I have a certificate of eligibility on the alternate route in NJ. I am working towards the state license and will complete coursework in summer 2025. At that point I will apply for the standard license but it takes 2 to 3 months to be approved. Therefore, my expected date for having my standard license in hand is September 2025.
I want to go to CEESA school network or Bangkok. For Bangkok, for example, I know the international schools begin in September and the Thai bilingual schools begin their second semester in October.
I would really like to work at a tier 2 or tier 3 school in Bangkok starting fall 2025. Would I be able to apply for schools in the spring and summer with the expectation of receiving my license in the fall? And then begin teaching October 2025? I am an EAL teacher if that is relevant.

I've never had a good history with women, my biological mother never wanted me, nor did my next three step mothers after that, my first girlfriends parents didn't want their daughter dating a white boy so they moved to another state, a lot of new "friends", and to top it off a girl that had a boyfriend the day after our first date.
And as of four days ago a girl that sent me a text stating "Sorry, not interested, never was." I haven't had much money for a while and I finally scraped together a few extra bucks to take her out. I never expected a yes but I also didn't expect a no. You can't be hurt by something you didn't want to happen if you stopped wanting anything.
I like to consider myself a good judge of character. I was able to tell immediately with my best friend that he had some severe childhood trauma. Well low and behold a month after we met him and I showed up to class one day with a redbull for each other since we'd been on the phone for 6 hours the previous night and got jack shit for sleep.
But I wasn't able to see anything in her, the best way I can describe it was a Locked box, there were only a handful of keys and the ones that existed were already in the hands of the people who needed them, and to make a new one would be long and difficult. When we met it seemed like it was going to work out, and for a while it was. I don't know if I responded too fast, or if I just came on too strong.
All my friends keep telling me to stop worrying about it and that if she was the one she would've gone out with me. And I'm half and half on that, I don't want to stop worrying out of fear that I'll grow numb to the pain, after a while I grew numb to the abuse that my stepmother's gave me and that scared the shit out of me. But on the other hand if she was the one then she would've, it still doesn't change the fact that I've never met a girl like her and I doubt I'll never see one again.
My great grandmother always had a way with quotes, one of the ones she said that I'll never forget goes "one trashed man is another woman's treasure" as time goes on that quote gets less and less believable. But in the end I forgot why I stopped talking to girls, and life put me in my place. I expect the same to happen in about a year or so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I (30F) recently had a first date with a woman (28F). I like her, she’s cool, different from me (example; she’s a morning person and I’m not). I would like to get to know her better. She knows this and likes me too, but she doesn’t like it when I put up a boundary.
She wants to do all sort of ‘relationship things’ together, and I just want to take things slow and don’t want to rush into a relationship. I mentioned this a couple of times and she states she is giving me time.
I’m not really a phone person (when I’m in the company of others or at work I don’t use my phone) and it bothers her that I don’t tell her when I’m busy and give ‘late’ replies. I do tell her when I’m at work or with my friends.
It also bothers her that when I say I’m going to sleep, I go to sleep. She says I make the decision for the conversation to be over, and it is something we need to decide together.
I’m getting the feeling I’m too selfish to be in a relationship. I like doing my own thing, but I also like her and would like to spend time with her, to see where this could go.
I don’t know what to do because I do like her but it seems like I keep on disappointing her with my actions (or lack of actions)

So ik it’s a heavy topic that a lot of people have strong feelings for on both ends, and this is a long one, I apologize in advance. So I’m 22, F, and my new bf is 25, M.
I have a lot of insecurities about myself and I fully admit that. I also have borderline personality disorder, which adds to the insecurities within a relationship. With that being said, I have been in intensive therapy for years and my bpd isn’t necessarily an issue. I’ve had issues with my weight, and finally just dropped 30 lbs.
My new bf is very sweet, I adore him, and I am fairly happy with him. But. There’s one red flag I can’t get passed no matter how hard I try.
I think he’s a sex addict. We talked about sex before we started dating and I told him due to trauma, I sometimes go through phases where I don’t want to be touched sexually. His response “Don’t get upset if you find porn on my phone.” Not the best response, but hey as long as I don’t see it, it can’t hurt me, right? Wrong. We’ve been sexually active very frequently, but as time goes on it’s definitely changed. Going from multiple times a day, to him going off the first try after 10 minutes. But he’s always making sexual comments at me, always hinting for sex, grabbing me sexually. It was off putting but not horrible till the other day. We showered together, I had a mental health moment regarding sex and I told him I sometimes feel like I’m being used for my body, to where I legitimately bawled my eyes out, which I never do in front of people. Fast forward I get up to get dressed and do my thing, he has the door shut, and I realized I forgot my socks. Go to open the door for them and I look down to look at him and see his phone, porn. Straight porn.
I felt sick, not even minutes after I bawled about my sexual trauma and how I’m feeling used, do I open the door to see a girl giving head on his phone.
He claimed it was from the other day and he accidentally left it open, but he’s always on his google so I originally didn’t believe him, now I kinda just brushed it off as a possible tab that was opened.
Fast forward again, I felt sick all day at work yesterday, and had a bad day at work. He picked me up, and got me kinda annoyed with some jokes (non sexual) that he was making towards me so I kept to myself for a bit and laid down to calm my stomach. I knew he was outside in the garage fixing up his car so I got up, walked outside; and was going to tell him I was starting to feel a bit better and wanted to just sit with him. I walk inside and he turns around, belt buckle undone, pants undone, and very visibly aroused. He claimed he went pee and never buckled it back up.
I went to go throw up inside. I was more hurt than anything. He doesn’t ever ask for pictures or videos of me, other than 2 he took before we even started dating. We can’t even have one full session anymore because he goes limp right away and claims it’s because he’s sweating.
I’ve had this uncomfortable feeling in my stomach since, and it’s making the nausea 10x worse. I close my eyes and I see him watching those videos and I don’t know why it makes me feel so awful. I have a very specific build. I’m shortish (5’5) but have very small breasts and upper body, but a larger lower body.
When im in love with someone, I can’t find other people attractive, and I’m even bisexual. The idea of porn grosses me out. My thought process is that you have a partner, why do you have to look at someone else’s videos sexually when you can easily get your partners. But that could also be the fact I have bpd as well. Lastly, as of right now, the reason I’m writing this is because he’s in the shower for work, and he thinks I’m asleep. I hear a women’s voice from inside the bathroom (his phone obv) and the more I try to understand it the more it sounds like moaning. I’m trying not to throw up or cry. I don’t understand why it bothers me so much but it does. I don’t want to seem controlling but it’s absolutely steering me away from him, to the point where when we do have sex, if he closes his eyes I immediately dry up because i just get this thought of him imagining other women.
Am I the AH for being upset over this?

My girlfriend and I have been together for 1 year, from Dec 2022 to Dec 2023. During that year things didn't go very smooth, we had a lot of fights, which were mainly caused by constant miscommunication of our needs and expectations. Our big fights occured approximately every 2 months. Inbetween those events, we had plenty of very good and happy times, with travelling, holidays together etc.
Eventually, the repeating negativity and issues that couldn't be resolved through talking anymore outweighed the little positive that was left, and she broke up in December 2023. After a month of being separated, where we both had time to reflect on what led to our breakup, I contacted her and we met. A month later we got back together (February 2024). Our new relationship made a 180 degree turn and things couldn't be better right now. Our relationship is healthier than ever, we communicate well, there's no fighting at all. (In our 1st RS we barely had sex more than once every 2 weeks, now it was daily)
During our "first" relationship, we didn't post any pictures together, we never talked about moving in together or introduced each other to the family. Now in our "second" try, we met each others families, we post pictures together and we plan for long term goals. The only thing that never left my mind, was the question if she met someone else, maybe slept with someone else during our time apart. I asked her openly and she said no she didn't.
Last night, she fell asleep in my bed, I was still working on my PC. I don't know her pin code, nor did I ever try checking her phone or asked her to show me anything, I had full trust in her at any given time. She fell asleep listening a Youtube Podcast, which meant her phone stayed unlocked. I took it away from the bed to bring it to the nightstand for charging. While holding it, this sudden urge of checking her phone in order to convince myself that nothing ever happened overcame me. So I checked her whatsapp conversation with her best friend, as I knew that they exchange about everything. I scrolled up to the days where she left me in December 2023 and read til the day we got back together.
I found out that she started texting and meeting this new guy, shortly before she officially broke up. They had a few dates and slept together. After we met again and talked about our past relationship, she broke everything off with him. This reassured me, because this meant that our relationship was more important to her in the end, but it also shocked me because she lied. This made my insecurity skyreocket, so I started digging deeper and looked at other chats...
I found out that shortly after we got together and we started having issues (around march 2023) here and there, she began hooking up with different men, sexting and exchanging pictures. These hookups and texts occured frequently every month or two, from february 2023 until she broke up with me. This included a married man that secretely had an affair with her, a DJ and some other profiles that were now blocked. None of these conversations or any new ones extended beyond 2023. Since we got back together she didn't text any guy, and told her best friend how happy she was with me, now that our relationship is on the right tracks. The married man seemed to be a long time friend of hers, that she occasionally hooked up with during the last few years while being single. She talked to him about our issues, showed him screenshots of our fights and was looking for comfort. She told him multiple times how she can't continue like that but doesn't have the strenght to break up. Many of the things that she complained to him about were actually things I did and they were indeed mostly my fault.
I am totally devastated, I know I shouldn't have done it and I'm ashamed of what I've done. It completely shattered anything that I believed was true about her. I didn't tell her anything or show any anger this morning as she left for work. I don't know what to do. I love her so much and everything is finally perfect since we "redirected" our relationship onto the right path. I'm not trying to defend or justify anything that she did, but I feel like her actions were linked to the things that didn't go well during that entire year.
Either I tell her that I checked her phone, which will lead to a breakup or I figure out a way to see the "old" and the "new" relationship as two separate events, since I couldn't find anything indicating that she's still seeing other people and being dishonest. On one hand, I don't know how to pretend as if I didn't know it, on the other hand I don't want to end this for something that is linked to a past relationship. This year we are invited to several weddings together, we booked our vacations, etc.
Please help me..

I have been taking part in NoFap for a few months and managed to have a few streaks of around 30 days, but I noticed something. Apart from the benefits of confidence and self-worth (which are all there in the longer streak), I am seeing a different kind of temptation for relapse. So, on the couple of occasions where I managed to reach about 30 days, I would go out with friends and end up hooking up with girls I just met during the night (which happened twice). Then I also dated another girl for a short time ("dated" == met 3 times; did have sex). After every encounter with women, I am more lenient towards keeping up with NoFap, meaning I am less strict about it and would end up breaking my streak. Has anyone else noticed something similar? Does anyone have a logical explanation for this? Should I really just stop having sex (casually) until I meet someone I can really stay with more long-term?
What advice comes to your mind for this story?
Cheers, everyone! Keep up the good community. I appreciate the support!

Hi everyone,
this post is inspired by this Thread over at edmproduction
Just to give more room for other Plugins, Serum and any denoisers do not count towards the 3 plugins, but please add them to your comment if these are top plugins for you! (For example Serum, RX11, Plugin, Plugin, Plugin)
Maybe you also comment for what you are designing sounds the most for.
Have fun!

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

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

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

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

Hey Men of Reddit I’m just curious when dating do you look for perfection or reality? I’ve made a profile and I’m seeing a lot of guys asking for no filter pics so I mixed both on my profile.. I’m just stuck as I get it but I know that visually first impressions are everything but I don’t want to deter anyone looking for the no filter natural look too.. also do guys like random pics when dating like throughout the day too like selfies and stuff??

On a rainy Saturday afternoon not so long ago when internet connection was fluctuating in most homes, the 80-year-old Cecile Guidote-Alvarez, widow of the late Senator Heherson Alvarez, carrying a mini iPad, hurriedly alighted from a three-wheeled pedicab Toktok and stormed her way into a popular coffee shop in a mall in Manila.

A senior citizen in panic mode, she told the stunned baristas she’s looking for a Wi-Fi connection because she was about to interview retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio via Zoom.
The coffee shop, a known world brand, has Wi-Fi exclusive to its employees, so the old lady was told to try other establishments. She went from one coffee shop to another only to be told the same, until a kind stranger led her to a well-known beauty salon with a free internet connection.
The lady salon attendant was very accommodating to the octogenarian, even typing the password on her IPad. Of course, she needed to avail herself of their salon services. Initially, she opted for a haircut, but since she needed to talk and hear clearly who she was talking to, she settled for a foot spa with pedicure.
“They lowered the volume of the piped-in music, and since there were less customers because it’s been raining all day, I was able to do my interview,” Guidote-Alvarez said.
For the next half-an-hour, the hair dressers and manicurists working with their scissors, nail clippers and cuticle removers on their customers’ hair and fingernails, listened to Carpio and Guidote-Alvarez discussed how Filipino fishermen and the Philippine Navy ships helplessly negotiate their ways in Scarborough Shoal amid the territorial disputes in the West Philippine Sea.
“They were all very nice to me. I was able to finish my interview, with newly pedicured nails,” she told The Diarist.
For those who’ve worked with Guidote-Alvarez, her steadfast, almost stubborn, nature to accomplish a task, is nothing out of the ordinary. She would improvise, find alternatives, call up friends and former students, wake them up from sleep, just to get things done.
But now, in her 80s, legally blind and nearly deaf, she has mellowed down.
Cecile Alvarez with her mentors, National Artist for Literature Alejandro Roces, Jr and Fr. James Reuter. SJ
In her twilight years, Guidote-Alvarez has been solely hosting the 57-year-old Radyo Balintataw on DZRH, one of the oldest radio stations in the Philippines, where she tackles a wide range of topics, from climate change, women’s health, theater, culture, dance, to current issues, apart from playing old recordings of classic radio plays she produced and directed, dating back to the late ‘80s.
She shared with TheDiarist.ph how she started and continues to host one of the longest running advocacy programs on AM Radio.
Theater on TV
After founding the Philippine Educational Theater Association (PETA) on April 7, 1967, or exactly 57 years ago, Guidote-Alvarez thought of the need to expose PETA’s members to television, so she started conceptualizing Balintataw, which in Filipino means the pupil of the eye, but in a larger context has something to do with having wild imagination, or what you might see if you have a third eye.

“I designed Balintataw as a bridge between cinema and the stage, where the youth being trained in theater skills can have a ready-made laboratory experience linked with the film and entertainment industry that would likewise have a natural on-the-job training and orientation regarding the theatrical discipline of working with a literary script, whether dramatic or comic—not the regular improvised script done on taping or copycat scripts from foreign themes,” Guidote-Alvarez wrote in her yet-to-be published Memoir of a Freedom Fighter’s Wife.
“A primary goal when I conceived PETA was to initiate and sustain artistic expression that draws meaning and power from the lives of the people, and sharing the literary gems with a greater number of audiences through a Broadcast Theater-Film Program with Balintataw on Channel 5,” she added.
“No matter how little the pay, at least it provided our local writers with a little honorarium. I sought permission for award-winning pieces of the Palanca Playwriting contest to be fleshed out to reach the masses. The much-awarded playwright Bert Florentino served as our literary manager, assisted by Mauro Avena. Eventually, Isagani Cruz took over when Bert left for the US,” she wrote.
“Writers need exposure and encouragement through a regular TV performance that will give them a sense of achievement and inspire them to keep on writing with some kind of honorarium. I was glad Lupita Aquino (now Kashiwahara) agreed to be TV director and Robert Arevalo as TV host.
She got members of the PETA Kalinangan Ensemble to serve as stage directors. “This is to undertake preliminary preparation with a rehearsal with the actors for character development and memorization and preliminary staging,” she wrote.
Five months after PETA was founded, Balintataw TV premiered on Channel 5 on Aug. 19, 1967, coinciding with the Buwan ng Wika birthdate of President Manuel Luis Quezon.
The first play, whose title escapes her now, featured Armida Siguion-Reyna and Maria Eva “Chingbee” Kalaw. She employed photo journalist and award-winning photographedocumentarist/cinematographer, Romy Vitug, to work with her in filming outdoor scenes for Balintataw.

In the pre-Martial Law Balintataw, among those initiated into television were Lino Brocka, Elwood Perez, Nick Lizaso, Maryo delos Reyes, Mario O’Hara, Joey Gosiengfiao, Behn Cervantes, and Frank Rivera.
Among the stage actors who crossed over to television were Lily Gamboa, Angie Ferro, Lorlie Villanueva, Jonee Gamboa, Joy Soler, Sherry Lara, Gardy Labad, Noel Trinidad.
Like with PETA, Guidote-Alvarez directed and managed Balintataw for five years. Because of Martial Law, she and husband Heherson went on exile in the US to escape a military shoot-to-kill order on Heherson, who was tagged as a subversive.
Post-Martial Law
Internationally acclaimed auteur Lav Diaz mentioned in several interviews how he learned writing radio and TV scripts in Balintataw.
This happened in the late 1980s, when the Alvarez couple returned from exile.
Despite its absence on the air in the Martial Law years, Balintataw was honored by Star Awards as among the 20 unforgettable outstanding broadcast programs in the Philippines.
“This encouraged me to consider reviving Balintataw on TV. Another blessing was a FAMAS award for having an important role in the development of cinema recognizing Balintataw as a bridge for synergizing cinema with the stage, providing a pathway of entry of our PETA artists into film and for movie stars to consider enriching their experience by acting on the legitimate stage,” Guidote-Alvarez wrote.
Though she didn’t return to PETA anymore because it had been surviving well and had its own set of officers led by Brocka, she just tapped some of its members for the return of Balintataw.
For 14 years, the Alvarez couple lived in the US as political exiles, shown here during a Ninoy Aquino Movement meeting. Cecile revived Radyo Balintataw upon their return in the late 1980s.
Channel 4 stint
“I arranged to revive TV Balintataw on Channel 4 in 1989. We began with a drama about a rebel returnee, title escapes me now, but I clearly remember it was written by Lualhati Bautista and directed by Maryo de los Reyes. We also had a good story series on the hazing of Lenny Villa, an Aquila Legis Frat neophyte,” she wrote.
At the time, Heherson had been elected senator after having served as Agrarian Reform Minister and eventually Cabinet Secretary during the first year of the Cory Aquino Administration.
“We were able to unravel the deadly hazing process from a fellow neophyte who broke the code of silence as we revealed graphically, acted the cruel process used. I had Jose Mari Avellana direct it. This presentation won all the awards. Lav Diaz was training with us and he started writing teleplays. We also had Nora Aunor in an adaptation of Bert Florentino’s The World Is An Apple, adapted by Frank Rivera, and I had Nick Lizaso direct.”

Emmy Awards
Balintataw TV was selected as one of five soaps for social change recognized by Emmy Awards. The Philippines was one of five countries cited, with Mexico, India, Brazil and Kenya.
“The nomination was made possible by the wonderful support from David Poindexter. It was a supreme honor for our country to be recognized in the Emmy Awards, to be cited among the five Third World countries using soap opera for social change.”
Poindexter was a Methodist minister and TV producer who founded the Population Communications International.
Surviving on radio
“In spite of the cry about how television can be deadening the minds of the people with copied themes with an eternal favorite love triangle story, there was really no funding for Balintataw,” she wrote.
“Sponsors would go naturally to the commercial stations where big stars were paid highly for the starring role. Balintataw may have substance but we could not afford payment of bankable stars,” she added.
“Financial stress forced me to drop TV and remain on radio because I didn’t want to kill Balintataw per se just because we didn’t have funds.”
Creative classroom
“We have focused on Balintataw as a creative classroom on the air. I was able to talk to Fred J. Elizalde of DZRH and the president of the network, Mr. Jun Nicdao,” she wrote.
In the ‘80s, the HIV/AIDS became a global epidemic and in the Philippines, the general populace was still clueless on how to deal with it.
“In order to get funding, the first series I did was about the explosive news regarding AIDS in Asia. I got the DOH Secretary at the time, Dr. Juan Flavier, to act as himself, providing the data. It was easier to start off with an AIDS radio serial.
They did a minimum of 13 episodes to raise awareness about the disease.
“From then on, some of our television scripts we transformed into a radio version. DZRH provided us with our initial production staff, so we used some from the network and some of its resident artists and drama talents. Our time slots were changing but always coming after the long-running horror drama, Gabi ng Lagim.
“We worked on the themes of overseas workers, the drug problem, corruption, aside from portraying contemporary and literary classics serving as social commentaries,” she wrote.
Women playwrights
“We dramatized the works of noted women writers and playwrights like Estrella Alfon, Genoveva Edroza Matute and Marilou Jacob, who is distinguished in being a founding president of Women’s Playwright International.
“Apart from our PETA staple of writers, we involved young, upcoming and budding university and community theater groups.
“We also had a lot of foreign plays, where we could feature theater festivals beyond borders. We could do Shakespeare, we could do Euripides but also the current playwrights in the Arab region we translated in our language.
“We brought in Chinese contemporary plays, Malaysian, Indonesian and from other women writers from ASEAN member countries.”
Virtual history book
“The significance of Balintataw is portrayed as a virtual history book on audio as it unveiled events in the country. Radio is fresh, instant and up-to date,” she added.
When the COVID-19 pandemic struck, Balintataw became Guidote-Alvarez’s outlet and therapy. Having lost her husband on the second month of the pandemic, a widow cocooned at home, she began hosting it six days a week, learning how to use an iPad and interviewing via Zoom.
The word “Balintataw” has been associated with her name.
Visual artist and editorial cartoonist Benjie Lontoc in casual meeting told us how in his younger days, when AM Radio was a national past-time, he was surprised to hear a Filipino adaptation of No Exit by Jean Paul-Sarte. This was when radio was airing soap, fantasy adventures targeting housewives and children.
Another was the airing of Larawan as a radio play in the 1990s, with Guidote-Alvarez as the voice of Candida Marasigan.
Leopoldo Salcedo (left) as Manolo in a confrontation scene with Dante Rivero as Tony Javier in PETA’s 1968 ‘Larawan’ directed by Cecile Guidote-Alvarez. (Photo from PETA archives)
In the 1960s, she directed Larawan, the first Filipino adaptation of Joaquin’s A Portrait of the Artist as Filipino for PETA’s second season. It ran from December 1968 to January 1969 at the Raha Sulayman Theater at Fort Santiago in Intramural. In the cast were Rita Gomez (Candida), Lolita Rodriguez (Paula), Leopoldo Salcedo (Don Manolo) and Dante Rivero (Tony Javier).
Guidote-Alvarez has a funny recollection of the radio play. It was Nick Joaquin himself who told her years ago how his pedicurist suddenly started a conversation about Larawan.

Joaquin was relaxing on the barber’s chair having a post-haircut pedicure and foot spa when the lady pedicurist asked him how the story would end. Joaquin was stunned because he didn’t want to be known in the barber shop as Nick Joaquin the famous National Artist for Literature, but just a regular customer.
“He told me he almost fell out from the chair. He was a very private person and the pedicurist recognized him as the playwright,” Guidote-Alvarez, laughing, told TheDiarist.ph.
When she was first diagnosed with breast cancer in 2000, she was given only three years to live. It’s been more than two decades since then. She has also conquered COVID-19 twice.
Over and beyond her work in theater and various advocacies, Guidote-Alvarez is among the few surviving practitioners of AM Radio broadcasting.
The beauty salon incident wasn’t a first for the octogenarian radio host. She occasionally went back there to interview guests and record her shows whenever Wi-Fi connections in her home fluctuated.
Despite all setbacks, man-made or otherwise, the steadfast Cecile Guidote-Alvarez’s voice continues to be heard in this mass media platform in an era that knows mainly Spotify. As Joaquin wrote, “to remember and to sing, that is her vocation.”
(Except Saturday, Radyo Balintataw airs daily on DZRH 666 Khz AM radio after ‘Gabi ng Lagim’, and live streamed on radio.org.ph. Some episodes have been uploaded on YouTube.)

“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.

My girlfriend and I have been together for 1 year, from Dec 2022 to Dec 2023. During that year things didn't go very smooth, we had a lot of fights, which were mainly caused by constant miscommunication of our needs and expectations. Our big fights occured approximately every 2 months. Inbetween those events, we had plenty of very good and happy times, with travelling, holidays together etc.
Eventually, the repeating negativity and issues that couldn't be resolved through talking anymore outweighed the little positive that was left, and she broke up in December 2023. After a month of being separated, where we both had time to reflect on what led to our breakup, I contacted her and we met. A month later we got back together (February 2024). Our new relationship made a 180 degree turn and things couldn't be better right now. Our relationship is healthier than ever, we communicate well, there's no fighting at all. (In our 1st RS we barely had sex more than once every 2 weeks, now it was daily)
During our "first" relationship, we didn't post any pictures together, we never talked about moving in together or introduced each other to the family. Now in our "second" try, we met each others families, we post pictures together and we plan for long term goals. The only thing that never left my mind, was the question if she met someone else, maybe slept with someone else during our time apart. I asked her openly and she said no she didn't.
Last night, she fell asleep in my bed, I was still working on my PC. I don't know her pin code, nor did I ever try checking her phone or asked her to show me anything, I had full trust in her at any given time. She fell asleep listening a Youtube Podcast, which meant her phone stayed unlocked. I took it away from the bed to bring it to the nightstand for charging. While holding it, this sudden urge of checking her phone in order to convince myself that nothing ever happened overcame me. So I checked her whatsapp conversation with her best friend, as I knew that they exchange about everything. I scrolled up to the days where she left me in December 2023 and read til the day we got back together.
I found out that she started texting and meeting this new guy, shortly before she officially broke up. They had a few dates and slept together. After we met again and talked about our past relationship, she broke everything off with him. This reassured me, because this meant that our relationship was more important to her in the end, but it also shocked me because she lied. This made my insecurity skyreocket, so I started digging deeper and looked at other chats...
I found out that shortly after we got together and we started having issues (around march 2023) here and there, she began hooking up with different men, sexting and exchanging pictures. These hookups and texts occured frequently every month or two, from february 2023 until she broke up with me. This included a married man that secretely had an affair with her, a DJ and some other profiles that were now blocked. None of these conversations or any new ones extended beyond 2023. Since we got back together she didn't text any guy, and told her best friend how happy she was with me, now that our relationship is on the right tracks. The married man seemed to be a long time friend of hers, that she occasionally hooked up with during the last few years while being single. She talked to him about our issues, showed him screenshots of our fights and was looking for comfort. She told him multiple times how she can't continue like that but doesn't have the strenght to break up. Many of the things that she complained to him about were actually things I did and they were indeed mostly my fault.
I am totally devastated, I know I shouldn't have done it and I'm ashamed of what I've done. It completely shattered anything that I believed was true about her. I didn't tell her anything or show any anger this morning as she left for work. I don't know what to do. I love her so much and everything is finally perfect since we "redirected" our relationship onto the right path. I'm not trying to defend or justify anything that she did, but I feel like her actions were linked to the things that didn't go well during that entire year.
Either I tell her that I checked her phone, which will lead to a breakup or I figure out a way to see the "old" and the "new" relationship as two separate events, since I couldn't find anything indicating that she's still seeing other people and being dishonest. On one hand, I don't know how to pretend as if I didn't know it, on the other hand I don't want to end this for something that is linked to a past relationship. This year we are invited to several weddings together, we booked our vacations, etc.
Please help me..

Call Girls In Vasant Vihar New Delhi Delhi 8375860717 Door Step Delivery Indian, Russian Best Quality Full Educated And Full Cooperative Independent Call Girls Escort Services In All Over Delhi.
I Have Extremely Beautiful Broad Minded Cute Sexy & Hot Call Girls and Escorts, We Are Located in 3* 4* 5* Hotels in Delhi. Safe & Secure High Class Services Affordable Rate 100% Satisfaction, Unlimited Enjoyment. Any Time for Model/Teens Escort in Delhi High class luxury and premium escorts agency.
Call Girls In Delhi NCR, The Quality That you Get Depends on your Budget. But, No One Can Beat rates in Terms of Quality & Escort Service .100% full-Service Pure satisfaction service is provided, and All The Profiles are highly educated and fully cooperative. Our Profiles Are Well Educated, Hygienic, Sweet & lovely Behavior, Cooperative, Decent, Good Looking. Once you hire them, we Promise a Romantic date. We are a Very Genuine Service Provider, who Strongly Believes in Customer Satisfaction. We only Cater to the Elite and Educated Clients and we are in Business, for Over 6 years. Hence we Can Guarantee “Value for Money”. Call us and give us a Chance to Cater to your Requirements.
★ To Enjoy With Hot and Sexy Girls . ★ We Are Providing :- • Models • Russian Models • Receptionist • Collage Going Girls. • Travelling Escorts. • Ramp-models • Foreigner. In/Outcall Available…
★OUR BEST SERVICES: – FOR BOOKING ★ A-Level (5 Star Escort) ★ BBBJ (Bareback Blowjob) ★ BJ (Blowjob Without a Condom) ★ COF (Come On Face) ★ Special Massage ★ O-Level (Oral sex) ★. Extra ball (Have sex many times)
Escorts Available at all 3*4*5* Star Hotels In Delhi Noida Gurgaon-
Call Girls Near Pride Plaza Hotel Aerocity Call Girls Near Holiday Inn Mahipalpur Call Girls Near Holiday Inn Mayur Vihar Delhi Call Girls Near The Royal Plaza C.Place Call Girls Near Crowne Plaza Delhi Noida Call Girls Near Park Plaza Faridabad Call Girls Near Radisson Blu Ghaziabad Call Girls Near Radisson Blu Gurgaon Call Girls Near Radisson Blu Faridabad Call Girls Near Park Ascent Noida Call Girls Near Radisson Blu Mbd Noida Call Girls Near Crowne Plaza Okhla New Delhi Call Girls Near Sheraton Saket New Delhi Call Girls Near The Grand Vasant Kunj Call Girls Near Vivanta by Taj Dwarka New Delhi Call Girls Near Hyatt Centrice Janakpuri New Delhi Call Girls Near ITC Mourya Chanakyapuri Call Girls Near Jaypee Siddharth Rajendra Place Call Girls Near Le Meridien Connaught Place
★ All Meetings We Provide Hottest Female With Me Are Safe And Consensual With Most Limits Respected Complete Satisfaction Guaranteed…Service Available In:- 24/7 3* 4* 5* Star Hotel Services. In Call & Out call service available also.
★ I Guarantee you to have an unforgettable experience with me. A curvy body, long hair and silky smooth skin. She is an independent Escorts model will give you more pleasure & Full satisfaction. Hello Guys For Bookings WhatsApp Number +918375860717
—THANKS FOR VISITING– Booking 24,hrs-

Call Girls In Patel Nagar New Delhi Delhi 8375860717 Door Step Delivery Indian, Russian Best Quality Full Educated And Full Cooperative Independent Call Girls Escort Services In All Over Delhi.
I Have Extremely Beautiful Broad Minded Cute Sexy & Hot Call Girls and Escorts, We Are Located in 3* 4* 5* Hotels in Delhi. Safe & Secure High Class Services Affordable Rate 100% Satisfaction, Unlimited Enjoyment. Any Time for Model/Teens Escort in Delhi High class luxury and premium escorts agency.
Call Girls In Delhi NCR, The Quality That you Get Depends on your Budget. But, No One Can Beat rates in Terms of Quality & Escort Service .100% full-Service Pure satisfaction service is provided, and All The Profiles are highly educated and fully cooperative. Our Profiles Are Well Educated, Hygienic, Sweet & lovely Behavior, Cooperative, Decent, Good Looking. Once you hire them, we Promise a Romantic date. We are a Very Genuine Service Provider, who Strongly Believes in Customer Satisfaction. We only Cater to the Elite and Educated Clients and we are in Business, for Over 6 years. Hence we Can Guarantee “Value for Money”. Call us and give us a Chance to Cater to your Requirements.
★ To Enjoy With Hot and Sexy Girls . ★ We Are Providing :- • Models • Russian Models • Receptionist • Collage Going Girls. • Travelling Escorts. • Ramp-models • Foreigner. In/Outcall Available…
★OUR BEST SERVICES: – FOR BOOKING ★ A-Level (5 Star Escort) ★ BBBJ (Bareback Blowjob) ★ BJ (Blowjob Without a Condom) ★ COF (Come On Face) ★ Special Massage ★ O-Level (Oral sex) ★. Extra ball (Have sex many times)
Escorts Available at all 3*4*5* Star Hotels In Delhi Noida Gurgaon-
Call Girls Near Pride Plaza Hotel Aerocity Call Girls Near Holiday Inn Mahipalpur Call Girls Near Holiday Inn Mayur Vihar Delhi Call Girls Near The Royal Plaza C.Place Call Girls Near Crowne Plaza Delhi Noida Call Girls Near Park Plaza Faridabad Call Girls Near Radisson Blu Ghaziabad Call Girls Near Radisson Blu Gurgaon Call Girls Near Radisson Blu Faridabad Call Girls Near Park Ascent Noida Call Girls Near Radisson Blu Mbd Noida Call Girls Near Crowne Plaza Okhla New Delhi Call Girls Near Sheraton Saket New Delhi Call Girls Near The Grand Vasant Kunj Call Girls Near Vivanta by Taj Dwarka New Delhi Call Girls Near Hyatt Centrice Janakpuri New Delhi Call Girls Near ITC Mourya Chanakyapuri Call Girls Near Jaypee Siddharth Rajendra Place Call Girls Near Le Meridien Connaught Place
★ All Meetings We Provide Hottest Female With Me Are Safe And Consensual With Most Limits Respected Complete Satisfaction Guaranteed…Service Available In:- 24/7 3* 4* 5* Star Hotel Services. In Call & Out call service available also.
★ I Guarantee you to have an unforgettable experience with me. A curvy body, long hair and silky smooth skin. She is an independent Escorts model will give you more pleasure & Full satisfaction. Hello Guys For Bookings WhatsApp Number +918375860717
—THANKS FOR VISITING– Booking 24,hrs-

Call Girls In Connaught Place New Delhi Delhi 8375860717 Door Step Delivery Indian, Russian Best Quality Full Educated And Full Cooperative Independent Call Girls Escort Services In All Over Delhi.
I Have Extremely Beautiful Broad Minded Cute Sexy & Hot Call Girls and Escorts, We Are Located in 3* 4* 5* Hotels in Delhi. Safe & Secure High Class Services Affordable Rate 100% Satisfaction, Unlimited Enjoyment. Any Time for Model/Teens Escort in Delhi High class luxury and premium escorts agency.
Call Girls In Delhi NCR, The Quality That you Get Depends on your Budget. But, No One Can Beat rates in Terms of Quality & Escort Service .100% full-Service Pure satisfaction service is provided, and All The Profiles are highly educated and fully cooperative. Our Profiles Are Well Educated, Hygienic, Sweet & lovely Behavior, Cooperative, Decent, Good Looking. Once you hire them, we Promise a Romantic date. We are a Very Genuine Service Provider, who Strongly Believes in Customer Satisfaction. We only Cater to the Elite and Educated Clients and we are in Business, for Over 6 years. Hence we Can Guarantee “Value for Money”. Call us and give us a Chance to Cater to your Requirements.
★ To Enjoy With Hot and Sexy Girls . ★ We Are Providing :- • Models • Russian Models • Receptionist • Collage Going Girls. • Travelling Escorts. • Ramp-models • Foreigner. In/Outcall Available…
★OUR BEST SERVICES: – FOR BOOKING ★ A-Level (5 Star Escort) ★ BBBJ (Bareback Blowjob) ★ BJ (Blowjob Without a Condom) ★ COF (Come On Face) ★ Special Massage ★ O-Level (Oral sex) ★. Extra ball (Have sex many times)
Escorts Available at all 3*4*5* Star Hotels In Delhi Noida Gurgaon-
Call Girls Near Pride Plaza Hotel Aerocity Call Girls Near Holiday Inn Mahipalpur Call Girls Near Holiday Inn Mayur Vihar Delhi Call Girls Near The Royal Plaza C.Place Call Girls Near Crowne Plaza Delhi Noida Call Girls Near Park Plaza Faridabad Call Girls Near Radisson Blu Ghaziabad Call Girls Near Radisson Blu Gurgaon Call Girls Near Radisson Blu Faridabad Call Girls Near Park Ascent Noida Call Girls Near Radisson Blu Mbd Noida Call Girls Near Crowne Plaza Okhla New Delhi Call Girls Near Sheraton Saket New Delhi Call Girls Near The Grand Vasant Kunj Call Girls Near Vivanta by Taj Dwarka New Delhi Call Girls Near Hyatt Centrice Janakpuri New Delhi Call Girls Near ITC Mourya Chanakyapuri Call Girls Near Jaypee Siddharth Rajendra Place Call Girls Near Le Meridien Connaught Place
★ All Meetings We Provide Hottest Female With Me Are Safe And Consensual With Most Limits Respected Complete Satisfaction Guaranteed…Service Available In:- 24/7 3* 4* 5* Star Hotel Services. In Call & Out call service available also.
★ I Guarantee you to have an unforgettable experience with me. A curvy body, long hair and silky smooth skin. She is an independent Escorts model will give you more pleasure & Full satisfaction. Hello Guys For Bookings WhatsApp Number +918375860717
—THANKS FOR VISITING– Booking 24,hrs

Call Girls In Saket New Delhi Delhi 8375860717 Door Step Delivery Indian, Russian Best Quality Full Educated And Full Cooperative Independent Call Girls Escort Services In All Over Delhi.
I Have Extremely Beautiful Broad Minded Cute Sexy & Hot Call Girls and Escorts, We Are Located in 3* 4* 5* Hotels in Delhi. Safe & Secure High Class Services Affordable Rate 100% Satisfaction, Unlimited Enjoyment. Any Time for Model/Teens Escort in Delhi High class luxury and premium escorts agency.
Call Girls In Delhi NCR, The Quality That you Get Depends on your Budget. But, No One Can Beat rates in Terms of Quality & Escort Service .100% full-Service Pure satisfaction service is provided, and All The Profiles are highly educated and fully cooperative. Our Profiles Are Well Educated, Hygienic, Sweet & lovely Behavior, Cooperative, Decent, Good Looking. Once you hire them, we Promise a Romantic date. We are a Very Genuine Service Provider, who Strongly Believes in Customer Satisfaction. We only Cater to the Elite and Educated Clients and we are in Business, for Over 6 years. Hence we Can Guarantee “Value for Money”. Call us and give us a Chance to Cater to your Requirements.
★ To Enjoy With Hot and Sexy Girls . ★ We Are Providing :- • Models • Russian Models • Receptionist • Collage Going Girls. • Travelling Escorts. • Ramp-models • Foreigner. In/Outcall Available…
★OUR BEST SERVICES: – FOR BOOKING ★ A-Level (5 Star Escort) ★ BBBJ (Bareback Blowjob) ★ BJ (Blowjob Without a Condom) ★ COF (Come On Face) ★ Special Massage ★ O-Level (Oral sex) ★. Extra ball (Have sex many times)
Escorts Available at all 3*4*5* Star Hotels In Delhi Noida Gurgaon-
Call Girls Near Pride Plaza Hotel Aerocity Call Girls Near Holiday Inn Mahipalpur Call Girls Near Holiday Inn Mayur Vihar Delhi Call Girls Near The Royal Plaza C.Place Call Girls Near Crowne Plaza Delhi Noida Call Girls Near Park Plaza Faridabad Call Girls Near Radisson Blu Ghaziabad Call Girls Near Radisson Blu Gurgaon Call Girls Near Radisson Blu Faridabad Call Girls Near Park Ascent Noida Call Girls Near Radisson Blu Mbd Noida Call Girls Near Crowne Plaza Okhla New Delhi Call Girls Near Sheraton Saket New Delhi Call Girls Near The Grand Vasant Kunj Call Girls Near Vivanta by Taj Dwarka New Delhi Call Girls Near Hyatt Centrice Janakpuri New Delhi Call Girls Near ITC Mourya Chanakyapuri Call Girls Near Jaypee Siddharth Rajendra Place Call Girls Near Le Meridien Connaught Place
★ All Meetings We Provide Hottest Female With Me Are Safe And Consensual With Most Limits Respected Complete Satisfaction Guaranteed…Service Available In:- 24/7 3* 4* 5* Star Hotel Services. In Call & Out call service available also.
★ I Guarantee you to have an unforgettable experience with me. A curvy body, long hair and silky smooth skin. She is an independent Escorts model will give you more pleasure & Full satisfaction. Hello Guys For Bookings 📷 WhatsApp Number +918375860717 📷
—THANKS FOR VISITING– Booking 24,hrs-

"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.]

So you must have come across countless articles and posts by women on social media on this topic.
The reasons attributed to why women are happier single and opting out of relationships more than men fall into these 2 categories:

1. Women are more self-sufficient, have strong friendships and support systems that men lack
   
2. Men benefit from the emotional and domestic labor of women in relationships so being single makes them unhappier.
   

It seems no one wants to address the most important reason: That women don't need a serious/long term relationship to obtain sex, physical intimacy, and companionship, but most men do.
Perhaps a better comparison would be between an average looking woman and an exceptionally good-looking man or a male celebrity to find who's really happier single, and who enjoys the single life better. You'll get your answer pretty quick. Men are only unhappier being single because the standards for good looks and physical attractiveness in the casual dating, FWB, and hookup scene are way higher for them, effectively shutting the vast majority of them out of that market. Not because they aren't' self sufficient, can't do household chores, don't have close male friendships or support systems. These are all distractions from the real reason.
Let me put it this way: The single women who are 'happily single' are not truly single at all. They are literally doing everything that they're supposed to do in a relationship sans of shared finances and coparenting with multiple men without putting labels on it. When you say single women are happier than single men, you are not comparing celibate women to celibate men, because being single for most men means celibacy and zero validating experiences with the opposite sex. Being "single" means nothing for women.
What we are not willing to admit as a society at this point is that men face way more pressure to be conventionally good-looking than women. While a woman who's well below average looking by conventional standards with a wallflower personality and a mundane life can get on a dating app and have 1000 men willing to hookup by the end of the week, a man would need to be a tall, handsome male model with a lot going in life to have to have the same number and quality of short term/casual options.
Lets not be dishonest about this

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