"Why Did Jesus Die on the Cross?"

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

Why Penal Substitution Is Unbiblical

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

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

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

The Content of Paul's Gospel Message

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

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

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

Justification, and the "New" Perspective on Paul

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I’ve always wanted to go a rave, and BC has been calling my name. I’ve never been to one before and have no experience. I don’t really have friends so I’d go by myself. I hear people have life changing experiences and I just feel lost in my life, So I guess my question, is it really worth it all? I get pretty anxious in social situation’s too… lol

Introduction

Hello fellow Helldivers. My name is Elliot, alias TeGoRE, a player with 155 hours on the game and plenty of experience gathered from 3rd party sources, especially Reddit and YouTube. I primarily play on difficulty 7, so this post will be biased specifically towards that difficulty.
As you all may know by this point, a lot of people are upset with the Automaton faction, its issues, balancing, bugs, etc. In this post I will be attempting to bring awareness to specific issues rather than asking for vague and general "fixes" the faction would need. I will also be referencing the other faction currently present in the game, the Terminids, as a point of comparison throughout the post.

"Fun factor" analysis; Loadout restrictions

I'll begin with what I believe will be the major point of discussion here. The automatons are just not fun. I understand this is a critical take, but please read before jumping straight to comments.
Let's compare the "fun" factor of Terminids to Automatons here. The Terminids allow you to run pretty much any loadout, while still letting you have impact on the game. You can run pure fodder clear loadouts with light penetration primaries and support tools and contribute to the mission that way, allowing your teammates to clear the heavies with ease. You can also run pure heavy clear with big bulky primaries and anti-tank tools, still contributing to the mission by destroying any charger and bile titan that comes into sight hence allowing your teammates to shoot the other fodder present without being spat on by a 400 ton oversized shrimp or being charged at by a walking rock. With both loadout cases you can also bring stratagems or change out your primaries and other tools (secondary and grenade specifically) that will allow you to have at least some impact on the heavies or lights, respectfully.
The Automatons don't allow for such loadout variety, and considering all the nerf barrages we've been receiving it's obvious that loadout choices are quite restrictive when it comes to fighting automatons. When was the last time you ran flamethrower against the Automatons? Any of the guard dogs? Any other sentry besides autocannon, EMS mortar or maybe the rocket sentry? Gas or airburst strikes? Light penetration or non-precision primaries? You get my point.
The faction requires a playstyle too specific for the casual player. You need to equip high precision weaponry (AMR, Counter sniper, Dominator, etc.) or medium penetration weaponry (Liberator penetrator, Counter sniper, Autocannon, etc) alongside way too many anti-tank tools. Sure, you can bring fodder clear, but the only realistic fodder is the regular troopers or the strider unit. Maybe berserkers. Only reliable (not saying it's the only viable one might I add) fodder clearer would be the grenade launcher, maybe the arc thrower. Furthermore, once on the actual battlefield, you can't necessarily play aggressive. Jump into a pile of bots and you'll be jumping back out limb-by-limb. You have to stay in cover, picking enemies one by one, slowly advancing forward. Then get all your progress denied by a bot drop :^)
We can then conclude that one of the contributing factors to why the Automatons aren't fun is the fact that it's too restricting and too sluggish. Let's look deeper, and analyse why your loadout and playstyle get so restricted;

Enemy analysis, its' contribution to the fun factor

The enemy types of the faction just do not let you vary your loadout enough.
Devastators specifically are the biggest issue. The regular devastator is well-thought out, a heavier bulkier unit with obvious weakspots and not too much firepower which could be compared to the hive guard in terms of mechanics. However, for the heavy devastator and rocket devastator, these are built to just bullshit you into dying. And good luck killing them if you have a light-pen weapon or generally don't have a longer-ranged or high-precision tool, as their primary body (excluding the abdomen) has enough HP to take three full counter sniper magazines (I do not know how a rocket devastator managed to do that, but it did) and just shrug it off. I don't think I need to talk about heavy devastators, they've been brought up enough... I will just briefly skim over it. They're too accurate. "Suppressive fire" does nothing to them. Their 70%-body-covering shield can eat anti-tank projectiles no problem. Sometimes a pack of devastators can be more devastating (badumtss) than a pack of hulks, depending on what devastators they are. If the "heavy" unit of a faction gets outperformed by common enemies, it's an obvious issue.
Another obnoxious enemy type is the berserker. As the name implies, they're a rage-crazed bot with only one directive: charge at you and kill you, no regard for its personal being. Which would be fine if they didn't have the health pool of a damn tank. One unit alone can eat an anti-tank projectile. And they typically spawns in packs of 4. Their weakspots don't even count as weakspots from what I can personally tell, shooting them in the head or the abdomen does about the same damage as just plain out shooting them. They're hard to kill at their core, and if they're backed up by support fire from the other enemy types behind them, you're pretty much helpless.
The rest of the enemy units are fine, in my opinion. They're well thought-out, with obvious counter-measure mechanics.
Hulks can be compared to Chargers. Heavy, tanky units at first, but mechanic rich enough to be an easy take-down once you figure out what you're doing. They have a giant heatsink which is where you have to shoot at regularly to take them out reliably. Not a weakspot might I add, just a point which you can shoot. Think Charger's butt. If you're a space cowboy shooting their tiny faceplate with anti-tank, or even medium penetration tools, can kill them as well. Lastly, just pumping them full of anti-tank projectiles (typically 2 rockets from any of the support weapons) will take them out just fine. There's other cool tricks you could pull off, such as throwing impact grenades between their feet, making them land behind the hulk, which would then take it out in 2 impact grenades if done right. Thermite grenades also deal a lot of damage to their legs, which can take them out too. Lastly, their arms can just be plain out shot off with the right tools. In conclusion, they are threatening at first, but once you use your brain to figure out its weakness, you're going to shrug them off.
Factory Striders are the Bile Titans of the Automatons. They are a bit less obvious but can still be handled decently well by a complete newbie. 2 miniguns on the front, shoot them off with medium penetration for easier kiting. Rocket the top cannon off for further success. Their big exposed abdomen is the obvious weakspot anyone can figure out. Shoot it enough and it'll die. For the more experienced, the front panel eye alongside the opening vents can also be points of advantage. Oh also can we talk about how they're a giant walking factory? Just bomb that bitch! 500kg, orbital precision strike, a regular airstrike, etc. It's a giant target just BEGGING you to throw stratagems at it.
Striders are simple as well. Big impenetrable front plate, completely exposed sides and back. A baby could do it!
Troopers are just fodder. Shoot 'em, they fall over.

Issue with dropships

If you played at least a few hours on the automaton front, you may know that the dropships can be shot down. However, when was the last time you saw that actually do anything?
The explosion deals too little damage, only sometimes killing the trooper units it's carrying. The body of the dropship itself seems to do no impact damage on the automatons, but loves to damage the shit out of you. The automatons also don't seem to care when they fall down 50 feet. Especially dropships with tanks. Shoot them down at the highest point of their drop, tank flies down at crazy velocity, lands with literally 0 damage to itself, then the dropships smacks on top of the tank doing fuck-all to it.
Oh and you can't forget the fact that the debris is solid cover FOR THE BOTS. You can't shoot through it. They can. They can also walk through it, you can't. ??????????

Issues with Automaton-specific side objectives

I will only bring up the ones that have actual issues behind them. If it isn't brought up here, then I personally believe it is fine.

• SEAF SAM Site

Barely does it's job. Shoots down one dropship per reinforcement, and as we learned earlier shooting the dropships down doesn't even do anything to begin with. Often times the rockets hit terrain as well. Completely pointless side-objective.

• Stratagem Jammer

Add some sort of indication to the spectating players when the person they're spectating is inside a jammer field, and therefore cannot reinforce them. Too many posts about too many people getting kicked for not reinforcing when they literally cannot.

• Mortar emplacement

WARNING YOU ARE IN RANGE OF ENEMY ARTILLERY WARNING YOU ARE IN RANGE OF ENEMY ARTILLERY WARNING YOU ARE IN RANGE OF ENEMY ARTILLERY WARNING YOU ARE IN RANGE OF ENEMY ARTILLERY oh my god SHUT UP!!!!

Bugs (not the Terminid kind)

The faction is riddled with way too many bugs, which just suck the fun out of it. Bots shooting through obviously solid cover, bots seeing you from across the map / through cover and then calling reinforcements, their seemingly 50/50 resistance to explosive damage, then other misc bugs not worth addressing.
This obviously drives people away. A terminid can't shoot me through a rock, I'd prefer fighting that terminid.

Conclusion of analysis; Solutions, final thoughts

The Automaton faction enemies & its mechanics at its core are fine, most enemies making complete sense. Most mechanics, while rich in function, are not very obvious. To play the faction well you need to invest some time into learning how it works. This deters the casual player back to the terminid front, which is a bit more brainless, requiring you just "hurr durr shoot bugs". Here's some solutions to consider:
Rework the devastator enemy type, specifically its specialists types:

• The rocket devastators shouldn't be able to spam their rockets as much as they do. I'd much prefer a larger barrage with a longer cooldown.
• Heavy devastators shouldn't be pin-point accurate if you're not moving / moving slowly. They do spread their shots out if you're moving, but it doesn't contribute all that much, you will still most likely take at least some hits. They're carrying a machine gun and shooting it from their hip with seemingly 0 precision. How is it that accurate?

The spawn rates of the specialist types could be reworked instead, allowing space for the default devastator instead rather than constantly spewing the specialist types. When was the last time you saw a dropship bring just normal devastators?
Please please please do something about berserkers. Lower their health pool. Maybe make the weakspots actually do something. Perhaps make them spawn less frequently if they're in the major enemy pool. Or, instead of that, make the packs smaller. They're a major ammo sink currently and by the time you're done killing them all the other enemies are already in your face.
Dropship crashes should actually do something. If I use up my support weapon's ammo to shoot down a dropship, I would want it to actually contribute to me destroying the bots, not just create a flashy explosion and extra 1-way cover for the bots.
SEAF SAM Site needs a rework of sorts. Make it always spawn on higher terrain, maybe buff its firerate (see actual SAM sites for reference), or keep the firerate as is if dropship crashes actually start doing something, instead improving its turn speed and lock-on speed. Primary issue is terrain though.
"oh yeah this spot is PERFECT for a SAM site!" said the seaf engineer after ordering it be built in a trench enclosed by cliffs from all 4 sides "what the hell is this" said the helldiver when stumbling upon it
Realistically speaking, the only people who perform well when fighting against Automatons are those who have tens of hours of experience on their belt alongside a team with similar skill level, using proper "meta" (god forbid) loadouts to properly counter the bot menace. The casual solo-queue player just crumbles.

Conclusion & Goodbyes

I may have missed some things, but I tried to grab everything problematic about the faction to the best of my ability. I will most likely not edit the post due to it already being gigantic. However any comments adding onto the post are obviously appreciated. :)
If you're here to find a tl;dr, don't bother. No way in hell I'm summarizing 11.5k+ worth of characters. Just read the analysis conclusion.
If you're here after reading everything above, thank you. I hope this was a fun read and brought attention to why you might not be having as much fun on automatons, maybe made you realize what needs to be done in order to counter the currently sluggish faction. I just hope I helped in some way.
If you're a developer, thank you for creating an amazing game. I've been in love with Helldivers 2 since the very start (upon finding it reaching sky-high popularity), enjoying every hour of gameplay. But just like with any game, it has its flaws, and I hope these are properly addressed. The community has been asking for changes, and I hope my post brought awareness to it.
Buh-bye!!!

Hello everyone,
This is my first post on Rediff, and I kindly ask for your understanding if you find any mistakes in my language, as English is not my native tongue. I hope to find some guidance here.
I am from India, and I have been married to my wife for 10 years. We are both in our mid-thirties, and our marriage has been quite happy overall, despite occasional disagreements. We dated for three years before tying the knot. Recently, I came across the concept of emotional infidelity, and it has left me feeling troubled about a past experience involving my wife. I would appreciate your insights into whether my wife's actions constituted emotional infidelity.
This incident occurred before our marriage, during a period when we were in love but temporarily separated. My wife had travelled to Bengaluru(another city) for a one-month project, and her parents arranged for her stay in a ladies' hostel through a relative's acquaintance. During this time, we were on a brief break from communication to reassess our relationship. However, my wife informed me about her travel plans and the assistance she was receiving from this relative. This was our last conversation before the break.
Throughout her stay, this relative consistently (daily some times, two days once some times) communicated with my wife, primarily discussing her accommodation and work-related matters. They met only once to arrange her stay, and there were no phone calls between them. Upon her return, this relative unexpectedly proposed to my wife, which she promptly declined, affirming her commitment to our relationship. He persisted in contacting her, prompting his mother to intervene, urging my wife to console him (that he wants to ask sorry with you). After their conversation, my wife gradually reduced her responses to his messages as our break period concluded.
Once we got back into our relationship my wife told me about this instance that’s how I came to know this. We have shared our password, I checked their conversations by accessing my wife's chat history, which mainly revolved around office matters, city details, and travel logistics. He shared some of his personals like his borughtup, family problems etc..There was one instance where he asked about her relationship status, to which she responded vaguely due to our decision to keep our relationship private within our families, fearing societal repercussions. Additionally, he occasionally used terms of endearment like "dear" and "honey," . I never seen my wife addressed him using hone or dear. She addressed always by his name.
Before our marriage, I confronted my wife about any feelings she might have had for him, and she assured me that she had none. She explained that she maintained occasional communication with him as per his mother's request not to abruptly end their friendship.
Since our marriage, I have not observed any communication between them. However, my recent encounter with the concept of emotional infidelity has stirred doubts in my mind, causing distress and affecting my relationship with my wife,
I am torn between addressing my concerns and not wanting to further burden my wife during this challenging time.(as she deliver our third baby three months ago) I feel uncomfortable knowing that someone addressed her with affectionate terms, even if she did not reciprocate. why did she allow the space to him to propose. I am considering revisiting their past conversations for a deeper understanding, but unfortunately, my wife has deleted her Facebook account and now only uses Instagram.
Can you confirm was this a instance of emotional infidelity
I seek your advice on how to navigate this situation sensitively while maintaining the well-being of my family. Thank you for your support.

Our school terribly informed us about what we need for recognition in those countries, which is why my friends and I, using the magical ability of hindsight have crafted the perfect IB to target CS Unis in Benelux/ Germany and maximize score.
This will work in most western European countries, I just know for a fact it would in the aforementioned
Math AA HL, this one will be brutal but is super vital, this is the subject you will focus most time on
English B HL, this one will pretty much give you free 6-7s for most people, and will be a vital part of being recognized as an “Abitur”
CS HL, this one is relatively hard but super helpful in learning the basics for Uni
Phys/Bio/Chem SL, whatever you feel most comfortable in, vital for Abiturrecognition in Germany
Whatever your native language is as a B language, will get you a free 7
Humanity (recommend economics) SL, humanities are a lot easier at SL level, and with this you will have a full Abitur recognized.
Other than CS HL and AA HL most of these subjects will be a very easy study- high grade ratio, with selections automatically getting you into most computer science/ data science/ ai courses. If anyone wants to maximize IB and is planning on studying in the names countries, this is the way to go

Hey Reddit,
Ever wondered about those official documents service dog users carry? Today, we're diving into the world of service dog letters and what they mean for you and your furry companion.
What is a Service Dog Letter?
Imagine it as an ID card for your service dog. It's a formal letter written by a licensed medical professional that verifies your disability and confirms your need for a service dog to assist you.
Why is it Important?
This letter can be a lifesaver when navigating public spaces, traveling, or even seeking pet-friendly housing. It essentially cuts through the red tape and ensures your right to be accompanied by your service dog under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
What's in the Letter?

• Your Info: Basic details like your name and contact information.
• Doctor's Credentials: Verification from your licensed medical professional, including their name, license number, and contact details.
• Disability Verification: Confirmation of your disability status as defined by the ADA.
• Service Dog Necessity: A statement explaining that you require a service dog to manage your disability.
• Task Description (brief): A general description of the tasks your service dog performs to assist you, without disclosing private medical details.

Important Reminders:

• No Online Shortcuts: While online services might offer pre-written letters, these hold no legal weight. A legitimate letter requires verification from a medical professional familiar with your situation.
• Not Mandatory, But Powerful: The ADA doesn't mandate service dog letters, but they can be a powerful tool to demonstrate your rights and avoid unnecessary challenges.

Do you have any questions about service dog letters or service dogs in general? Let's chat in the comments!

R.E Dannys' last video
I want to preface this by saying that I have been part of Greg for many, many years. I have also been an occasional lurker on this sub for a couple years too. All this to say that I cannot overstate how much that this is coming from a place of love, and a genuine desire to see change. Danny has been such a pivotal part of my life- during the pandemic I would watch him literally 24/7, to the point where I literally have most of his videos commited to memory. I've literally grown up watching Danny, Drew, and Kurtis, which feels crazy to say. The pandemic made me miss out on so many key highschool memories and though it sounds corny to say, it would have sucked so much more had I not had Greg, and the BaddieSMP, and the virtual boy collabs that just made the general dolour of that time way happier. As I've gotten older, I really have appreciated the person that Danny is. I'm sure many people can relate, but so many of my childhood youtube idols have just turned out to be horrible, and its always felt good to know that you weren't one of them. Looking back, I know its bad to put your idols on a pedestal, but when they had such a significant, fundemental part of my growing-up, its hard not to.
I think, by now, most people know what I am going to say. And before I do, I want to say that I don't think Danny is some reprehensible, unfeeling, evil-doer. I remember how he felt so genuinely, personally affected when he realised he hurt people when he said the B slur in one of his older videos. I remember how he used his platform during the Black Lives Matter movement to uplift the voices of those hurt by police brutality and societal inequity, and to remember the name and bring posthumous justice to Breonna Taylor. And its not simply the fact that he had a Starbucks cup, or showed it in a video during an international boycott; (regardless of whether or not he knew about it) it's moreso his silence, what it represents. We are in such an interesting time of social upheaval where we are blocking celebrities and influencers for not speaking out about the situations in Palestine, Sudan, and the Congo. Its not because we think "grr youre doing the wrong thing!" or "we are yelling at you because you go against MY personal agenda!" its just, how can we enjoy funny, silly, lighthearted content, when there are people starving to death? I clicked off the video when I saw the cup, because I don't want my watchtime, and the time I spend watching ads, given to someone who will spend it to support a genocide, whether they mean to or not. I know how difficult it is to stay up to date when you have a literal child who takes up so much of your energy that you want to raise right, and spend time with before they grow up. But there are children in Gaza who are being run over with tanks, and being shot at, or who don't get to spend any time with their parents ever again, because they have been matyred.
I don't agree with the sentiments that you shouldn't HAVE to speak out about societal issues. That would be true, if you weren't someone who has constantly used their platform to promote causes for social equity and change. You have cultivated an audience who clearly cares about societal inequality and hearing your general silence on the issue feels a little bit intentional, even if you don't mean it to be. From a human standpoint, we, as a society, have a responsibility to help the people of Palestine. And if you don't, you don't get to claim that you care about people or humanity, because humanity doesn't stop just because the people being oppressed are part of a different race and or religion.
As for some of my fellow Gregs, You don't get to "choose" whether or not to support Palestine based off, admittedly, the sometimes counter-intuitive demands of those pleading for change. There needs to be more understanding from both sides. Men, women, and children, are dying in the most brutal of ways. It makes sense that people are frustrated and on edge right now- people are literally watching their family die. I can also acknowledge that if one is ill-informed about the role of creators in bringing awareness to these conflicts, that they don't see why people get so pressed about "Danny having a Starbucks cup" when we should be focusing on world leaders. But I can't just go up to Netanyahu and Biden and politely tell them to stop. We, as people, need to collocate our voices- and a way we do that, is by urging creators to bring light to this situation. When we do that, we can come together to effectively bring about change through boycotts and petitions and being united against these seemingly insurmountable world powers. Not saying anything, or relying on other people to spread things, contributes heavily to a this culture of silence. Being an ally to Palestinian people is speaking up, no matter how hard and uncomfortable and sad it is. And even if you get things wrong, you can re-educate yourself. But you can't retroactively change your silence on this issue.
I speak for many when I say that we are not mad that you weren't initially educated. But I don't know Danny, making a community announcement (that laptop users likely won't see), not making a public donation, and still keeping the video up doesn't really feel like accountability. As I stated before, Danny Gonzalez has been such a pivotal, foundational part of me growing up. I don't want to distance myself from a community I have spent years in- but if thats a part of a minor responsibility I have to do to help achieve greater social equity, then so be it. I can always watch other youtube videos; I have the freedom of choice. But the people in Palestine do not.
I, in no way, shape or form, want to cancel Danny. I'm only writing this, (instead of just blocking you on every platform, like I have done with many other influencers and celebs) because I do believe you can change. I do believe that you don't want to cause harm. But most importantly Danny, I want you to know that you really can make a difference. I know, because you have done it before.
Thank you for reading <3

I'm not usually one to spit out their tea. I usually never curse in front of my portrait of King Charles III and, when it comes to meddling in other people's business, I'm no Paul Revere.
I chuckled at British Kristen, guffawed at Blimey, I've even enjoyed the lighthearted banter between Siobhan and the rest of the Intrepid Heroes.
"Vive le difference" as we British say.
Then, in an Adventuring Party, the Intrepid Heroes mocked our Sceptred Isle over the use of the word Sixth Form for the penultimate year of secondary school. Their laughter shook the heavens, their eyes bulging in derision, as if my country were some pantomime buffoon asking for a volley of unkneeded dough.
Perhaps it is archaic... yes, years used to be called Forms, there were seven years of Secondary School so the Sixth year would logically be called Sixth Form... but perhaps our parlance is a little funny. Ha ha ha.
I could take that mockery from some, but from a group of people sitting under the banner of Fantasy High Junior Year?
My upper lip has given way and I have come undone.
JUNIOR year? For the penultimate year of a four year experience? Junior?
When I first saw the title I thought it was going to be a prequel, a Muppet babies pastiche. Surely no one would mock Sixth Form whilst calling the third in a four stage life cycle Junior?
If a child, an adolescent, an adult and an elderly person stood next to each other, and someone referred to the adult as the Junior I would check myself into therapy.
To have a young sophomore state "I can't wait to grow up so I can be a Junior." What on God's green earth am I supposed to tell my family?
I apologise. I've forgotten myself and am all out of sorts. I'm still getting over a bad breakup that happened in 1776.
Perhaps all countries have their quirks, perhaps it should be celebrated that language is not a stringent set of rules but a delightful smorgasbord of traditions and whimsical contradictions. Perhaps I shouldn't have quit my job over this.
Yet, with your kind ear and having gotten this off my chest, I'm now in the junior stages of my anger, by which I mean three-quarters of the way through it.

"Good-bye, lover-- It's been fun... And I always did want to go in battle. You get to keep your planet, kid... Don't forget me... Don't forget me"
Bio: Val Armorr was the son of Japan's greatest crimelord, Kirau Nezumi, also known as Black Dragon, When he was born, his mother, the American secret agent Valentina Armorr, tried to hide him from his father, but she failed and was killed for her affront. Japan's biggest hero Sensei Toshiaki, the White Crane, eventually killed Black Dragon for his crimes and adopted the infant Val. He raised Val as if he were his own son, and trained him in all manner of the martial arts.
Origin in scan form ^{(Superboy vol 1 #210})
Alternate look at his origin ^{(Secrets of the Legion of Super-Heroes #2})
Databook entries

• Superboy #205
• All-New Collector's Edition #55
• Who's Who: The Definitive Directory of the DC Universe #12
• Who's Who in the Legion of Superheroes #3
• DC Comics Encyclopedia: Updated and Expanded
• All New DC Comics Encyclopedia

Original Val

Strength
Note: Karate Kid needs to concentrate and channel his chi to perform feats of strength ^{(Adventure Comics #359})

• In his origin, chops through a steel beam ^{(Adventure Comics #346})
• Chops through a spaceship hull ^{(Adventure Comics #347})
• Lightning Lad flashes back to Karate Kid stopping a car with a single chop ^{(Adventure Comics #351})
• Knocks out a Jovian Mastodon and a Tricorn Beast with a single strike each, and judo throws a Sloth Ape ^{(Adventure Comics #358})
• Chops through two trees in one swing ^{(Adventure Comics #358})
• Analyzes some thick gates, then chops through them ^{(Adventure Comics #360})
• Kicks away a hover car ^{(Adventure Comics #361})
• Chops through a tank, then starts a small earthquake with a stomp ^{(Adventure Comics #367})
• Destroys a practice bot in a rage ^{(Adventure Comics #373})
• Claims his chops could fell giant redwoods ^{(Superboy vol 1 #203})
• Creates an earthquake with a stomp that breaks apart a statue ^{(Legion of Superheroes vol 3 #31})
  • Note: This is a flashback to earlier times, so despite being in vol 3, takes place Chronologically in vol 1, as shown by him wearing the brown gi instead of his more famous white one
• Punches through a robot ^{(Superboy vol 1 #214})
• Kicks a meteor to pieces ^{(Karate Kid #2})
• Creates a counter-vibration strong enough to reverse Major Disaster's artificial earthquake. ^{(Karate Kid #2}.)
• Flexes off six cavemen ^{(Karate Kid #11})
• [MASSIVE OUTLIER] When bound with ropes made of indestructible Inertron, he somehow manages to break free. ^{(Superboy and the Legion of Super-Heroes #231})
  • Album of Inertron being invulnerable/unbreakable/strong enough to resist Kryptonians
• Breaks out of a machine that saps powers, minds and will (Legion of Super-Heroes vol 3 004)

Speed

• Moves "with the speed of thought" ^{(Adventure Comics #361})
• Dodges Mano and Persuader's attacks ^{(Adventure Comics #378})
• Dodges Validus' mental lightning ^{(Adventure Comics #378})
• Dodges a blast from the Emerald Eye of Ekon ^{(Superboy vol 1 #198})
• Dodges a blast from *sigh* Radiation Roy ^{(Superboy vol 1 #208})
• Rushes forward and front tuck into a Rider Kick in a fraction of a second ^{(Superboy vol 1 #214})
• Dodges a bolt from Lightning Lad ^{(Karate Kid #1})
• Dodges radiation blasts from Nemesis Kid ^{(Karate Kid #1})
• Intercepts a falling meteor ^{(Karate Kid #2})
• Backflips over a bullet ^{(Karate Kid #2})
• Dodges a laser ^{(Karate Kid #13})
• Leaps over a bullet and behind a guy in less than a fifth of a second ^{(Karate Kid #15})
• Dances around Pharoxx's strikes ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes #309})
• Redirects Pharoxx's own magic against him ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes #309})

Durability

• Survives an explosion that KO'd and nearly killed his sensei ^{(Adventure Comics #367})
• Smacked by a giant robot and recovers being back to fighting shape on the next page ^{(Adventure Comics #373})
• Endures ever-increasing pain through meditative techniques even though the pain was so bad, it made Timber Wolf go feral within a few minutes ^{(Superboy vol 1 #209})
• Clears his mind of mental influences ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes vol 2 #268})
• Wades though blasts from Pharoxx ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes vol 2 #288})
• While sick, takes a blast from Pulsar ^{(The Brave and the Bold #198})
• Pulsar explodes right next to him and he's all good. ^{(The Brave and the Bold #198})
• Gets clawed by a monster and shrugs it off ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes #309})
• Gets blasted by Pharoxx's magic and recovers, while Pharoxx getting hit with the same blast made him immediately flee ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes #309})
• [Limit] Dies after being beaten nearly to death by Nemesis Kid, then missile launches himself into a planet-draining machine. ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes vol 3 #4})

Skill
Statements and styles

• Great Skill in all forms of martial arts, but especially Karate and Judo ^{(Adventure Comics #346})
• Master of all forms of fighting ^{(Adventure Comics #359})
• Switches from Boxing to Savate to Kendo against a robot ^{(Adventure Comics #363})
• Knocks some guys out with chops to the back of the neck ^{(Adventure Comics #360})
• Mastered every weapon form "from fencing foils to Jovian trident spears" ^{(Adventure Comics #368})
• Temporarily puts Timber Wolf in a Judo hold ^{(Superboy vol 1 #209})
• Falkone IV arm riflie technique ^{(Karate Kid #12})
• Loback III restraining hold for non-powered people to restrain super-powered people ^{(Karate Kid #12})
• Karate, Judo, "Arcturian Sli-tilla", "Venusian Txrxvrx", and boxing ("the good old one-two punch") in one page ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes vol 2 #268})

Against skilled opponents (Solo)

• Beats a boxing champion ^{(Adventure Comics #377})
• Beats the absolute stuffing out of Black Mace ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes vol 3 #31})
  • Black Mace is stated to be Ganglands's answer to Karate Kid ^{(Adventure Comics #374}) and a fast, strong invincible fighter ^{(Superboy #213})
• Beats Black Mask again, with an assist from Princess Projectra ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes vol 3 #31})
• Quickly beats a dual nunchaku wielding black belt ^{(Karate Kid #3})
• Beats the Samurai known as Master Hand ^{(Karate Kid #4})
• Had the advantage on Black Dragon II, the student of his father he previously beat in Superboy vol 1 #210 ^{(Karate Kid #10})
• Karate Kid vs Black Dragon II in a ceremonial fight. ^{(Karate Kid #10})
• Beats Dick Grayson quickly ^{(Karate Kid #14})
• Wins a tournament and the title of Samurai, going down as the youngest to gain the title ^{(Secret Origins vol 2 #47})

Against Skilled opponents (groups)

• Defeats three Black Belts he claims could waste a battalion of ordinary men ^{(Superboy vol 1 #210})
• Beats six opponents trained by his father, Black Dragon, including the future Black Dragon II ^{(Superboy vol 1 #210})
• Beats a bunch of 20th-century martial arts masters ^{(Karate Kid #1})
• Quickly beats four martial artists ^{(Karate Kid #4})

Against superpowered opponents (1v1)

• Fights Superboy and does so well, Clark says he needs to be in the Legion ^{(Adventure Comics #346})
• Training with Superboy ^{(Adventure Comics #368})
• Gets the advantage over Don Allen, descendent of Barry Allen and a speedster ^{(Adventure Comics #373})
• Defeats Ultra Boy ^{(Adventure Comics #375})
• A brainwashed Karate Kid easily beats Ultra Boy ^{(Superboy vol 1 #205})
• Survives a fight with Superboy, though he constantly mentions he's outmatched and it's taking all of his skill to just survive . ^{(Karate Kid #12})
• Temporarily holds Superboy, but admits he needs help immediately and is losing him and is saved by Mordru's magic wearing off ^{(Superboy and the Legion of Super-Heroes #245})

Against Superpowered opponents (groups)

• Solos the Fatal Five ^{(Adventure Comics #378})
• Manages to hold his own against Lightning Lad, Superboy, Colossal Boy, Saturn Girl, Sun Boy, and Chameleon Boy before being stopped by Cosmic Boy ^{(Karate Kid #13})

Against Skilled Superpowered opponents

• Fights four superpowered assassins and is holding his own ^{(Adventure Comics #361})
• Beats Pharoxx of Orando in a sword fight, forcing Pharoxx to resort to magic ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes vol 2 #286})
• Beats Timber Wolf in a spar ^{(Legion of Superheroes vol 4 #52})

Accuracy

• Splits a rock so each half flies off and KOs a foe ^{(Adventure Comics 361})
• Hits a knight with a stone and KO's him ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes vol 2 #288})
• Uses his sash as a lasso to disarm Pulsar of his power staff ^{(The Brave and the Bold #198})

Agility

• Rushes forward and front tuck into a Rider Kick in a fraction of a second ^{(Superboy vol 1 #214})
• Contorts himself in mid-air to stop himself from falling out of a building then Jumps back in ^{(Karate Kid #1})
• Jumps from the street to a sign to a third story roof ^{(Karate Kid #2})
• Does a series of flips to land safely after jumping out of a building while holding someone ^{(Karate Kid #2})
• Jumps out of a window, does a ton of flips, and starts running on cars ^{(Karate Kid #3})
• Flips on a pole ^{(Karate Kid #11})
• Flips over a car ^{(Karate Kid #11})
• Flips out of Batman's grasp ^{(The Brave and the Bold #198})
• Rolls back to get out of a monster's range, then launches himself into a flying kick ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes vol 2 #309})

Weak Point Sensing

• Finds the weak point in a diamond ^{(Adventure Comics# 365})
• Finds the weak point in a wall ^{(Superboy vol 1 #210})
• Finds Omega's weakest point, but is too weak to capitalize on it ^{(Superboy and the Legion of Super-Heroes #251}). This is the first time it's called an explicit "power" and not a skill.
• Finds the weak point in a hatch ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes #277})
• Originally struggled to find a weak point in massive chains encircling Earth, but after getting a hint from Princess Projectra manages to sense and destroy it ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes vol 2 #279})

Retroboot Val

Despite dying.....Val Armorr's back and in the past! ^{(Justice League of America vol 2 #7}) How? Never explained! ^{(Justice League of America #10}) Here's his feats. Note: All feats are done while he's dying (Countdown Weeks 14-15/ 38-37) from what's later revealed to be the Morticoccus Virus

• While disguised as a supervillain, freezes Parasite without Black Lightning realizing Parasite was the target ^{(Justice League of America vol 2 #2})
• KO's Black Lightning with a chop to the neck and stalemates (and arguably has the advantage over) Batman while sick and memoryless ^{(Justice League of America vol 2 #8})
  • Another view of the fight ^{(Countdown Week 2/#50})
  • Doctor Mid-Nite says Karate Kid very nearly took down Batman in that fight ^{(Countdown Week 7/#45})
  • Batman conceeds Val outfought him but claims he wouldn't in a rematch though he may have been being a jerk to get into Val's head ^{(Countdown Week 10/#42})
• Is still conscious and talking despite being loaded up with enough tranquilizers to give Wonder Woman trouble ^{(Justice League of America vol 2 #8})
• Somehow survives Speed Force Lightning that should have insta-killed him ^{(Justice League of America vol 2 #10})
• Finds the weak point in a vault he's sealed in ^{(Countdown Week 13/#39})
• Tears through Oracle's tendrils and punches through a wall ^{(Countdown Week 13/#39})
• Hurts Equus, an enhanced being who bragged he had fought Superman ^{(Countdown Week 16/#36})
• Kicked Equus arm clean off his body ^{(Countdown Week 17/#35})
• Breaks shotguns and kicks a police car over ^{(Supergirl vol 5 #21})
• [Limit] While he can dodge her attacks, can't move Supergirl with his strikes ^{(Supergirl vol 5 #21})
• Chops Equus arm off ^{(Supergirl vol 5 #22})
• [Limit] The closer to death he gets, the less he's able to focus and use Super-Karate feats ^{(Countdown week 32/#20})
• Takes out four Apokoliptians ^{(Countdown Week 41/#11})
• Takes a hit from an OMAC and shows some agility ^{(Countdown Week 42/#10})
• Dies of the virus ^{(Countdown Week 45/#7})
• Time Trapper puts his and Una's bodies in the mainline Earth when they had died in Earth-51 ^{(Action Comics #864})

Misc

• As a Legionnaire, he has a Legion flight ring ^{(Karate Kid #1})
• Invited his 20th-century friend to his wedding, not realizing she was in love with him ^{(The Brave and the Bold #198})
• Man married a princess. Respect. ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes Vol 2 annual 2})
• Brave enough to try to hit Darkseid with a flying kick, though all it accomplishes is knocking himself out. ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes vol 2 #294})
• It's implied he somehow came back/will come back to life again, but this wasn't elaborated on because of the Flashpoint thanks Barry ^{(Legion of Super-Heroes vol 6 #6})
  • Time Trapper also foreshadowed this ^{(Action Comics 864})

The Scriptures seem to imply that the kingdom of God isn't exactly synonymous with what is called "the Church." The Church was a temporary eschatological community of believers that existed on earth in preparation of a kingdom where God Himself would reign, and said community had Christ reign over them in the meantime. The head of the Church was Christ, with the Father serving as his head (1 Cor. 11:3). The Scriptures teach that, when all Christ's enemies were to be made his footstool, he was to give back all authority to the Father (Psa. 110:1, 1 Cor. 15:22-28), and it is this page's belief that this happened in 70 AD.
The following quotation is from the above hyperlink:

As for the "1000 years" mentioned in Revelation, they are apocalyptic metaphor for the 40 years Christ "reigned" (triumphed) over his enemies both human and spirit, with the final triumph being the judgement of apostate Jerusalem. The "1000 years" began with his ascension, and ended with this judgement.

Thus, the community to replace the Church on earth was to be the kingdom of God. But, what even is the kingdom of God, and why did God have to reclaim authority of His own creation in the first place?
To be as succinct as possible: man sinned, and so the great level of authority God initially granted us ourselves over the creation was stripped. As a result, the human condition has suffered and it must be redeemed for God to allow us to reign with Him in the way that He originally intended for us. God has always been sovereign, of course, but He seeks the good of man to make us stewards over His world with Him, as that was His original plan and this was His original view of what a kingdom of His truly looks like: a kingdom characterized by man's love for Him and love for others.
A Biblical understanding of Adam's sin, contrary to popular thought, isn't that we are guilty of what he did personally. We simply inherit his fallen nature and a fallen world as a result of his sin, the same way a baby could leave the womb already addicted to certain substances because the mother abused said substances while pregnant. It's not the baby's fault for its condition, it was the parent's. But the baby is born with this condition and enters the world like this nonetheless.
The implication of this is that we are all only guilty of our own sins, and whether or not we ever seek to treat (or possibly cure) our condition in the first place is on us. We were dealt a bad hand due to Adam, sure, but God doesn't hold us responsible for what our forefather did. God only holds us responsible for what we do, and whether or not we seek to be liberated from the dark forces which keep us in bondage to our sinful condition (Gen. 4:6-7, Deut. 24:16, Jer. 31:30, Ezek. 18, Matt. 9:9-13).
The whole Old Testament is essentially a record of God's people constantly breaking their covenant(s) with Him. There are individuals mentioned throughout that were, of course, commended by God and the Biblical authors for their righteousness in honestly pursuing to remain faithful to their covenant with Him. But even the best of these people often faltered and, in fact, did rather heinous things in their lives at one point or another. One of the greatest examples of this is king David, who was literally called by the Scriptures "a man after God's own heart" (1 Sam. 13:14, Acts 13:22). Yet, this same man at one point committed adultery and then murdered the man he stole the wife of to try and cover it up. This was a heinous thing, and David repented of what he did with genuine sorrow and guilt toward God. God ultimately forgave him, but not without a heavy hand of chastisement and earthly consequences for his actions.
All throughout the Old Testament, you see various men of God who were deemed righteous, but these same men were usually shown to have some major flaw that prevented them from living a life that could be characterized as consistent obedience to the commandments to love God and love others as themselves. There is something deeply wrong with man's heart, according to the Bible. Something so wrong, in fact, that a whole prophecy had to be given that promised to address the issue of man's seeming incapability to accomplish fulfilling the commandment to love consistently on their own without some sort of divine help from above:

"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh."-Ezekiel 36:26

Naturalistic philosophies see the physical world as all that exists. Humans beings are the result of mindless, chance causes and processes. Humans are essentially animals – highly evolved, but no different in significance than any other living thing. Thus naturalistic views demote humans. But this view leaves a lot unexplained. Why do humans practice altruism, benevolence, or acts of heroism? And what explains acts of incredible evil? Sure, naturalistic arguments have been made that true altruism doesn't exist, and that "unconditional love" is really just an illusion that's been disguised very well by our survival instincts that we've developed over a long period of time at certain stages of our evolutionary process. However, many people have found such arguments to be unpersuasive and naive when compared to their actual experience of the world as they mature in their lives and have what they know to be truly meaningful experiences that can't simply be reduced in the way that the naturalist wishes them to be. This realization was ultimately why I transitioned from hard atheism to agnostic spiritualism at one point or another.
On the other extreme of these things, transcendental worldviews and philosophies say that the physical world is illusory. Only the spiritual world is ultimately real. Humans are an expression of the divine spirit that is the essence of all things. If naturalistic views demote humans to the level of animals, transcendental views promote human beings. God is not “out there” somewhere; we are God. God is all, thus God is us. But this view doesn’t explain real evil. Why are people selfish? Why do they hurt others? What accounts for personal acts of evil like rape or terrorism? If we are all truly "God," then why would we ever do such things to what is ultimately "ourself"? And why can't a person who practices the belief that we are all actually "God" be only loving? There are so many people who adopt this view of reality who are constantly, day by day, finding that they struggle to be as truly loving as they wish to be because they will still sometimes find themselves thinking and doing rather evil and selfish things. I can speak from experience here, remembering throwing myself into the New Age movement when I was desperately seeking what I did not know at the time was forgiveness for and redemption from my sins because of who I was as a person up until that point. I was seeking the mythic "ego death" that promised me that I could truly be loving and find the forgiveness and redemption I was searching for, because I thought that if only I truly realized I was "God" all along, I could then accomplish these things all at once and simultaneously. I eventually found even this philosophy unsatisfactory when I came to the aforementioned conclusions concerning our great capacity for evil, and also realized that forgiveness can only exist if there are two parties: forgiver and forgivee. Such a thing is impossible if there is only really one being at play at the bottom of reality, and I knew deep down that forgiving oneself (at least, on its own) will never satisfy one's pursuit for redemption that we all inherently take part in whenever pursuing to mend even our own relationships with each other as humans. Further, love would be an illusion in this philosophy too, being that there is only really one party behind and in all of existence if "everything is God." Such an idea would make true altruism a farce, as well. There would be no such thing as real sacrifice for another, because there is no "another."
The French mathematician and Christian philosopher Blaise Pascal said, “Man’s greatness and wretchedness are so evident that the true religion must necessarily teach both.” Any philosophy that cannot fully account for human greatness and human depravity at the same time should be abandoned because it misses something obvious about the human condition. The religion of the Bible has a valid explanation for human greatness: people are made in God’s image. Thus we have dignity, value, and capacity for good. The Bible also explains human evil: the image of God has been defaced by sin. Our great capacity gets used for the wrong purposes. Our creativity is placed in the service of evil and our best intentions twisted for selfish gain. Something has gone terribly wrong. While other worldviews unduly demote or promote humanity, the Bible gets the tension just right.
Thus, human nature is puzzling and conflicting. Other worldviews—both secular and religious—struggle to account for this enigma, and don't offer satisfying solutions to the problem itself. The Bible, however, explains what happened when it tells us that man rebelled against God in the paradise that was prepared for him called "the Garden of Eden." We fell into temptation and estranged ourselves from God by tarnishing the image we were created in, and now are born with a natural proclivity to do evil, despite our best efforts to do good (that is, to do good consistently).
And so, the Bible promised a solution in the prophet Ezekiel that God will literally change our natural human condition, if we simply choose to humble ourselves before Him in faith to allow for such a change. While as unbelievers our inner disposition towards God is often rebellious, we at least still have the capacity to choose to do the righteous thing in seeking God that He may change us and forgive us if we so let Him. This is one reason why Jesus, (the one who made the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy even possible by his coming, sacrifice, ressurection, and outpouring of the Spirit upon his ascension), said that only faith the size of a mustard seed was required for something so miraculous as moving a mountian to happen, because so little is required from us to allow God to change us into the kind of person He's always wanted us to be, and yet changing the condition of our own heart can be compared to literally moving a mountain if we were to try and do so on our own strength alone. The mustard seed was the smallest of seeds, and yet if one simply planted it and nurtured it, it could become a bush so large that it was comparable to a tree with branches that stretched to the heavens for the very birds of the air to rest on.
It was when I came to these realizations that I prayed to God for the first time again, having been years since I did so, going so far back as to when I was a little child even. I prayed in the dead of night in my room, and asked God to show me the truth and to reveal Himself to me if indeed these things were true, and in an instant I felt His very presence in my room, and my heart was changed. To describe such an experience would be like trying to describe the taste of something to the man born without tastebuds, the color of something to the man born blind, or the sound of something to the man born deaf; there are no words, and it is only something you can know by experiencing it for yourself. Suddenly and all at once, I knew right then and there that Jesus really was who he said he was, that the one true God is the God of the Bible, and that I have been forgiven. As the time of this post, it's been 5 years since then, I'm 23 now, and I'm still walking with God.
My prayer for anyone reading this that may not know God for themselves yet is that one day, you will too.
Back to the topic at hand.
When Adam sinned, we fell under the tyranny of death, corruption, evil heavenly powers, and sin itself. When Jesus came, Jesus was the new and exalted human, the new Adam, through whom humanity could now realize their original destiny that was laid out for them in the Garden of Eden. Because Jesus, being a man, obeyed unto death, he has defeated the powers which held us so long under bondage; we are now promised liberation so long as we simply place our faith in his sacrifice to wash us of our sins and receive the Spirit of God that is also promised to all who exercise this faith.
We often think of ‘the gospel’ as the part that brings the forgiveness of sins (and of course, that is part of the idea), but ‘gospel’ is the announcement that everything has changed in the coming of Jesus and it leads us to a new kind of living.
The gospel Jesus preached and the gospel the apostle Paul preached were different, in that Jesus preached of a kingdom where God reigns directly and with all His faithful subjects as participants in that reign. The gospel Paul preached was about the exaltation and reign of Christ, and because Christ reigned, the consummation of the kingdom of God with earth could now finally take place (Col. 1:12-13). This consummation was put on hold during Christ's "millennial" reign, which transpired between his ascension and his return. However, the consummation has come to full fruition since that return.
We will be arguing for some of these claims by pointing out how central the kingdom of God actually was to Jesus' earthly ministry and message, and demonstrate what Jesus taught about how it actually looks like.
The term 'kingdom' appears 53 times in 42 places in Matthew, 17 times in 13 places in Mark, and 41 times in 29 places in Luke. When the 'kingdom' is qualified, Luke always refers to the 'kingdom of God' (32 times) and Mark follows this pattern (14 times). Matthew, on the other hand, prefers the term "kingdom of heaven" (31 times), using the phrase to refer to the same idea "kingdom of God" only four times: 12:28, 19:24, 21:31, 43.
The Gospel of Luke records an event where Jesus responds to the population that lived near Simon Peter's house who believed in him after he had done his miraculous work there, but saw that he was leaving them:

"And when it was day, he departed and went into a desert place: and the people sought him, and came unto him, and stayed him, that he should not depart from them. And he said unto them, I must preach the kingdom of God to other cities also: for therefore [i.e., for this pupose] am I sent." (vss. 42-43)

The Greek word euangelion is often translated as the word “gospel.” In the Bible, this word is always used whenever it concerns the announcement of the reign of a new king. And in the New Testament, the Gospels themselves use this word or the phrase "good news" to summarize all of Jesus’ teachings. They say he went about “preaching the gospel [good news] of the kingdom [of God]” (Matt. 4:23).
There’s this beautiful poem in the Old Testament, and it’s in chapter 52 of the Book of Isaiah. The city of Jerusalem had just been destroyed by Babylon, a great kingdom in the North. Many of the inhabitants of the city have been sent away into exile, but a few remained in the city, and they’re left wondering, "What happened? Has our God abandoned us?" This was because Jerusalem was supposed to be the city where God would reign over the world to bring peace and blessing to everyone.
Now, Isaiah had been saying that Jerusalem’s destruction was a mess of Israel’s own making. They had turned away from their God, become corrupt, and so their city and their temple were destroyed. Everything seemed lost. But the poem goes on. There is a watchman on the city walls, and far out on the hills we see a messenger. He’s running towards the city. He’s running and he’s shouting, “Good news!” And Isaiah says, “How beautiful are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings [news]” (vs. 7a). The feet are beautiful because they’re carrying a beautiful message. And what’s the message? That despite Jerusalem’s destruction, Israel’s God still reigns as king, and that God's presence is going to one day return with His city, take up His throne, and bring peace. And the watchmen sing for joy because of the good news that their God still reigns (vs. 10).
Jesus saw himself as the messenger bringing the news that God reigns. Jesus also claimed to be the Son of man. This was Jesus' favorite self-designation, being used some 80 times in the Gospels. Notice, not just a son of man, but the Son of Man. Jesus was directing our attention to a vision described by the prophet Daniel:

"I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him:"-Daniel 7:13-14a

At Jesus' trial, the Jewish high priest accused Jesus: "Art thou the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed [God]?" His answer left no room for doubt. "I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." (Mark 14:61-62). Because Jesus' was rejected and killed for threatening the power the religious authorities had over the people, the consummation of God's kingdom with earth had been put on hold until all of Christ's enemies would be put under his feet after his ressurection and ascension.
But again, what is the kingdom of God? What does it look like exactly?
Well, the way that Jesus described God’s reign surprised everybody. I mean, think about it. A powerful, successful kingdom needs to be strong, able to impose its will, and able to defeat its enemies in physical combat. But Jesus said the greatest person in God’s kingdom was the weakest, the one who loves and who serves the poor (Matt. 23:11-12). He said you live under God’s reign when you respond to evil by loving your enemies, and forgiving them, and seeking peace (Matt. 5). To us, this is an upside-down kingdom. But to God, it's right-side up. This was what God had originally planned for us: a kingdom where God reigns in our hearts.

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."-John 3:3

Jesus was being quite literal here. You can’t see the kingdom until you’re born again and have the life of that kingdom. When you’re born again, you start 'seeing' differently. You see what others don’t see, you hear what others don’t hear, you know what others don’t know. And yet you may be physically in the same earthly location as they.
The kingdom of God is the totality of God’s influence that covers the world and heaven. It’s everywhere, but its manifestation isn’t everywhere. It manifests on earth wherever there are those who are born again and live as if God reigns in their hearts.
Before Jesus, John the Baptist announced to all people, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand!” (Matt. 3:1-2), as he saw a soon coming kingdom of God that would be ushered in by the Messiah. Notice that John the Baptist didn’t say that something “like” the kingdom would come and he didn’t say that the real kingdom might be thousands of years away. He said over and over that THE kingdom was at hand! Do you believe him? Did God inspire him to give a clear and accurate message or a mistaken one? If we dare to believe him, things might become surprisingly clear, simple and exceedingly optimistic.

"Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven."-Matthew 6:10

Jesus taught his followers of his generation to pray that God's kingdom come and that His will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Why pray for something that will just inevitably come by force, unless it was actually through our willing participation? That is, unless God's will is carried out through us "in earth, as it is in heaven"?

"Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel."-Mark 1:14-15

It's very telling that these are the very first words the Gospel of Mark chooses to record Jesus as saying.
The kingdom is NOT something to wait for. Jesus says the kingdom is NOT something visible, and it is NOT something in the sky. The Kingdom Jesus taught is a spiritual reality that comes into the world through us. Considering that Jesus even said the kingdom was in and among the Pharisees in Luke 17, which seems almost offensive to consider, perhaps it is like a spiritual seed that has been planted inside each of us, and that activating faith in God makes it grow.

"Then said he, Unto what is the kingdom of God like? and whereunto shall I resemble it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it."-Luke 13:18-19

Jesus talked about the kingdom as if it would be a present reality, yet one that was growing in the world like a seed grows into a tree.

"And again he said, Whereunto shall I liken the kingdom of God? It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened."-Luke 13:20-21

To Jesus, the kingdom was something growing in us like yeast through dough, increasing in effectiveness.

"For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost."-Romans 14:17
"For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power."-1 Corinthians 4:20

Paul says the kingdom isn’t something you taste or touch like physical food. It’s not even saying the right words. But rather the kingdom comes in the realities of righteousness, peace, joy and power that flavor our lives when we live empowered by the Spirit of God and God's Spirit in us.
Since Jesus the Messiah returned only 40 years after his earthly ministry, putting all enemies under his feet, the complete consummation of earth with the kingdom of heaven has finally taken place.
The kingdom of God has come, and it continues to come through us as believers. It makes progress like light shining into the world and dispelling the darkness.

"Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."-Matthew 5:14-16

I'd like to share a lengthy and self-indulgent note about my history with the Baha'i community and the impact it had on my family and me. It's worth noting that I'm sharing this using a throwaway Reddit account that I generally reserve for browsing porn. I find funny to imagine a Baha'i apologist reading this, becoming angry and judgmental, and then, investigating my profile and ending up jerking off. With that said, let's dive into my story.
I want to share my experience in case it resonates with someone else, a lot of the stories on this Reddit helped me, and perhaps my story will give some comfort to someone else. It has taken me a while to write this down, and I'm glad I finally got around to doing it.
My parents emigrated from their homeland for reasons of principle and value. Upon their arrival, they were greeted by Baha'is who met them. And so, lovebombed and lavished with love, praise, and celebration for moving countries due to values that they portrayed as being closely aligned with the Baha'i faith, my parents fell for this validation and worked very hard once they became Baha'is in the mid-1980s.
My dad got rid of all of his whiskies, and swiftly, my parents began hosting potlucks and fireside chats, diligently working to integrate into the Baha'i ecosystem. Back then, the atmosphere was fairly light-hearted, with devotional gatherings, prayers, and a somewhat 1960s-esque hippie vibe. There was live guitar music, and joss sticks.
However, I remember Baha'i classes having an interesting edge. We were taught that Buddhists were not following a religion but merely a way of life, and that Hindus had become pantheistic because they had lost the core of their faith and religion, which had become corrupted over time. Thanks to Google, I can discover that yes indeed, this is from Lights of Guidance.
There was a significant emphasis on the importance of gender equality and the oneness of humanity – because, hey, the eighties. I feel sad there isn't anything anymore about the Virtues project - even if the Virtues project was sort of framed like it was created by Bahais.
Even in the 1980s, there was an overwhelming atmosphere that the key to being a good Baha'i was how you presented yourself rather than your actual behaviour. I recall learning an apocryphal tale of a young Baha'i who, while fasting, participated in an aerobics class and nearly fainted (yeah, aerobics, this is a real 80s fable), but was told by another Baha'i to prioritize representing the faith well over completing the fast because *it looked bad*. From a very early age, I learned the importance of putting the right face forward.
My parents then took their relationship with the Baha'i faith to the next level and volunteered at the World Centre in Haifa. As a child, this was a pretty interesting experience. I was suddenly immersed in the Iranian, or rather, Persian community, with its strong culture of martyrdom. Even as a child, every event seemed to feature graphic videos depicting young kids being taken from their homes. It was quite frightening, and I remember being afraid.
I also recall a strong sense of hierarchy within the community. My family lived in a small apartment with a very old, busted-up car from the 1970s, while others resided in nice homes with pleasant views and drove nice cars. I attended a local Israeli school, which was a cultural experience in itself, while my peers my age went to the much fancier American school. It's important to note that, at this point, the conversation about the "great catastrophe" – two-thirds of the world's population dying, leading to a period of peace and the entry by troops – was a prevalent topic openly discussed at the World Centre.
We completed our stint there, even living through the Gulf War. Upon returning to my birth country, my parents chose to live in places with smaller Baha'i communities, as they wanted to support and help establish Local Spiritual Assemblies. Things had changed by this point, not only because I was a teenager but also because the community itself had transformed. There was a significant Iranian presence everywhere, and the focus had shifted heavily towards rules, especially those related to sex, drinking, and drug use. There was also a huge emphasis on financial contributions to the faith, and it was the first time I began to see a somewhat materialistic outlook within the community.
As a preteen and teenager, I engaged in activities like dropping off flyers in mailboxes and soliciting strangers to talk about this great new religion, all in the name of “teaching”. I joined the local choir and sang, inspired by a crush I had on a girl there. This was probably the golden time of the community, with the choir doing outreach and a balance between Western and Iranian believers.
However, things began to accelerate. The Ruhi Institute and teaching became significant focal points. I was encouraged to bring a good friend of mine to a Baha'i camp, and once there, I was pressured to ask him to convert. It was very uncomfortable.
This Reddit loves cringe stories, so here is a winner: I had a birthday party with my non-Baha'i friends, and two older Baha'i girls attended. One of the girls ended up stalking my friend, showing up at his workplace and calling him at home with sexually suggestive comments. The matter was escalated to the Local Spiritual Assembly, but instead of talking to me about it, they basically ended my friendship with this kid. To me, this somehow captures so much of what it was like to be a Baha'i child and how Baha'i adults treat children to this day.
When I turned 15, I signed up for Baha'i membership because it was the expected thing to do. However, by the time I was in my early 20s and studying at university, I had started to interact more with the local, real-world community. This might seem like a small thing, but it was actually quite significant. You see, my parents had always felt a little bit on the outside compared to the average person on the street around them. This sense of elitism was really exacerbated by being a Baha'i because Baha'is would walk around in a cloud of self-assurance, looking at us and thinking, "We don't do drugs. We've got all the answers and solutions, not like you." That was pretty much the attitude. It felt very socio-economic, with a lot of judgment towards working-class people. When the Iranians arrived, the cultural judgments grew even stronger.
But I was working in restaurants and learning about booze from bartenders. I had gotten to know real people. I had lost my virginity, and all that Bahai jazz seemed so much less relevant. I hardly even noticed when the year 2000 arrived without the predicted apocalypse, entry by troops, or any of the other anticipated events. Life went on. I lived in another country and met a girl, and we lived together.
Here is cringe story #2: my girlfriend /fiancé and I hosted a Bahai couple from my hometown. Despite being in my late 20s and engaged, and even though I hosted this gentleman in my house and helped him with his preparations for his business and presentations in the country where I lived, he reported to the Local Spiritual Assembly that I was living with a woman and we weren't married. It was absolutely amazing. The level of judgment still grosses me out.
I started to reflect on what the religion had meant to me and saw how it had changed. The obsession with fundraising was becoming ever more strident and panicked. The gaps in the actual scriptural logic of the religion were becoming more exacerbated as real-world problems still ran rife, and real-time discussions on social media brought these issues to light. It took me a while to start really digging into it, and it was only much later, when I started therapy, that I realized I needed to formally resign from the religion.
Looking back, it's astonishing how this religion, which professes to have such blind equality between the genders, as if other religions have some kind of hardwired sexism, actually had hardwired sexism in how the Universal House of Justice operates. A religion that taught the oneness of humanity, as if all humanity is equal and other religions don't recruit from anyone they can find, places divisors. Although of course, Bahai’s can’t recruit from Israeli Jews, so much for oneness of humanity. But this religion has taught that all humanity is equal, unless, of course, you're gay. Then you can't get married, let alone have sex.
There are other principles I haven't touched on, such as non-involvement in politics, unless it involves things happening to Baha'is or politics in Iran. The principle of independent investigation of the truth doesn't seem to work if you might investigate something that's not in line with the Baha'i perspective. The idea of a universal language? I don't really see any evidence that they're even really thinking about that one. The unity between science and religion? A religion that only allows men to sit on its senior board of a global theocracy probably isn't going to jive with a contemporary scientific perspective…. I mean, apparently you don't need a penis to be a man anymore, right?
In between these moments are my colorful memories of random things, like endless discussions about the boundaries of physical intimacy, people getting married at the age of 16 because they had exemptions for being Persian, and meeting Ms. Khanoom in Israel, feeling some sadness that the lone woman who at least brought some feminine energy to the World Centre is now gone, replaced by 12 boring men.
I've had conversations with my wife where I tried to explain what Baha'is actually do. She just wonders why they aren't doing stuff like normal religions do, like reading to the elderly or supporting schools for the disabled. I explain that's not the target demographic. I remember a wealthy man brought to firesides who obviously nobody else wanted to listen to, but we all sat around and applauded him like he was a great ukulele player and a clever man. He pointed out a hilariously Iranian man who was an alternative healer, and they got into a debate about modern medicine. The wealthy man said, "Well, you should see my daughter and what she studied. She studies Law." And then quickly changed the subject when asked about her name since I studied at the same Law school. Here's this man who's self-aware enough to join the adoration of his crowd but doesn't want his daughter mixed up in it in any way. Absolutely hilarious. Make that cringe story #3.
This reflection was sort of sparked when my wife and I discovered that the writings attributed to Rumi, which Baha'is often quote, is the same guy who started the Whirling Dervishes. We read about Rumi and I realized just how different he is from Baha'u'llah. Rumi wrote poetry, but he didn't pretend to be a prophet of God. He was just offering a different dynamic for how to interpret spirituality. He didn't say he was part of some sort of cycle. There's something beautiful about that simplicity. And needless to say, Rumi lived long before the Baha'is ever started.
It makes me wonder, will anyone ever watch the equivalent of a whirling dervish dance for the Baha'is?
The obsession with appearances sounds like a joke, but it isn't. It wasn't for me. Some bad stuff happened to me on my trip to Israel. When we got there, my parents didn't understand why I was so upset about everything. It was a culture shock, attending a government school, not speaking Hebrew, and being together with Russian kids who got beaten up in the toilet. It wasn't a very good time for me.
So, I was sent to counsel with a local Israeli counselor. After several sessions, she instructed that I had to sit down with my parents and tell them what I needed to tell them, particularly about the shadow that had come over me since coming to Israel. My parents were enraged when I said, “I wish we never became Bahai”.
And so, we returned from the Holy Land and moved to a tiny community that was struggling to get members. To this day, my parents are still members. I've resigned so I'm never dubbed a "covenant breaker." I'm pretty sure my parents know that I resigned because they literally never raise the topic of the Baha'i faith with me. I wish the religion had some interesting cosmology, something mystical, some interesting new take on the universe, or provided my family with tools to handle being migrants or raising teenagers. At the very least, it could have given us a common language we could have used to bond together. It did none of that.
But to be fair, if it wasn't the Baha'is, some other rinky-dink cult would have love-bombed my parents back in the 1980s. Of course, it would have been so much more fun if it had featured more sex and drugs 😊

It's the last term of school and I get extremely burnt out this time of year, which means frequent meltdowns. My mam doesn't really understand autism so her only response is yelling, hitting, name calling ect. On top of being burnt out school is even more difficult because I'm struggling in so many classes, I'm being picked on and I've no friends in my year group (I can't tell her I'm being picked on because it'll make the situation a lot worse). It's like my body doesn't work with my brain and going into school feels impossible and being rushed and yelled at sends me into meltdowns. Has anybody else felt the same way and how do you explain it? I need to tell her how I feel but it's impossible to explain your feelings when you can't even identify them. Whenever I try it makes her more mad and she called me lazy, ungrateful ect. but in reality I'm just struggling. She doesn't take ''I'm struggling'' as an answer so I don't know what else to tell her. And on a similar note, how can I regulate myself during meltdowns? I get zero comfort to help me calm down so usually they last for way longer than they should.

Are you familiar with the “Let Them” theory?
I’ll tell you the more I grow the more I am okay with accepting the “Let Them” in my own life and relationships. Even family can mistreat and disrespect you.
This is something that took me a very long time to learn. I used to tolerate a lot because I didn't want to lose people. I learned the hard way if they were really my people they would never treat me like that. Don't make the mistake of being so understanding and forgiving that you overlook the fact that you're being repeatedly disrespected.
Let them be upset. Let them judge you. Let them misunderstand you. Let them gossip about you, Let them ignore you. Let them be "right." Let them doubt you. Let them not like you. Let them not speak to you. Let them run your name in the ground. Let them make you out to be the villain. Whatever it is that people want to say about you, let them! Kindly step aside and LET THEM.
The hard truth is they know how much they are hurting you. They just simply don't care. They did it knowing it could cause them to lose you. They did it anyway. People that love you care about how they make you feel. The end. Let them go.
There will be people that would rather lose you than be honest about what they've done to you. Let them go.
The lack of respect was the closure. The lack of apology was the closure. The lack of care was the closure. The lack of acountability was the closure. The lack of honestly was the closure. Let them go.
Make the decision to no longer sit at tables where you might be the topic when you get up. Let them go.
You can still be kind. You can even still love them deeply. But do it from the distance they created in their words and actions. Access to you is a privilege they have proven they can’t be trusted with. Let them go.
You don’t need to tell your side of the story. God already knows. Let God fight the battle for you. Let them go.
It’s taken me a long time to get here. Sleepless nights, countless tears, managing a range of emotions filled with anger, disappointment, confusion and deep hurt. Lots of self reflection, self preservation, deep prayer and seeking wisdom from those much wiser than me.
If you are struggling with this please know you are not alone. We will never understand why hurt people hurt people. But we can do the hard work to grow ourselves. Because healed people do in fact heal people.
Don’t you dare let them steal your joy. Don’t you dare let them steal your light. Don’t you dare let them steal your peace. You are in control of that.
Hold tight to what you can control and release your grip on what you can’t control.
Let them go.
I needed this. Found on FB posted by a college friend.

I was working on one of my cars in a parking lot at a shop store. I had my other parked car with in lines and that's the one that was hit. I did get hysterical because who wouldn't? It's a 88 classic mint condition low milage car. I have owned it for two months. Some guy came around the corner not caring to check and backed right into my car with no one in it. His friend threatened to hit me a multitude of times. I have on recording him threatening to send his sister over and beat me up on top of footage of him laying his hands on his gf. His gfs mom lied and said that's her son. Looked then up on Facebook so I can know names and figure out who this kid is and that's how I found out he's just the boyfriend. I attempted to ask for the money with the mom saying the judge will decide. He has no insurance no plates and also was cited for hitting a parked car. Thankfully I have someone who has footage over everything. As I will not say who or where I got it from in case those people see this post. It's 500 for my deductible and probably a good two grand to fix. Was going to get it ready for a car show this summer but that's out of the equation now. What is your opinion? What should I do?

Kadillac Kirk had been a good friend of mine for several years. I had met him through friends from The Spring Stage; and he never had anything to do with The Imp, which is why he didn’t appear in the Married Mary saga. Mary would have totally thrown herself at him, and Kirk would have definitely “thrown it in her.” He loved the ladies and often remarked that there was no such thing as an unappealing woman, nor was there anything sweeter than finding the pearl of passion in an outwardly plain dame. Fortunately for Kirk, he never met Mary. This was probably fortunate for Mary as well, seeing as Kirk was a confirmed bachelor and he would have probably broken her fat heart.
Kirk was an older guy. Not MOE old, though. He was in his early forties, but he easily passed for a carefree dude in his 30s... not that he lied about his age. I only mention this trait to juxtapose Kirk’s genuine youthful air with Moe’s unconvincing youthful farce. Kirk dressed normally, avoided stupid jargon, and never busted out gimmicks like tarot cards or spells. He just existed, behaved affably, and people liked him for it.
He drove a classic 1962 Cadillac El Dorado convertible with red leather interior, and he lived in a charmingly quaint (and ridiculously expensive) neighborhood. How he made his fortune remained a mystery, but he never bloviated about his wealth. He just threw spectacular parties and people showed up. And, to my knowledge, he never tried to lure women into bed with his money (although I’m sure he got his fair share of boom-boom thanks to his digs and his wheels, even if the gold-diggers denied their monetary agendas).
Kirk was legitimately handsome. He was a drummer, he had a full head of black hair, he was clean-shaven, he worked out, and he knew all the hidden gems in Wellsprings. So why hadn’t I tried... or even desired to date him? I don’t know. I just didn’t feel drawn to him like that. He felt like a cool uncle and he had, thus far, never done anything to change my perception. Plus, the age difference weirded me out a little. Kirk didn’t look forty; but knowing that he had so much more life experience than I did created a power imbalance that would have creeped me out if we’d been dating. As buddies, I just felt supremely cool riding in his Cadillac, smoking Fantasia cigarettes, and hitting the speakeasies and jazz clubs I would have never known about if it weren’t for Kirk’s connections.
And he had been a good person to talk to about my romantic woes. He never lecherously suggested that I should date him, and he gave the type of tempered advice that only comes with lived experience. But he often lightly mocked me for my crush on Dennis and he did a hilarious impression of Smegal popping too soon over his “precious.” So when Mary “got me back” by doing whatever she did with to Dennis, I called Kadillac Kirk and told him the drinks were on me if he’d be my designated driver for the night.
Why hadn’t I called Whisky??? Well, A) Kirk was way more fun to hang out with, at least from my past experiences up to that point. And B) I needed to bitch about a boy, something I couldn’t do in good conscience in front of a guy I was dating. So I put on the sexiest plunging halter dress I owned, applied heavy eye makeup and spikey accessories, braved a pair of stilettos, and sashayed out to Kirk’s convertible. I felt like a badass rock star. I probably looked like a try-hard hooker.
Kirk: Daaaaay-um! Somebody really did do a number on you, huh? I know you said you were upset, but the gents are gonna be writing thank you notes to that fat girl and that butt-fucking hobbit.
Me: I just need to feel pretty and numb. And I trust you to keep me from making a fool of myself.
Kirk squeezed my shoulder. “I’ve got you. You do whatever you need to do to get rid of these demons.”
He sparked up a J and offered me the first puff. I gladly accepted. He took one puff of his own, but said that the rest was mine since he didn’t want to drive stoned. See? He was responsible! Weed wasn’t legal in California yet, so I got a little bit baked before I stashed the sativa in the glove box and wrapped a scarf around my hair like a starlet from the Golden Age of Hollywood. Kirk sped out of the parking lot and said he was taking me to a downtown hotel that was hosting a party that night in their lush lobby.
Kadillac Kirk pulled up to the main entrance, paid the valet, and then opened my door. I was wobbly from the weed. And I had stupidly decided to wear heels. You can get high or you can wear high (heels). You can’t have both. Not if you’ve repeatedly injured both ankles (as I have). I had to take Kirk’s arm to keep from keeling over. “Can people tell I’m stoned?” I whispered. Kirk replied, “Nobody’s paying any attention to anyone else’s intoxication. I promise you that much.” I nodded, steadied myself, and strutted alongside my very cool friend, feeling a little more confident.
A live jazz orchestra was playing Cole Porter as we entered the lobby. Everything sparkled. The music was even more intoxicating than the spliff had been. “Just One of Those Things” brought tears to my eyes since the lyrics hit every raw nerve regarding the Dennis debacle. But I smiled. It might sound mental, but being distraught over a trash fire of a one-sided romance was exhilarating. Immature, for sure. But also exhilarating. You see, that kind of sadness doesn’t hurt. Not really. It stings. It leaves little bruises, but it’s very safe to wallow in because you haven’t actually lost anything. Melancholia over that which you never had is as sweet as it is bitter; and that type of twisted splendor is rivaled only by Stendhal.
“Here's hoping we meet now and then. It was great fun, but it was just one of those things.” I sang along with the band, and a fat tear rolled down past my melancholic smile and onto my chin. Kirk brushed it aside. “Too close to home?” I wiped away the remnants of the tear’s journey from eye to chin and smiled a more genuine smile. “The perfect distance from home. Shall we get drinks? Remember, I’m buying.”
Kirk: No, no. This is your time to heal. And I’m here as your pal, not your chauffeur. What would the lady like?”
I pretended to barf. Kirk knew I hated it when he got overly formal and overly attentive. So he did it just to mess with me. “Shot of vodka,” I replied.
Kirk: How many?
I thought briefly. “FIVE.”
Kirk: Five to one, baby. One in five...
Me: No one here gets out alive.
Kirk: Are you able to hold yourself upright, or should you come with?
I took a seat on an ornate, damask-upholstered chaise lounge. “I’ll be okay. And I was kidding about the five shots.”
I sat there lost in the music for a while. I thought very little about Dennis. Even less about Mary. And not at all about Whisky (whom I had shagged less than a week ago). My mind danced through the ornate lighting in the hotel lobby, and I suddenly felt the need to join the hoity-toity guests on the dancefloor!
Kirk returned with four shots of vodka. Two for him, two for me. That was quite reasonable of him. He knew damn well that I couldn’t handle five shots, but he also knew that I was in a... state. One that called for more than a single shot. I raised a both miniature glasses to “No more ninnyhammers or hairy-footed lovers.” Kirk did his hilarious Smegal impression, we double-toasted, and downed the shots. The band launched into “Let’s Misbehave,” and I kicked off my stilettos and made a beeline for the dance floor.
“There’s something wild about you child that’s so contagious. Let’s be outrageous! Let’s misbehave.” Kadillac Kirk swept me up, twirled me around, and dipped me as we both sang along with the lyrics. I wasn’t swooning for him, but I was enthralled by the moment. The music, the dancing, the combination of booze and bud... so I kissed him as he pulled me back to my feet. And he kissed back. In a way that Dennis never had. In a way that Whisky’s beard wouldn’t permit. I didn’t feel the visceral sensations that I’d felt when Dennis had kissed me, but it felt nice to feel desired. And then I noticed that other guests were watching us and applauding. Now, that was a dopamine rush if ever there was one!
I gently broke away from the embrace, high-fived Kirk and returned to the chaise lounge to put my stupid shoes back on. He followed me and smashed his face back onto mine. I pulled away and laughed. “It was a moment,” I told him. “I appreciate the dance, and that kiss was the perfect finale. But it’s not happening again.”
Kirk: Not to worry, Valerie. I know you. I knew all along that we were performing, and I was more than happy to be your scene partner.
Me: And dance partner! Those were some excellent moves! I didn’t know you had ballroom training.
Kirk: You name it, I’ve mastered it. Another drink for the lady?
I pretended to barf again. “Not yet. I’m not sad right now. Do you mind if I just sit here and enjoy the music?”
Kirk: Ah. My kisses do have healing properties...
I flipped my hand up at him. “Knock that shit off, bro. I wanted to hang out with you because I trust you not to get weird. Even if I get weird, I know you have the maturity to balance me out.”
Kirk: Are you calling me old???
Me: No. I’m calling you rational, responsible, and respectful.
Kirk: Well, now. If you can articulate an alliterative statement that fluently, then you clearly aren’t drunk enough!
I dismissed this comment as a joke. And he did indeed knock off the flirtation. We had a perfectly pleasant time chatting and dancing (no more kissing, though). And then I noticed a girl I knew from Into the Woods entering the lobby. She’d played Florinda and I’d played Little Red. I called her name and waved enthusiastically. She waved back. And then her date entered. It was D.E.N.N.I.S. I sank into the chaise. Kirk caught on immediately. “The hobbit???” he asked. I nodded silently. “You wanna make out again?” he enthused. I shook my head. I had to go say hello to Flo. And I had an idea...
I crossed the lobby, smiled, squealed, and hugged her.
Florinda: Lil’ Red! It’s been forever! So glad to see you!!! This is my friend, Denny.
Dennis was shifting uncomfortably. I extended my hand. “Nice to meet you. I know your date from Into the Woods. I bet she could tell you some entertaining stories about that show...” Flo laughed out loud, well aware of the many misadventures to which I'd referred. Of course, she might have been laughing because Dennis never, ever listened to anyone else's stories. He was too busy telling, re-telling, slightly altering, and exaggerating his own.
Dennis: C’mon, Val...
Me: Oh, you’ve heard of me? Small world! You guys picked a great night to come here. They’re playing Cole Porter, and the band is delovely!
Florinda (appearing oblivious to the iciness between me and Dennis): Have you seen Prince Big Bad (Scumbanger) lately?
I laughed. “Last time I saw him, he was hitting on some nasty fat chick at The Imp.”
Flo and I both scoffed at the pervy pest. Into the Woods was where I’d initially met Scumbanger. He played The Wolf/Cinderella’s Prince. Again... typecasting. There’s a whole essay in my brain about my first encounter with the pest, during which he quoted the song that he sang to me in the show, “Hello, Little Girl.” But it gets into some pretty uncomfortable territory because he made me feel excited. Well, excited and scared. Nothing of note happened during Into the Woods, but our odd interactions did kind of set the stage for some extremely regrettable events during that Cats cast party.
I excused myself, saying that I needed to get back to my friend. And then I leaned in and said in a hushed voice to Flo, “Watch your ass with that one. If he’s the Denny I’m thinking of...” I gave her a look that only another female would be able to read. Her eyebrows shot up and she nodded. Dennis continued to shift as though he were trying to hold in a massive dump. “BABE! Uh...”
Flo apparently answered to that moniker as well. “What is it, Denny? Don’t worry. That was just telepathic girl talk. You apparently have a reputation...”
Dennis: Different Denny. I assure you I’m a pious gentleman.
Me: Ah. My mistake. Well, then. You guys have a good time! Nice to meet you, Denny. Great to see you, Flo!
I hugged Flo again, gave Dennis a curt nod, ignored the scent of mandarins and mountain air, and returned to Kirk.
I collapsed on the chaise lounge, exhausted from holding back the rage. I had no right to be mad at Florinda. I hadn’t seen her in three years, so how was she supposed to know that I’d had a thing with Dennis? Hell, I couldn’t even be mad at Dennis because the last time he and I had spoken in any meaningful way, I’d told him that I was no longer entertaining my crush on him. So why was I surprised to see him dating??? And why had he never taken ME out on a date like this??? And why wasn’t I smitten with Kadillac Kirk who HAD taken me out on a date like this, was an objectively excellent kisser, and a bona fide BALLER? What was wrong with me???
Kirk suggested going down the street to a quaint little bar and then sobering up at a diner closer to my apartment. I numbly nodded and followed him in silence for a few blocks. He assured me that I had “turned several heads” on the way to the new location, but I neither cared nor believed him. This wasn't the type of numbness I'd been aiming for. Now I needed to get schnockered. “Five shots of vodka, please.” Yes, I was serious.
Kadillac Kirk, my reliable designated driver, ordered only a beer and watched in something across between astonishment, concern, and delight as I slammed all five shots in rapid succession. I half expected to immediately retch all over the bar. But I felt fine. I half expected to immediately lose consciousness and wake up in the hospital. But I remained coherent. How I’d managed to take in that much hard liquor and suffer no direct consequences, I’ll never know.
I think I wanted to suffer. I wanted to either feel nothing at all or to feel a sickness bad enough to distract me from the scorching sting that pulsed through my being when I realized that I had lost the abstract notion I’d been addicted to this entire time. Hope. It wasn’t Dennis himself I couldn’t quit. It was that drug called hope. The hope that maybe, just maybe Dennis would give our romance a fair chance. The hope that maybe, just maybe he would make peace with himself, get his mind out of his crotch, and enjoy some agenda-free togetherness. The hope that maybe, just maybe he would stop bloviating about his admittedly impressive accomplishments for five fucking minutes and ask about my life. I had my own reasonably impressive accomplishments, even if they paled in comparison to his. A proper suitor would have enjoyed hearing about them.
But seeing him out with another woman, a woman who had no reason to parade her Dennis escapades before me as some means of revenge, a woman he was clearly courting of his own volition... My hope had died. It died before I’d had time to wean myself off it. Now I had to mourn the loss of hope, which is a very tricky brand of grief to navigate. Vodka wasn’t the answer, but it was what I had to work with. So it would have to do.
After enough time had passed without vomiting or collapsing, I asked Kirk to bring his car around to the bar so that I didn’t have to walk two and a half blocks drunk and in heels. He nodded and dramatically leaned in for a kiss. I recoiled. “DUDE! I told you. The moment has passed.”
Kirk: I beg your pardon. I misread your eyes. Thought I saw a green light...
Me: It’s fine. I just want to go home while I’m still feeling okay.
Kirk: Of course. Your chariot will be here soon.
He skipped off to fetch his Cadillac and I noticed that the lights in the bar were beginning to dance a bit. This should have been concerning. But then I realized that I was giggling. Wait... What? Oh shit. Sure, I was drunk from those shots. But what I was feeling in that moment wasn’t drunkery. It was stonery. Kirk probably misread my face because my pupils were dilated. Not from desire, but from drug use.
Some of you might be thinking that I was a bad friend for not introducing Lucy, an old dude connoisseur, to Kirk. Well... I did. Several years before the events of this story. He adored her. She, on the other hand, thought he was immature. And she wasn’t wrong. Lucy was astute when it came to sussing out a person’s true nature. Far more astute than I. Her initial assessment that Kirk was immature is about to be vindicated. Stretch those cringe muscles! It’s almost time for pie...
I somehow managed to get to his car. I honestly don’t recall how I got there. Did one of the bartenders carry me? Did some kind patron allow me to lean on him? Had Kadillac Kirk carried me out? I’m not sure. But my memory ceases to be fuzzy about halfway to the 24-hour diner. It might have been the very same 24-hour diner where Mary pulled her... shenanigans. I’ll never know.
Kirk: Would you say that you’re more drunk or more stoned?
Me: STONED. Definitely stoned.
Kirk made some sort of grunty noise and reached for my thigh. I slapped his hand.
Kirk: Stoned but not amorous? That’s rare.
I started laughing rather unkindly. “You’re a fucking horndog! I thought you were my safe straight male friend, dammit.”
Kirk: I solemnly swear that your safety is my primary concern, my stoned beauty.
I pretended to throw up.
Kirk: So... You’re not horny. But are you hungry? The diner I’m heading to makes this Maple Walnut Pie with the most sumptuous... sensual cream and exquisite drizzling of...
Me: Ew! Stop trying to bang the pie. Bro. Are YOU stoned? (Then I remembered the question.) Yes, I’m hungry. But I don’t like nuts. I’ll have banana cream.
Kirk made that repulsive grunty noise again. “Uhhhhh... Mmmmmm. Cream. Yessssss. Yes, we’ll be there in just a minute.” He was squirming in the driver's seat.
Me: GROSS, DUDE! If you’re gonna be like that I’ll just order HASH brows. Get it? Hash??? (I giggled uncontrollably.). You can’t make that sound nasty.
Kirk: Forgive my jokes. I think my blood sugar’s a bit low.
As Kirk parked, I began to wonder how I might get away with walking shoeless into the diner. The stilettos had to get off my feet. At least while I was walking. And Kirk was kind enough to give me his socks and wear his loafers “island style” into the establishment. Okay, that was gallant of him. Maybe he was going to behave himself for the rest of the evening.
I wasn’t terribly talkative as we sat down, and he expressed concern for my emotional well-being. I wasn’t coherent enough to explain what was happening to my emotions and I wasn’t sure I trusted him with my deep, dark secrets at that point. So I shrugged like a sulky teenager, ran my hands over my messy, windblown hair, and mumbled that I was “just hungry.” And right on cue, a very kind, slightly older waitress with a sweet southern accent stopped by to take our order.
Kirk: Ah, yes. We’ll have two cups of black coffee. And we’ll share a slice of that delectable Maple Walnut Pie.
Waitress: Oh, honey. That pie is scrumptious! I take it you’ve been here before?
Kirk: I have. This will be her first time to taste the splendor.
I hated to be a killjoy, but I interrupted and said to the waitress, “Ma’am? I’m sure the Maple Walnut is excellent, but could I please get a slice of Banana Cream? And a big glass of ice water?
Waitress: Sure, hon! Banana Cream’s just as yummy! I’ll be right back with those coffees and that big water.
Kirk was sucking on the tip of his forefinger and shaking his head a bit. “You’re passing up so many sensational... sensual...”
I put my forehead on the table and growled. “You swore you’d stop being nasty!” I held this #headdesk pose for quite some time before I finally lifted my head... only to see that Kirk was still sucking his fingertip and staring at me like a wild animal. “Pleeeeeease be normal,” I whined. “It’s been a really weird night for me.”
Kirk: Indeed. Many surprises. You know... You’re like titanium. Your flame burns so fast and so bright, if a guy doesn’t get in there while the iron is hot, he’ll never get another chance. I was too slow.
What the...? I was pretty sure he was wrong about titanium burning quickly. I’m no chemistry wiz, but my dad and my oldest brother are both big-brains when it comes to physics and chemistry. So I picked up some things just listening to them talk. Accurate or inaccurate, Kirk was being creepy again. He’d never been creepy towards me before, although I’d seen him act like this with other women. Usually with staggering success. Why????? His money. It had to be his money. Kirk was a nice-looking man, but holy shit... No amount of good looks could save this creep show.
And then, our sweet waitress sat down our coffees, my water, and the two slices of pie. After I gulped down a whole bunch of water, I grabbed a fork, prepared to quell my munchies... and then I froze. Kirk was quickly flicking his finger back and forth across the top of his pie. And moaning. He noticed my wide-eyed stare, smirked, sucked the tip of his thumb, picked up the plate with both hands, and began flicking his tongue across the tip of the triangular pie slice. And moaning some more. Well, there went my appetite.
Kirk took his middle finger and jabbed it into the crustless vertex of the pie slice, then he began pumping it in and out like a piston, and flicking his thumb across the increasingly demolished top layer of whipped cream. He gasped this time. People were starting to stare. His pointer finger joined his middle finger in the piston action, and he replaced his thumb with his tongue. Between flicks of the tongue, he groaned, “Oh yeah, baby... Let me taste you,” but it was kind of hard to understand him.
And I was either about to run to the back office, tell them that I was in danger and needed a police escort home... OR I was about to burst out laughing at the spectacle. Kirk continued... He removed his fingers and gregariously licked pie filling off of them. And then he started sucking his fingertips again, switching from middle to pointer, middle to pointer and emitting a delighted little, “Mmmmmm” with every suck.
Finally, he jabbed his fingers back into the utterly destroyed pie, lowered his face into the mess and lapped loudly and passionately, moaning, grunting, and mumbling “Come on, baby. Come on. Mmmmmm. Come on.” I could see the waitress and some dude in a suit heading over to the table, so I sank down in my seat, partially covered my face, but continued to watch the train wreck. At last, Kirk shuddered violently, he splatted his entire hand onto the plate and rubbed furiously. And then he locked eyes with me. He sucked the tip of his thumb one final time and said, “You...” There was a long pause during which Kirk lovingly stroked the mess he’d made. “You... are the pie.”
I don’t hang out with Kadillac Kirk anymore. But he’s still a bachelor, ladies!

After Luds comment on his last stream I did a quick Reddit search and found this post from 9yrs ago in sex by U/LudwigAhgren
Note: It was a funny read and definitely in his charming grammar style.
Note 2: Some of things do not work anymore but, a few still do.
“The Ultimate Guide to Shaving Your Pubes for Beginners (Men)
If you have a bush like Brillo^© , or just want to trim up the forrest so others can pass safely, you're in the right place.
I split groin hair into 5 different groups. Below I have listed the difficulty of each area as well as what kind of shave each area shall receive.
This is what we want the end product to look like. (His pubes look like the mustache of almighty Zeus himself!)

Pubic Hair	Ball Hair	Taint/Gooch Hair	High Thigh Hair	Shaft Hair
Easiest to shave. Needs to be trimmed down (No new-born baby penis look)	Scariest/Most Difficult to shave. This will be a clean shave.	Moderate difficulty. Up to shaver, but I prefer a clean shave.	Easy to shave. This will be a clean shave.	Nicks can happen here easily. This will be a clean shave.

Tools Needed: Shaving cream (MUST - Practice before which shaving cream works best! Sometimes Conditioner can work better),
electric razor (The side that pops out I will refer to as buzzer and the side with the guard I will refer to as electric razor from here on out)
A Women’s! shaving razor (women’s razors have a much higher guard and will protect better than one for men.
 
*PLEASE BE PREPARED!* I mean it’s your balls we’re talking about here…
 
Step 1: The first step will be to shave the pubic hair. Depending on how much hair is down there, you have the option to go at it with scissors like a harbor before throwing the buzzer down there. If you have an average amount (2”>x) then go at it with the buzzer. Hover your family jewels over the toilet, you may even choose to sit like a cool substitute teacher. Brush the square side of the buzzer backwards across your pubes vertically. It may seem as if it isn’t doing anything but trust me you’re losing hair faster than LeBraun James. Continue this until you deem it short enough, I like my pubes around 1/2”.
Note Make sure the pubes length is even throughout, focusing on areas that with longer hair to insure optimum symmetry, bitches love symmetry. Use a mirror!
 
Step 2: Now you’ll want to ‘square’ out your hair and completely shave off any outliers around your pubes. Perhaps you have a leaky happy trail? Or maybe your pubes are ‘fading’ in. Either way you’ll want this instead of this (not penis don’t fret) Use a mirror to make sure it’s not lopsided.
 
Step 3: Here we are going to tackle that upper thigh hair that encompasses the whole male crotch area. Now get all nakey if you aren’t already and hop in that shower. Make sure the water is warm because you’re going to be in there for a while. Whip out you’re shaving cream of choice, I use this because it makes the blade glide across my nuts (phrase of the day!). To be fair I am more metrosexual than most gay men. Anyway(!) lather that shaving cream on to you’re upper thigh, above the pubes and right around the taint (make sure the water isn’t washing it all away) and start shaving those areas. The shaving razor will insure that these areas are hair-free.
Note Make sure the blade follows the surface of the skin. You want max blade to skin contact.
 
Step 4: Here’s my favorite part. Shaving the shaft. Why is it my favorite? It adds an inch to your perceived dick length (now your dick will look like it’s an inch long^rekt. Extend your dick by pulling out your head. It will give a similar surface on the base of the dick to an erect penis. Now with the shaving cream and razor, shave the front part of the base, while always making sure the base is flat. Then do each side, trying your best to make the area being shaved flat. A flat area not only allows the razor to get more hair, it also prevents little nicks that can occur. I’ll refer back to Davidfor how far down the base you should shave.
Note If you look at the pic of David, you’ll notice he shaved the area to the right and left of his penis. That is totally you’re call, I have no opinion I find both to by stylish in their own penis way.
 
Step 5: The balls. AKA Holyshitiamsoscarediamgoingtochopmynutsoff. You may be tempted to skip this part, but trust me, hairy balls do not look good when the rest has been shaved. If you start this, you must to finish it. You are the chosen one. You are supposed to bring balance to your pubes, not leave them in darkness! Do it for the (potential) children.
Back to the balls. We’re going to first start with the outside balls. To do this get in your best captain stance which creates a nice U shape between your thigh and outer left/right ball. This is the kind of U Brett Farve has been talking about. Now, using that handy shaving cream and razor, this should be quite easy. Gently go up that are and always going along the grain. Don’t switch up directions here, that’s too ballsy.
After that’s done we’re going to drift away from the pubes for just a bit. Throw some shaving cream on the taint (this is the area that prevents you from shitting on your balls) and you’ll want to shave from your asshole to the base of your balls. Always going in that direction. IMPORTANT If you touch your taint (ew you’re gross) you’ll notice there is a line. Kind of feels like hair running from your asshole to your balls. It’s actually a vein that controls your orgasms. DO NOT SHAVE ON THIS VEIN Shave to the left and right of it. Don’t go directly on it. I don’t think anything will happen if you do… but better safe than orgasmless.
 
Step 6: Back to the balls and the last part of the shaving in the shower. This part is difficult and to be honest I’m not sure of the best way to approach this. Balls are weird and that they have no fucking shape and 2 million wrinkles. I like to first take my electric razor and use the buzzer part of it. Then I just air swipe my balls getting all the hair about 1/4” short. Then I take the shaving cream and focus on specific parts squeezing my balls to get maximum surface area. This seems to work out for me, but keeping it 1/4 of an inch isn’t that big of a deal. Hair that short is difficult to notice and ladies/men will still suck your nuts.
Note Loosen up before shaving your balls. Take deep breaths and relax. Make sure your asshole isn’t clenched because that raises your balls. And if you’re down there shaving with a clenched asshole, and for any reason your asshole unclenches, you’re balls will drop (again) and hell will break loose. It is better to shave them while they are low and have them clench upwards.
 
Step 7: Clean up all the pubes off of your body. This is no simple task. Water is an adhesive so you’ll have to detach the shower head and put that all up in your business. I like to turn on the bath and use that heavy rush of water to cleanse my body of those clingy cutoff pubes. Hop out the shower, dry off and look at your masterpiece Michelangelo. But you are not done yet!
 
Step 8: Similar to barbers, you will have missed a few hair and you’ll probably have a few 2 inch hairs amongst you’re gently coiffed pubes. Grab a pair of nail scissors or whatever tool you prefer and chop those suckers off. The majority will be on your balls. A fun thing I like to do that is totally fucking weird, is pulling long pubes on my balls and plucking them off. It is surprisingly easy to do so because of the loose ball skin. Don’t yank it out like a band-aid though or you’ll need a band-aid (Ha Ha.. I’m not funny)
 
Voila, you’re done. Get some aftershave on those freshly shaven balls to disinfect your nicks and make those meaty knockers smell like a man. Congratulations and I hope I was of some help!
 
Edit 1: Let't talk about asshole hair, (what a great conversation start^{furiouslyjotsdown)} that area can be shaved and it can look/feel good! But personally, I like to keep my Brown Eye of Sauron to myself. No traveller has dared venture down so I feel no need to shave.
Edit 2: One of my ball shaving colleagues has alerted me that the 'taint vein' is actually, "[A] scar, from where the skin fuses before birth and is called the perineal raphe." (Google it for some nice visuals)
 
Thank you all for the great response! Being on the front page of sex is something all my future employers will be impressed by. I recently shaved and I seriously mistook my junk for King David's jewels (obviously he is miles bigger) and I thought I'd right down exactly what I did.”