but I am happy I got to meet with the latter in the quest for España and Katipunan. Thank you so much bishop!!!!
I suppose this deserves a little celebration 'no?

Morning everyone, continuing on from my post last week. I received a letter from my local council to say my landlady had informed them of my notice to quit and they asked for a forwarding address and a date I plan on leaving the house? I contacted them and explained that she hadn’t issued me with any formal notice to quit, and explained about her wanting to up the rent over the 12% legal increase but reckoned she’s just going to say she’s selling to get me out either way.
Anyway I got a email form one of the local councils who I’ve been on there list for over 7 years and got max points. However they have said 45% of the houses they have, they need to allocate to homeless people and that my best option would be to go down that route? Does this mean literally waiting to the day of my “eviction” and presenting at the council with my kids and likely be put in a b&b or hotel? They aren’t the only place I have my name down on and I’m praying that I get an offer from somewhere before I’m even close to being at the end of the notice let alone having to present on the day with no where to go? Isn’t the fact she’s putting me out both enough to be classed as basically homeless because really on the very day she can legally have me out of here I will be, and it’s not if it’s just a matter of the days running out? It’s mad as I know of someone who’s been in the uk less than two years and moves into a two bed council house (as a single bloke) on Wednesday after seeking asylum. I don’t care about who gets a house etc but I served this country in the army for almost 12 years and this isn’t through any fault of my own. I just feel so stressed but have to just keep thinking positive. I don’t think there is anything else I can do? I’m never getting another private let as there is just no security in them and I can’t face being in a situation like this ever again.

Hi. Looking for some advice. I have an eye condition which affects my night vision so flashlights become pretty important for navigation even just walking home down the pavement. I've been using an old Lezyne bike light which goes to 1600 lumens I think but it's usb micro, bulky and not designed to be held. I'm looking to level up. My requirements are: - as small as possible -usb c charging - as discreet as possible, needs to go in a pocket and not shout flashlight when I'm holding it - more of a flood beam I guess as I'm looking <50ft - ideally able to sustain 1-3k lumens - ideally has adjustable levels so I can set it up - don't need, UV, strobe, to break glass etc
I have a Nitecore TUP as an emergency backup on my keyring which is awesome for it's size.
I just brought a baton 4 premium in the sale as it's small and with the charging case I can leave it in my bag and have confidence it's charged. Also use the case as a backup battery for my phone. Hasn't arrived yet.
I was looking for a second, brighter light which could be bigger. I was looking at the EDC25 but then saw the TM12k which looked better as it had side switches and had customised levels up to 2k. I saw people said the wuben X1 was better but I think it starts to get too big and the style is not as discreet.
Any advice much appreciated.

The last memory I had of my grandfather was hearing him scream as the the shadows in the field began to surround him with thin, web like fibers. Then my mother picked me up and ran with me in her arms back into our old farm house.
My last memory, that is until last night, when I awakened to a tinkling bell in an unknown vault so immense I couldn't see the walls or the ceiling. Far away I saw a dull light and heard the faint tinkling of a bell, incessantly ringing. I followed the sound till I could see him on a throne, which seemed to have merged with his body, leaving only his fingers free.
The acrid scent of burning wax and a lurking fear clung to the borders of the dream, if a dream it was. There, in the dim candle glow, sat my grandfather, his weathered face, a thousand years older than when I'd last seen him, etched with a desperate urgency. The same face I'd last seen contorted in a scream as he was swallowed by the shadows that had consumed him years ago.
"Elias," his voice, as dry as the dust that blanketed his entire body, said "You must listen. The darkness… it returns. Stronger this time." Terror struck my heart like a dagger, the memory of that horrifying night vivid even after all these years.
He pointed to a small table, on top of which lay an ancient leather book. "The Book of Repelling Shadows," he whispered. "Hidden all these years in my library… find the spell. You'll know it by the seven ravens on the preceding page. Recite it, Elias. It's the only way to banish the darkness and save yourself from my terrible fate. Go!!"
The dream dissolved, I awoke in a cold sweat, back in my bed. My heart pounded, like a drum, a rhythm of dread mixed with a sliver of desperate hope. I knew I must find the book or suffer the same choking embrace of eldritch shadows that had cursed our family for generations. Had my grandfather finally learned the secret to banish them forever? I had to find that book before they returned to claim me.
The book was, as He'd said it would be, in the family library. Written in an strange tongue, I frantically turned page after page till I discovered a page, on which were drawn seven ravens. On the opposite page there was written a single spell. The script was a simple gothic alphabet which I could recite, even though the language was unfamiliar.
Days bled into nights as I poured over the archaic script, the cryptic letters writhing like snakes before my sleep-deprived eyes. The passage was an incantation which seemed to promise the banishment of shadows. Relief washed over me, freedom from the ancient curse within my grasp. Tomorrow, I would face the darkness, armed with my grandfather's book.
The next night, I stood in the field behind the farmhouse. The moon was casting long, menacing shadows across the grass. Clutching the book, my voice trembled as I began the chant. The shadows seemed to peer into me, responding to the power of the words. Then, a flicker in the corner of my eye. A single tendril of darkness began to creep back from me, melting into the others.
Suddenly, I felt powerful even joyous as I recited the passages. I'd done it. I'd outwitted the very essence of darkness, using the power of the grimoire in my grandfathers library to turn it back. But as I closed the book , a flicker of unease sparked in my mind.
The symbols on the cover seemed different somehow. The incantation I'd recited sounded wrong as it paused, seeming to hang in the air . Anxiety began to overtake me, I felt a cold fear creeping down my spine. The shadows, weren't retreating as I believed but were surging forward with a malevolent hunger.
Frantic, I flipped through the pages, searching for the passage, the one that had repelled the darkness. But there were no ravens to be found, only a chilling emptiness where the spell had been moments ago. In my desperation, a horrifying realization dawned. This wasn't the Book of Banishing Shadows. It had never been.
The reality crashed over me like a tidal wave. My grandfather had been dead long ago. That old man on the throne wasnt him. All along, I'd been an unwitting pawn, duped by the darkness itself into unleashing the very thing I feared the most. The shadows I'd "banished" were now dancing joyously, in the pale moonlight.
My scream, lost in the encroaching darkness, was the last sound the world would ever hear from me. I was slowly being enveloped by the very shadows I so naively believed I'd repelled. The book, now fallen at my feet, in a cruel mockery of hope, lay closed. Its true title now plain to see in the last rays of the setting moon - The Book of Summoning Shadows.