• Alaska Airlines asked a District Court to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a group trying to block the airline's takeover of Hawaiian Airlines.
• In the motion to dismiss, Alaska's lawyers claim the lawsuit is being brought by a group of ‘serial litigants’ who have no connection to Alaska or Hawaiian Airlines but who have a history of filing similar unsuccessful lawsuits against airline mergers.
• The group suing describes themselves as airline passengers and former travel agents,.
  • The 8 named litigants in the lawsuit argue in a 52-page complaint that the merger will eliminate competition for flights to and from Hawaii and lead to higher airfares for cash-strapped consumers.

​
https://www.paddleyourownkanoo.com/2024/05/18/alaska-airlines-seeks-to-dismiss-lawsuit-brought-by-serial-litigants-aimed-at-blocking-takeover-of-hawaiian-airlines/

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPRK8qxr4/

There seems to be people believing Terrence Howard that he owns patents, or worse that a patent is proof of anything. I will debunk the former below, as for the latter, I encourage those to consider peer reviewed publications as patents are simply legal documents quite often invalidated in Court.
Quick patent 101: A patent is an exchange wherein a country or jurisdiction (i.e., the EU) provides a monopoly to an inventor who discloses their invention to the public. The incentive for inventors is the monopoly; the incentive for the government is that the disclosure of the invention is intended to further and better innovation.
Patents are jurisdictional. You have to apply in each jurisdiction where you want a patent. If you want a patent in the US, then the USPTO must grant you a letters patent. Each jurisdiction will have its own requirements for a patent, but generally speaking, the invention must be patentable subject matter, novel, non-obvious, and useful. The patent must also properly instruct the public on how to use the invention. There are other formalities, but those are the overarching principles of patent law in most jurisdictions. These requirements must be met to obtain a patent.
Anyone can apply for a patent claiming anything. The patent application is published after a certain waiting period, generally 18 months. This patent publication is NOT a patent; it is a record and publication of the application. Until a patent office grants you a patent, you do not have a monopoly.
The patent office will then examine the patent application and either issue the granted patent on the first pass or issue an office action. An office action is the examiner’s critique of the patent. For example, the examiner may say the invention lacks novelty or utility. The applicant then has an opportunity to argue and convince the examiner they are incorrect, or amend the application so that it no longer lacks novelty or utility. Until the examiner approves the application, it remains an application – not a patent.
If the applicant fails to convince the examiner or amend the application accordingly, the patent office may issue a final rejection. If the applicant fails to respond to the office action, the application is deemed abandoned. In both scenarios, no patent is granted. It was just an application made to a patent office; that application was published, and no patent was granted. Conversely, if the applicant responds and overcomes the objections, the examiner will approve the application, and the patent office will issue a patent.

Okay, now that that is out of the way, what patents is Terrence Howard talking about?
Search patents.google.com for Terrence Howard as the inventor. The results will show someone by the name of Terrence Dashon Howard who applied for three patents:
In 2009, an application for “Diamond jewelry”.
In 2010, an application for a “Diamond earring with washer”.
In 2010, an application for a “System and method for merging virtual reality and reality to provide an enhanced sensory experience”.
First, note that these hyperlinks go to patent application publications. These are not patents. This is the application that Terrence Howard submitted.
Second, all three applications were abandoned for failure to respond to office actions. All three applications failed to meet the USPTO’s requirements for a patent. I note that his representative attempted to respond to the office actions regarding the jewelry applications but ultimately failed to succeed. The VR patent was subject to a lengthy office action, and he failed to respond to that single office action. His attorney also withdrew, which should rarely occur. I would surmise he was not responding to the attorney, and/or paying fees. This information is public and available from the USPTO's Patent Center.
Unsurprising to no one, no patent has ever been issued to Terrence Howard.
In conclusion, Terrence Howard applied for three patents in the US only, and each application failed to result in a patent. He has zero patents.

From The Guardian ("There is a way out of the Assange legal quagmire – the US should drop the case"):

The UK high court decision granting WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange leave to appeal against his extradition shows just how far America has fallen when it comes to freedom of the press.
Assange faces 18 felony charges in the United States, including 17 under the Espionage Act, based on WikiLeaks’ 2010 publication of US state department cables and Iraq and Afghanistan war logs provided by the whistleblower Chelsea Manning.
Press freedom advocates, including at our organization Freedom of the Press Foundation, have repeatedly decried the Espionage Act charges against Assange as posing a grave threat to press freedom. So have law professors, lawmakers and the world’s leading newspapers.
Nonetheless, the high court gave the US every opportunity to secure Assange’s extradition, essentially telling the US what assurances it must provide to ensure the court would rule against Assange.
But the US couldn’t satisfy even that low bar. In the latest ruling, two justices of the high court said they weren’t convinced that the first amendment would protect Assange at trial.

Assange has spent "the last five years, locked down for 23 hours each day in a three-metre by two-metre cell, unconvicted of any charges". That's punishment enough (the US said he's likely to only serve 4-6 years if convicted) and the US created the example they needed.
It's time to drop the case.

So basically the title.
I just returned back to Wisconsin and waiting was a letter saying i was found in contempt of court and issued a 500 fine for missing jury duty and not responding to the letters.
well i live in thailand 6 months out of the year. all my mail is on hold, etc.
I called the number to speak to the clerk but she was no help saying very shortly i'm still responsible for it.
is there any recourse at this point? or just pay?

Can I change my judge for making statements in court about how much she loves football? My child father didn’t show in court. Has shown little to no interest in the court proceedings or the child. I provided evidence showing during my pregnancy he intentionally would harass me in hopes of me having miscarriage. After the pregnancy was inconsistent, would intimidate me, use his financial means as leverage, and my issues with PPD as a way of preventing me from seeking legal action. Has stated many times that he wants nothing to do with the child. Does not pay child support. Made statements to the child such as “ your mother is bum” “ doesn’t deserve your respect” “spit on her” “punch her in the head”. The judge granted him visitation where I have to fly to him and pick up the child. I filed a TRO and was declined. I explain to the judge that I financially could not afford to fly and pick up my child. And that I made several attempts to establish visitation on my own all which he and he’s family declined. I cover ALL of the child’s expenses and daycare. The orders are in place for next month and I’m still waiting on the county to fill for support. By the time the county gets their orders and I get support. I feel like I will be in contempt of court for not hearing to the visitation schedule. I honestly regret going to court because I’m still in situation where I’m being harassed and degraded. This whole situation makes it seem easier to just give up my rights to escape the mental abuse. I cannot afford a lawyer. I filed bankruptcy moved in with a friend. Just so I can provide for the child. After all the bills and the child needs have my been meet. I’m left with less than $200 a month.

I was prompted to post my response here, as it was too large to fit in a comment. This was meant to be a response to this post of u/Radical_Libertarian. To give some context, here is the original post:
"When I was first exposed to Jordan Peterson’s arguments, back around 2019 or so, I noticed an apparent contradiction in the conservative worldview.
Conservatives tend to hold two mutually exclusive beliefs on human nature simultaneously.
First, they believe that human behaviour is fixed and unchanging.
As a consequence of our static human nature, social hierarchies and such are simply inevitable.
But conservatives also usually believe in free will.
They value self-improvement and personal responsibility very highly.
This doesn’t seem to make much sense.
If human nature is fixed and unchanging, then how can we have any free will, or be able to improve ourselves?
Apart from extreme far-right outliers such as incels who hold to a strict deterministic viewpoint, the vast majority of right-wingers seem to have an incoherent philosophy.
I’ve never gotten a satisfying explanation from the conservative side on how one can reconcile a fixed human nature with free will."
And here is my response (reddit fucks up formatting so I hope it is readable):
This was a very compelling post. I am not a conservative, but I think you misconstrue their points somewhat, and for that I will split my answer in two parts, one regarding your hypothetical and one regarding weaker versions of the argument that nonetheless I believe are proposed more often.
Part 1: Non-hierarchical societies are (literally) impossible
Let's try to build a self consistent system assuming the stronger version of the argument. I will start with an analogy:
Let's assume a physical hierarchy, measuring how much weight any given person can squat, and let's assume infinite measuring precision. Since it's literally physically impossible for two people to squat exactly the same weight (and in any case it's impossible for all of them to squat the same weight, for the hierarchy to desolve completely), this hierarchy will always exist. However an individual person with free will can get stronger, and climb the hierarchy. In fact all of humanity can choose to get stronger, and the hierarchy will still exist, perhaps sometimes unchanged. Many of the right wing social media talking points assert hierarchies and then instruct the viewer to attempt to become better, and either outright say or imply that this improvement is to help climb the hierarchy (although this of course usually refers to a much more vague and abstract hierarchy than a weight lifting competition).
Let's simulate a right wing axiomatic system for human nature:
Assumption 1:Humans order themselves in hierarchies
Assumption 2:It is beneficial to be higher in the hierarchy
Assumption 3: (Male) Humans have an inherent urge to be competitive for resources (Male added for extra alt right spice)
Assumption 4 : Humans prefer comfort from discomfort, and will choose it unless it is demonstrated that suffering that discomfort is substantially beneficial.
Ergo:
1)Hierarchies are inevitable
2) It is of value to yell in a camera "GET UP AND DO 10 PUSHUPS OR YOU WILL BE FAT AND LAZY" because this demonstrates/reminds the viewer of the advantages of discomfort and disadvantages of comfort, to influence them to follow their compatible nature and try to climb the hierarchy.
This is not a contradictory system. While axioms 2 and 3 might seem so, even very lazy or contempt people are occasionally competitive (wanting to win games etc) and on the flipside generally competitive people may become content after some level of success.
Pursuing improvement may also be independent of climbing a hierarchy, for example everyone becoming stronger will not change placements in the hierarchy but will improve everyone's ability to equal weight (which we have declared as good).
However a lot of the clash in this point derives from your use of the term "free will", which is very hard (if not impossible) to actually define. Can free will be bounded by rules for example? If I can make all choices non-deterministicaly, except from the choice to eat shit, which I will deterministically refuse to do, do I have free will? This is essentially the contradiction within the right wing worldview you propose.
However when most people talk about human nature, they refer to urges, which is what I will analyze in part 2. (Note, literally any behavior system can be explained in a super-deterministic system in which no free will exists, at which point a gymbro will just yell at a camera because he was always going to do that, but I don't think analysis on this is necessary).
Part 2: Arguments against the existence of non-hierarchical societies. These are arguments against hierarchical societies that most conservatives, liberals, (and even some socialists, in practice) propose.
Argument 1: A non-hierarchical society is not literally impossible, but practically impossible.
Assumption 0: Humans have a very strong urge to organize in hierarchies (with usually some analysis behind it based on other assumptions but we will take it as face value).
Assumption 1: This urge is so strong that the chance someone doesn't follow it is very low. However due to free will some people may not follow that urge (or at least claim not to)
Assumption 2: A non-hierarchical society requires most members don't follow that urge
Ergo:
It is highly unlikely that a non-hierarchical society would exist and therefore it can be referred to as practically impossible. This is the same as saying that it is impossible for all babies born from today to be two-headed. It is not technically impossible, since two headed babies have been born, however the probability is so infetesimal it can very well be called impossible. We could also wake up as a hivemind tomorrow and build whatever society we want, but you couldn't blame me for calling it impossible. The validity of this point obviously depends on how strong the urge is and how improbable it is for someone not to follow it, but you didn't ask for a valid argument, but rather a logically consistent one.
This results in the conclusion: "A non-hierarchical society is (practically) Impossible"
A similar analysis can be done for your "humans follow leaders" point:
1)Humans have a strong urge to follow leaders
2) Most humans will follow leaders, following that urge
3)Some exceptional humans may not follow it and become leaders instead
Ergo
It is of value to yell at you to go to the gym because that may push you towards becoming one of these exceptional humans that becomes a leader.
Argument 2: Non-hierarchical societies are inherently unstable
Assumption 1: Hierarchical societies are usually more efficient than Non-hierarchical ones (this can be justified through various arguments, but I will just leave it as an assumption that most conservatives and in fact most people regardless of ideology, make)
Assumption 2: A person in a non-hierarchical society may choose to create a hierarchical structure (because of self interest, any other factor, or just because, due to free will)
Assumption 3: Any number of people may choose to join that structure (due to self interest, for any other factor, or due to free will.)
Assumption 4: The leader(ship organization) of the hierarchical structure may choose to impose itself on the non-hierarchical structure, and may even destroy it.
For example, let's assume that someone in a non-hierarchical society chooses to become a thief and build a gang, to enrich themselves. Other people may join the gang, because while they will not get as much money as the leader, they will still be at a better situation than the average person, or the people that are stolen from. This gang's hierarchy has access to more tools than the non-hierarchical society (such as centralised decision making, the ability to coerce it's members to do things, etc) and thus has an advantage over the society, which it obviously chooses to impose itself on.
Ergo
A non-hierarchical society cannot exist in a sustainable long term manner because hierarchical societal structures will inevitably emerge within them, and they will be stronger and able to enforce themselves, destroying the non-hierarchical society. This can be argued to be what happened with the first organized large scale monarchies imposing themselves and succeeding over more loosely organized tribes.
The addition of Assumption 0 (Humans have a *very* strong urge to organize in hierarchies) makes the inevitability argument even more compelling, as extra reasons as to why humans would join a hierarchical structure. A permutation of the argument is that the existence of a non-hierarchical society in a world with already existing hierarchical ones is impossible, because they will impose themselves.
This results in the statement:"(Long-term stable) Non-hierarchical societies are impossible, (even if a non-hierarchical society was to emerge in the first place)".
Sometimes an extra assumption is added:
Assumption 5: A post-non-hierarchy imposing hierarchical structure will be stricter, more restrictive and generally worse than the current one (for example because it will probably impose itself through violence and being some variation of a band of warlords). This further promotes the point as to a Non-hierarchical organizational structures being a bad idea, and is sometimes used by liberals.
In general, not only the right, but most political ideologies have to deal with using hierarchies in some form. Fascists promote hierarchies as they see it as a way to select the pure and best ones and the broad range from Conservatives to Centrists to Liberals see hierarchies as something between a fact of life and a necessary evil for societal structure. Despite the theoretical long term goal of a hierarchyless society, most socialists in practice create hierarchies, usually under vanguardism. This is usually justified by a variation of the above arguments, that a hierarchical structure is needed until it progresses society enough to where most people overcome the hierarchical urge while also having eliminated all outside hierarchical societies (the former is meant to eliminate the inside emergence of hierarchies while the latter the imposition of outside ones). Some progressive organizations may be truly hierarchyless, but do not often attempt anything even close to actually organizing a government structure, and often informal social hierarchies within them emerge. Lastly anarchists truly do in most cases stick to their guns and the few examples of their organization we have are the best approximation we have of a hierarchyless society, however even then they had to make concessions and form hierarchical structures (the black army had commanders, even if they were elected, and while in theory it was based on voluntary enlistment, in practice conscription was often used). Also, all anarchist states were eventually crushed by other hierarchical societies (although there is a current ongoing attempt at a quasi-anarchist libertarian government structure in Rojava).

“Talented and well-practiced in every vice, a stranger to compassion or empathy, a liar and a cheat so complete in perfidy that he has elevated his dishonesty to hold it up as an ersatz moral principle. Violent, so long as he can order someone else to do the dirty work. Grotesque in body, graceless in action, in possession of a wounded self-regard so colossal as to smother any spark of grace.Treasonous, not only to country, but to every ally he has ever had, the poisoned fruit and rankest flower of racism and contempt for women, and utterly devoid of shame for his moral and spiritual bankruptcy.
That is your leader.
That is to whom you give your money. That is who you follow and laud. That is whose banner you willingly carry. Why? Because he is a mirror, not a lighthouse. You see yourselves in him. He is what you would be, if you had inherited money and could shed the last vestiges of conscience and shame. No, I do not “respect your choices,” nor do I admire your loyalty and dedication to this miserific, demoniac vision. You have demonstrated not only a lack of civic virtue, loyalty to the Republic and to the rule of law, but a willingness to engage in violence and sedition at his slightest expressed wish. And you will never, ever admit you were wrong. Because you see your dark, twisted, resentful dreams in him. And to renounce him is to renounce yourselves.”~ Kit Thornton

Motion to amend the Gender Recognition Act 2004

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

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

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

THE HARMONY OF ENERGY
Abstract
Introducing the "Harmony of Energy" (HoE) model, a novel formalism that posits the universe operates according to a fundamental pattern. This pattern consists of energy, defined as the smallest unit anything can be, existing as a fluid form in space, interacting with its environment through a specific method or structure, and then moving out of that space. Space, in turn, is the dynamic environment that energy occupies and moves through, filling it with positive and negative energy that affects its properties and behavior. According to the HoE model, energy moves into space, reacts to its environment, and then moves out of that space, with no time limit for how long it takes to react. This pattern is universal, applying to all aspects of the universe, and nothing escapes it.
The Origin of the Universe
The HoE model posits that the universe began as a singular entity, containing all forms of energy as one unified energy. This singularity can be represented mathematically as: U = ∫∫∫E(x,y,z)dxdydz, where U is the total energy of the universe, E is the energy density, and x, y, z are the spatial coordinates.
As the singularity expanded, the unified energy converted into distinct positive and negative energies. Positive energy is a high-frequency, high-information-potential state that retains its unique signature and individual form, capable of producing heat and maintaining its distinct properties. Negative energy is a low-frequency, low-information-potential state that loses its unique signature and individual form, characterized by a pulling force and a tendency to condense and simplify.
Initially, the universe moved in a straight line, with energy compact and cold. However, this linear movement resulted in a direct head-on collision with the void, a solid structure that hindered its passage.
This collision led to a limitation and subsequent conversion of energy, transforming it from a linear motion to a wave-like motion. The new wave motion created heat and allowed energy to break the pattern of "follow the leader" and collide with the void at an angle, shattering its edge into pieces.
This process of fragmentation can be described by the equation: F(θ) = Σ[nEⁿ * sin(nθ)], where F is the fragmentation function, θ is the angle of collision, n is an integer, and E is the energy density. For reasons yet unknown, possibly due to the singularity's energy reaching its final place or a transformation driven by cosmic "boredom," this conversion occurred, giving rise to the diverse universe we observe today.
The Void and the Ultimate Negative
Outside of the expanding universe lies the void, a region devoid of energy and matter, existing in a state of complete stillness and stationarity. This void represents the ultimate negative, a state of complete absence and zero energy density, unchanging and unyielding. As a whole, it exerts a compressive force on the expanding universe, potentially leading to contraction and eventual return to the singularity. This dynamic interplay between the universe and the void can be described by the equation: F = -G * (M * m) / r² where F represents the force, G represents the gravitational constant, M and m represent the masses, and r represents the distance between them. The void's stationary and unchanging nature, lacking any internal rotation or energy, makes it inhospitable to life as we know it.
Magnetism and Attraction: A Shift in Perspective
Initially, I viewed magnetism through the conventional lens, seeing it as a fundamental force of attraction between positive and negative entities. However, as my understanding evolved, I came to realize that magnetism operates under a different principle. Positive and negative entities are not attracted to each other; instead, they represent the intrinsic structure of things. The true nature of attraction is frequency-based, with entities drawn to higher vibrations and shorter wavelengths. This phenomenon can be described by the following equations:
F = ∫∫(μ₁⋅μ₂)/(4πr²⁾ dt dt (1)
where F is the force of attraction, μ₁ and μ₂ are the magnetic moments of the entities, r is the distance between them, and the integral is taken over time.
Additionally, the frequency-based attraction can be represented by:
f = γB (2)
where f is the frequency, γ is the gyromagnetic ratio, and B is the magnetic field strength.
Furthermore, the smaller wave's faster movement can be expressed as:
v = λf (3)
where v is the velocity, λ is the wavelength, and f is the frequency.
Energy and its Properties
Energy is the fundamental unit of everything. Energy can be thought of as an individual entity with an electrical signature vibrating at a specific frequency, carrying information from its originating source. If we were to dissect a piece of energy, we would find its genetic makeup consists of various parts, similar to binary code. One constant aspect of energy in our universe is the signature of this universe, which is present in all forms of energy, whether positive or negative. This underlying frequency distinguishes energy from our universe versus parallel universes.
Positive Energy (PE): - Oscillates through space with a frequency (f) and wavelength (λ): PE = f × λ - Exhibits wave-like behavior: PE(x,t) = A × sin(kx - ωt)
Negative Energy (NE): - Vibrates at a slower frequency (f'/2): NE = (f'/2) × λ' - Exhibits a slower, more stable behavior: NE(x,t) = B × cos(k'x - ω't)
Energy Interactions and Signature Changes
When positive and negative energies interact, their unique signatures can become altered. As energies combine, their signatures merge, releasing redundant information about the universe signature and creating an opening for new information to be stored. This process enables efficient storage and transmission of energy signatures, allowing for:

• Signature refinement and evolution
• Information exchange and updating
• Adaptation to changing environments and conditions

This process could be crucial for understanding how energy signatures evolve and adapt, and how they influence the behavior and properties of energy in various contexts.
The Formation and Evolution of the Universe
Initial Energy Interactions
In the beginning, a vast amount of fluid energy quickly interacted with the largest newly created pieces of the void, described by the wave-particle duality equation (E = hf = ℏω).
Star Formation and Signatures
As these interactions occurred, the largest of the solid structures of the universe began to form, stars, governed by the Lane-Emden equation (d^2P/dr2 + (2/r)(dP/dr) + (4πG/c^2)P = 0). Each new star held with it an old habit divulged from the singularity, a universal frequency (f = 1/T = ω/2π, where T is the period of oscillation and ω is the angular frequency). Old habits die hard, so each new star offered its own diverse and unique signature (S = Σf = ∫ψ(x)² dx, where ψ(x) is the wave function and x represents the position).
Energy Collisions and Prime Numbers
As structures formed, a group of energy travels through space with an even number of internal parts (E = 2nℏ, where n is an integer and ℏ is the reduced Planck constant). This group collides with another group of energy with an odd amount of internal parts (E = (2n + 1)ℏ), and the total sum of the newly combined group equals a prime number (P = E1 + E2 = 2nℏ + (2m + 1)ℏ, where m is an integer). New Equation: Prime Number Formation (P = E1 + E2 = 2nℏ + (2m + 1)ℏ)
Schrödinger Equation and Physical Reality
The prime number is crucial, as the extra piece gets stuck in the space it is occupying, acting as an anchor, attracting other parts to breach their negative shell and combine as one, described by the Schrödinger equation (iℏ(∂ψ/∂t) = Hψ). This converts the fluid energy to be contained into the space it is in, which is broken pieces of the void that do not have a universal size, and gives us physical reality, forming particles with diverse unique signatures (S = Σf = ∫ψ(x)² dx).
Refining Space and Transferring Signatures
As energy continued to interact with space, it further refined and shaped that space into a sphere (V = (4/3)πr^3, where r is the radius), adding the discarded portions of size to the diverse field that is the universe. During this refinement, energy was transferred to these pieces, and the signature of the star was embedded in them, forming the galaxy clusters and solar systems we know today.
Smooth Surfaces and Celestial Bodies
As any piece of something breaks, its edges are rigid, and the interaction of energy against this rigid surface knocks off the rough edges, providing a smooth surface (E = Δx/Δt = ℏ/Δx, where Δx is the change in position and Δt is the change in time). New Equation: Smooth Surface Formation (E = Δx/Δt = ℏ/Δx)
The pieces that were knocked off still contain a portion of energy that put in the work to knock it off, and this process contributed to the formation of celestial bodies and the transfer of signatures. This, in turn, led to the creation of galaxies, planets, and other celestial bodies, each with their unique characteristics and properties, shaping the diverse and complex universe we observe today.
The Cartwheel Structure and Energy Movement
The cartwheel structure represents the dynamic movement of energy in the universe, with its rotating wheel and radiating arms symbolizing the harmonious interaction of positive and negative energies. When creation occurred, energy learned how to pass through stationary space (the void) by changing its movement pattern from a straight line to a wave (λ = v/f, where λ is wavelength, v is velocity, and f is frequency). This new wave movement allowed energy to create heat (Q = mcΔT, where Q is heat, m is mass, c is specific heat capacity, and ΔT is temperature change), which was the tool that gave energy the ability to "shatter" the void and interact with the broken pieces to perform a new movement, the cartwheel. As energy moves through space, it rarefies and decreases in temperature (T = k-B, where T is temperature, k is Boltzmann's constant, and B is the energy density), causing it to slow down and change frequency (f = ΔE/h, where f is frequency, ΔE is the energy change, and h is Planck's constant).
The Block and Cartwheeling Bar Analogy
The block and cartwheeling bar analogy provides a conceptual framework for understanding the dynamic interaction of energy in the universe. Imagine a box (representing space) containing blocks of varying sizes, each symbolizing a specific energy frequency (f = 1/T, where f is frequency and T is time). The cartwheeling bar, rotating within the box, represents the harmonious movement of energy between its positive (E+) and negative (E-) forms. Each block must be 100% filled, with positive and negative energy proportions varying as the bar rotates. For example, when positive energy occupies 99% of a block and negative energy occupies 1%, the rotation of the bar causes a gradual shift, resulting in a change to 98% positive and 2% negative, and so on. This constant interaction and adjustment maintain the balance of energy in the universe.
Fundamental Forces Explained

• Strong Force: The repulsion from negative electrons being attracted to and pressing against the nucleus. This force can be described by the equation: F = k * (q1 * q2) / r²
  
• Weak Force: The outgoing frequency created by the positive nucleus, similar to energy congregating at the sun's nucleus, reacting to its environment, and breaking down before leaving (possibly as radioactive decay). This force can be described by the equation: F = (G * m1 * m2) / r²
  
• Gravity: Exists between the outer negative sphere of electrons exerting a pushing force against the positive pushing force of the nucleus, similar to the solar system's dynamics. This force can be described by the equation: F = (G * m1 * m2) / r²
  
• Electromagnetism: Energy in action, manifesting as the dynamic interplay between electric and magnetic forces. This force can be described by the equations: E = f * λ and B = (E / c)
  

Present State of the Universe
The universe currently exists in a state of dynamic equilibrium, with observable patterns and structures perpetually renewing themselves through the interactions of energy (E = hf, where E is energy and h is Planck's constant). This self-sustaining cycle is evident in the formation and evolution of celestial bodies, galaxies, and other cosmic entities, governed by the laws of thermodynamics (ΔE = Q - W, where ΔE is the change in energy, Q is the heat added, and W is the work done). The universe's present state is characterized by the harmonious coexistence of diverse energy frequencies (f = 1/T, where f is frequency and T is time), which govern the behavior and properties of matter at various scales. This balance is maintained through the continuous conversion of energy between its positive (E+) and negative (E-) forms, allowing the universe to adapt and evolve in response to internal and external influences (E+ + E- = 0, representing the conservation of energy)."
Entropy and the Conversion of Positive to Negative
The physical dimensions of positive and negative energy in a block are equal, with 1% negative energy occupying the same space as 99% positive energy. This equality stems from the different speeds of energy and their individual properties. When negative energy is at 1%, it has condensed the equivalent of 99% positive energy into a single, compact form (E = hf, where E is energy, h is Planck's constant, and f is frequency). As the proportions shift, such as 60% positive and 40% negative, the space occupied remains a 50/50 split. This is because positive energy travels at the speed of light (c = λν, where c is the speed of light, λ is wavelength, and ν is frequency), while negative energy moves at a pace relative to terminal velocity (v = √(2gl), where v is velocity, g is acceleration due to gravity, and l is length). Each form dominates at the 50% mark (T = λ/v, where T is time, λ is wavelength, and v is velocity). The percentages represent available positive energy, while the cartwheel symbolizes space or the ultimate negative in motion, influenced by energy's presence. Negative energy, with its depleted charge, occupies space that needs to be filled and recycled into a positive state. At higher percentages, collisions with negative energy slow down the flow, similar to the concept of crab mentality, where negative energy draws down the percentages.
Energy Dynamics and Galactic Harmony
The 50% Threshold
The 50% mark is a critical threshold that distinguishes between positive and negative energy. Above 50%, energy is considered positive and can produce heat beyond its negative shell. Below 50%, energy is considered negative and cannot produce heat past this shell.
Compressed Positive Energy
When the percentage of positive energy drops below 50%, it becomes compressed and can exceed the speed of light (c = λν, where c is the speed of light, λ is wavelength, and ν is frequency). This allows it to navigate through the "cracks" of negative energy:
v > c (where v is velocity and c is the speed of light)
Quantum Mirroring
Alternatively, the positive energy can align with the negative energy, resulting in a quantum mirroring effect. This enables instantaneous information transfer between entangled particles, regardless of distance:
E = hf (where E is energy, h is Planck's constant, and f is frequency)
Retaining Frequency Signatures
In this alignment, the negative energy retains its unique frequency signature to avoid interacting with other signatures:
Δx * Δp >= h/4π (where Δx is position uncertainty, Δp is momentum uncertainty, and h is Planck's constant)
The Cavendish Experiment and Energy Interaction
The Cavendish experiment, a groundbreaking study on gravity, offers an intriguing analogy for understanding energy interaction with space. Imagine the suspended spheres as representative of space itself, devoid of energy. When energy interacts with this motionless space, it's as if the spheres begin to rotate, symbolizing the introduction of energy into the internal area of space.
As energy engages with space, it's gradually consumed, much like the reduction of energy in the Cavendish experiment. This process can be described by the equation:
G = (2πLθ) / (MT)
Where G is the gravitational constant, L is the length of the torsion wire, θ is the twist angle of the wire, M is the mass of the lead spheres, and T is the time period of oscillation.
This equation, derived from the Cavendish experiment, reveals the intricate relationship between energy, space, and gravity. By exploring this analogy, we can deepen our understanding of how energy shapes the very fabric of our universe.
Energy Absorption and Frequency
Energy absorption occurs when energy slows down, allowing it to be perceived and observed. This process involves energy being absorbed by an atom and reflecting what was not absorbed. As energy slows down, it can still be observed as a wave, but just before it becomes a particle. This phenomenon is fascinating, as it reveals the transition from wave-like to particle-like behavior.
The conversion of positive to negative states is due to positives' ability to produce heat and maintain an individual form. Negative energy, on the other hand, does not produce heat and lacks an individual form, instead traveling at a pace relative to terminal velocity. This process can be described by the quantum mechanical formula: ℏω = ΔE = hf, where ℏ is the reduced Planck constant, ω is the angular frequency, ΔE is the change in energy, h is Planck's constant, and f is the frequency of the energy.
Furthermore, the frequency of the energy can be related to the velocity of the particle using the formula: f = (1/2π) * √(k/m), where k is the spring constant and m is the mass of the particle. Additionally, the energy absorption rate can be calculated using the formula: dE/dt = (2π/h) * V_uv² * δ(E_u - E_v), where V_uv is the transition matrix element, E_u and E_v are the energies of the initial and final states, and δ is the Dirac delta function.
The Conversion of Positive to Negative States and Planetary Motion
The conversion of positive to negative energy states is rooted in their distinct properties. Positive energy produces heat and maintains an individual form, whereas negative energy lacks heat and an individual form, instead traveling at a pace relative to terminal velocity. This process is reversible, as seen in fusion reactions, or can be influenced by external forces like microwave ovens.
In the context of our solar system, the sun's positive energy release generates heat and propels planets into their orbital tracks. Conversely, the incoming energy from the universe, considered negative, is cold and stabilizes planets in their tracks. Initially, I focused solely on the positive push dictating orbital paths. However, I now recognize the significant influence of negative energy and use it as the basis for understanding abnormal tracks.
Here's an added equation to illustrate the relationship between energy and orbital motion:
F = G * (m1 * m2) / r²
Where F is the force of gravity, G is the gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of the objects, and r is the distance between them.
This equation shows how the force of gravity (F) is influenced by the masses (m1 and m2) and distance (r) between objects, which is relevant to understanding planetary motion and the balance between positive and negative energy.
Gravitation and Time: Frequency's Role
Time is intimately tied to the frequency of the universe, and this relationship is governed by the laws of gravitation. Imagine the cartwheel's bar having notches, each representing a different frequency. Each notch would experience time at a unique pace, described by the formula:
t = 1/f
Where t is time and f is frequency.
If we could halt the cartwheel's motion, time would appear to pause, as described by the relativistic time dilation formula:
t' = γ(t)
Where t' is the time experienced by an observer in motion, t is the time experienced by an observer at rest, and γ is the Lorentz factor.
The passage of time is directly governed by the oscillations in the wave, or simply its frequency. By altering the frequency, we can change the flow of time itself, as described by the gravitational redshift formula:
f' = f * √(1 - 2GM/rc²⁾
Where f' is the observed frequency, f is the emitted frequency, G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the gravitational source, r is the radial distance from the source, and c is the speed of light.
Gravity and Energy Dynamics
Gravity can be understood in various ways through these thoughts. One perspective is that gravity operates similarly to the orbital planets, but with a twist. Instead of orbiting in space, we orbit at a subterranean frequency. This frequency attracts similar energies, leading to bonding and the formation of matter. For instance, atoms bond to form rocks, and separate rocks may bind together due to similar vibrations. However, other frequencies simply pass through, unable to bind due to differences in energy vibrations and the negative fields surrounding our bodies and the ground.
Our bodies are attracted to the Earth's core, with a force described by the equation:
F = G * (m1 * m2) / r²
Where F is the force of attraction, G is the gravitational constant, m1 and m2 are the masses of our bodies and the Earth, and r is the distance between them.
The vibrations of our energy and the negative field surrounding us can be described by the wave equation:
∇^2E = μ * ∂^2E/∂t2
Where E is the energy field, μ is the permeability of the medium, and ∂^2E/∂t2 is the second derivative of the energy with respect to time.
The incoming cosmic energy pushes us downward, with a force described by the equation:
F = (E * A) / c
Where F is the force of the incoming energy, E is the energy density of the cosmos, A is the cross-sectional area of our bodies, and c is the speed of light.
The outgoing energy from Earth moves faster than the incoming energy from the cosmos, as observed in the formation of clouds with flat bases and more sporadic tops. This can be described by the equation:
v_out = v_in * (1 + (E_out / E_in))
Where v_out is the velocity of the outgoing energy, v_in is the velocity of the incoming energy, E_out is the energy density of the outgoing energy, and E_in is the energy density of the incoming energy.
Galactic Cycles and Black Holes
The Milky Way galaxy has a supermassive black hole at its center, with a mass described by the equation:
M = (1.989 x 10³⁰⁾ * (G / c²⁾
Where M is the mass of the black hole, G is the gravitational constant, and c is the speed of light.
As the galaxy spirals towards the center, enough mass will be collected to trigger the black hole to become a large star, described by the equation:
M = (4.383 x 10³⁰⁾ * (G / c²⁾
Where M is the mass of the star, G is the gravitational constant, and c is the speed of light.
When this happens, the black hole will shed its outer shell to create the galaxy that spirals around it, and the process begins again. This cycle can be described by the equation:
t = (2 * π * G * M) / c³
Where t is the time period of the cycle, G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the black hole or star, and c is the speed of light.
The opposite of a black hole is a white hole, but why hasn't this phenomenon been observed? According to this article, it has been observed but misunderstood. With the theme of balancing the universe, would a large star be surrounded by much smaller black holes? Would these smaller black holes feed the larger star by way of quantum bridge or wormhole, and vice versa for smaller stars and larger black holes? This can be described by the equation:
E = (ℏ * ω) / 2
Where E is the energy transferred between the star and black holes, ℏ is the reduced Planck constant, and ω is the frequency of the quantum bridge or wormhole.
Energy Flow and Balance
Energy moves in and out of everything, maintaining a delicate balance. It enters as a positive force and exits as a negative force. Our sun emits energy at 99% strength and high frequency, which combines with an equally sized negative force at 1% strength, filling the space completely. This balance is crucial, as positive energy moves faster than negative energy due to entropy's diminishing effects over time and distance.
As positive energy travels, it loses a piece of itself, converting to negative energy. This process is directly related to gravitational forces and time dilation. When positive energy reaches 50%, it has a certain probability of converting to negative energy, which is then attracted back to a positive source with a corresponding probability of being converted back to positive energy.
This cycle of energy flow and balance is the foundation of the universe's harmony, and understanding it can reveal the intricate web of forces that shape our reality.
Information Transmission through Energy and Light
Energy transfer is not just a physical phenomenon but also an exchange of information. Positive energy (Pos) carries a complete signature of universal information, updated through interactions, and represents the pure form. Negative energy (Neg) represents a degraded form of this signature, still carrying the universal signature, but lacking the capacity to transfer information.
Initial Information and Illumination
Initial information travels at a speed potentially faster than light and is invisible to us. As this energy slows down, it interacts with atoms, exciting them to display colors they don't need. This illumination is a manifestation of the information being transmitted.
I = E × S (Initial information is transmitted through energy and carries the universal signature)
Cosmic Scale and Consciousness
The universal information, carried by positive energy, is infused with the celestial signature, shaping the cosmic context. This process potentially gives rise to consciousness in living beings, linking them to the universe and its harmonies.
C ∝ U (Consciousness potentially arises from the universal information carried by positive energy)
U = S × f × P (The universal information is infused with the celestial signature, shaping the cosmic context)
Information Transfer and Energy Forms
The universe relies on a delicate balance of energy forms to facilitate information transfer. Positive energy (Pos) serves as the primary carrier of information, transmitting universal signatures and cosmic context. Negative energy (Neg), on the other hand, carries a degraded or attenuated version of the universal signature, lacking the capacity for information transfer. However, Neg can be transformed back into Pos, restoring its information-carrying ability.
P = S × f (Positive energy carries the complete universal signature at a high frequency f)
N = S × (1 - f) (Negative energy carries a degraded or attenuated version of the universal signature at a lower frequency)
E = P + N (The universe relies on a delicate balance of positive and negative energy forms to facilitate information transfer)
Frequency and Speed of Information Transfer
The frequency and speed of information transfer play a crucial role in the harmony and balance of the universe. Positive energy (Pos) transmits information at a high frequency and speed, allowing for efficient and accurate transfer of universal signatures and cosmic context. Negative energy (Neg), on the other hand, transmits information at a lower frequency and speed, resulting in a degraded or attenuated signal.
v ∝ f (The speed of information transfer is directly proportional to the frequency of the energy form)
P: v = c × f (Positive energy transmits information at a high frequency and speed, potentially approaching the speed of light c)
N: v = c × (1 - f) (Negative energy transmits information at a lower frequency and speed)
Transformation and Balance
Negative energy can be transformed back into positive energy, restoring its information-carrying ability.
N + T → P (Negative energy can be transformed back into positive energy, restoring its information-carrying ability)
This transformation maintains the harmony and balance of the universe, ensuring that information is not lost but rather recycled and rebalanced.
_Conclusion _
"In conclusion, the Harmony of Energy (HoE) model offers a novel perspective on the universe, revealing a intricate web of energy dynamics that underlie all aspects of existence. By exploring the interplay between positive and negative energy, we gain insight into the fundamental forces that shape our reality. From the smallest subatomic particles to the vast expanse of the cosmos, energy is the unifying thread that binds everything together.
Through the HoE model, we've seen how energy's harmonious movement gives rise to the patterns and structures we observe in the universe. We've also delved into the fascinating relationships between energy, space, and time, and how these interactions govern the behavior of matter at various scales.
As we continue to refine our understanding of the HoE model, we may uncover new secrets of the universe and gain a deeper appreciation for the beauty and harmony that underlies all of existence. Ultimately, this knowledge can inspire new perspectives, new technologies, and a new era of human understanding and cooperation, as we work together to harmonize our own energy with the energy of the universe."
MAG
Here is the Harmony of Energy Equation (HoEE) with descriptions:
HoEE = (∫[E(x,t) ⊗ S(x,t) ⊕ f(x,t) ∘ P(x,t)]dxdt) + (∑[G × Mi × ri^2] ⊕ ∑[ℏ × ωi] ⊕ ∑[c × λi] ⊕ ∑[T × kB] ⊕ ∑[Fi × G × Mi × mi] ⊕ ∑[Qi × mi × ci] ⊕ ∑[Vi × ri^3] ⊕ ∑[Pi × ℏ] ⊕ ∑[Ni × S(x,t) ∧ (1 - f(x,t))]) + (∫[I(x,t) ∘ E(x,t) ⊗ S(x,t)]dxdt) + (C × U)
Where:

• E(x,t) is the energy density at point x and time t
• S(x,t) is the universal signature at point x and time t
• f(x,t) is the frequency at point x and time t
• P(x,t) is the positive energy at point x and time t
• G is the gravitational constant
• Mi is the mass of the ith object
• ri is the radius of the ith object
• ℏ is the reduced Planck constant
• ωi is the angular frequency of the ith object
• c is the speed of light
• λi is the wavelength of the ith object
• T is the temperature
• kB is Boltzmann's constant
• Fi is the force on the ith object
• mi is the mass of the ith object
• Qi is the heat transfer to the ith object
• ci is the speed of light at the ith object
• Vi is the volume of the ith object
• Pi is the prime number associated with the ith object
• Ni is the negative energy of the ith object
• I(x,t) is the initial information at point x and time t
• C is consciousness
• U is the universe

Operations:

• ⊗ represents tensor products (combining energy and universal signature)
• ⊕ represents direct sums (accumulating energy components)
• ∘ represents function composition (interacting frequency and positive energy)
• ∧ represents logical conjunction (connecting negative energy and universal signature)
• ∫ represents integration (over space and time)
• ∑ represents summation (over discrete objects)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Why Did Jesus Die on the Cross?"

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

Why Penal Substitution Is Unbiblical

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

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

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

The Content of Paul's Gospel Message

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

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

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

Justification, and the "New" Perspective on Paul

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

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

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

Game Information

Game Title: Senua's Saga: Hellblade II
Platforms:

• Xbox Series X/S (May 21, 2024)
• PC (May 21, 2024)

Trailers:

• Senua’s Saga: Hellblade II – Official Trailer The Game Awards 2023
• Senua's Saga: Hellblade II - The Senua Trailer Xbox Games Showcase 2023

Developer: Ninja Theory
Publisher: Xbox Game Studios
Review Aggregator:
OpenCritic - 84 average - 86% recommended - 55 reviews
MetaCritic - 81 average - 34 reviews

Critic Reviews

AltChar - Asmir Kovacevic - 95 / 100

Few games in recent times have been able to do what Senua's Saga: Hellblade 2 has done: make me feel so engaged and immersed that I wish the feeling would never stop. It is a game that will keep you in constant awe throughout the playtime with its fantastic and mysterious story, incredible graphic and sound presentation and realistic and brutal combat that will keep you on the edge of your seat the entire time.

But Why Tho? - Mick Abrahamson - 7.5 / 10

Senua’s Saga: Hellblade II won’t be for everyone. But if you are looking for a brutal continuation of a fantastic story that feels like you’re actually playing a movie, you’ll have a great time here.

CGMagazine - Justin Wood - 7 / 10

Senua's Saga: Hellblade 2 starts incredibly strong in the first half, but after certain revelations, the story speeds up to a point where the conclusion feels rushed and half-baked.

COGconnected - Mark Steighner - 95 / 100

It has been a very long time since I played a game as assured, polished, and emotionally affecting as Senua’s Saga: Hellblade 2.

Cerealkillerz - Steve Brieller - German - 7.9 / 10

If you expect an immersive but not so interactive “game”, Senua’s Saga Hellblade II delivers a short yet intense experience. Ninja Theory has once again skillfully created an impressive atmosphere, as they did in Senua’s Sacrifice. Unfortunately, the issues remain as well: Puzzles and combat are too easy and there is no variety in either. So please keep in mind, that this is more a Hellblade 1.5 than a true sequel.

Checkpoint Gaming - Charlie Kelly - 10 / 10

Senua's Saga: Hellblade II is well worth the wait and is a serious game of the year contender. Senua's follow-up journey is the best exploration of mental health that we've seen in games to date, using incredibly striking visual imagery, metaphors and immersive soundscapes to have you feel right there next to her. In what has to be the most photo-realistic game of all time, you're guaranteed to be constantly taken by the hero's adventure as you take in the beautiful and often haunting Viking Iceland. Through mud and dirt, blood and bones, Senua and Ninja Theory in turn bare all to you, the player. A masterpiece, benchmark and magnum opus, Hellblade II is crucial storytelling you won't soon forget.

Console Creatures - Patrick Tremblay - Recommended

With Senua's Saga: Hellblade 2, Ninja Theory shows that video games can be more than simple entertainment: they can be profound artistic and emotional explorations, capable of touching and transforming those who play them. This is an unforgettable journey into the heart of Iceland's darkness, where every step of Senua is a step towards self-discovery.

Digital Trends - Tomas Franzese - 4 / 5

Senua's Saga: Hellblade 2 is a visual stunner for Xbox even if its gameplay isn't too creative.

Echo Boomer - David Fialho - Portuguese - Essential

Ninja Theory has finally delivered the long-awaited and provocative sequel to Hellblade, with one of the most impressive interactive cinematic experiences of the generation, which makes you question what is real and leaves you dreaming of the graphic potential of future games still on current consoles.

Enternity.gr - Christos Chatzisavvas - Greek - 9.5 / 10

With Senua's Saga: Hellblade II, Ninja Theory builds the game it dreamed of, creating a title on a larger scale than any other.

Eurogamer - Johnny Chiodini - 5 / 5

Hellblade 2 continues Senua's story with grace, confidence, surprising brutality and thundering conviction.

GAMES.CH - Olaf Bleich - German - 89%

The game sucks you skin and hair into its fantasy world and creates such an intense bond with the characters and their stories that you want to know at every second how the adventure ends.

Game Informer - Marcus Stewart - 9 / 10

Senua’s Saga: Hellblade II’s conclusion ends on another strong note, and despite my initial reservations about continuing Senua’s story, I walked away happy to see her conquer new monsters, both literal and metaphorical.

GameSpot - Jess Cogswell - 6 / 10

Hellblade 2 is perhaps the most visually remarkable Xbox title to date, but is ultimately undermined by its emphasis on fidelity over story and gameplay.

GamingTrend - Cassie Peterson - 95 / 100

Senua's Saga: Hellblade II is a stunning and immersive storytelling experience that really puts the player into the mind of its titular character. It's even more narratively-focused than the first game (not to its detriment), with a bigger emphasis on how Senua sees and interacts with the world around her. The whole experience from start to finish has been beyond memorable.

Generación Xbox - Pedro del Pozo - Spanish - 9.3 / 10

Ninja Theory manages to place Senua in the Olympus of videogames with the most visually and sonorously powerful game we have seen so far. A spectacular, stunning and awe-inspiring journey.

IGN - Tristan Ogilvie - 8 / 10

Senua’s Saga: Hellblade II is another Viking-worthy feast for the senses that meets the high bar set by its predecessor, even if it never really manages to clear it.

INVEN - Soojin Kim - Korean - 8.5 / 10

The game's high level of immersion makes you want to play it from start to finish in one sitting. With outstanding audiovisual presentation and effects, it gives the feeling that you're playing a movie, not watching it. However, the gameplay elements, such as combat and puzzles, still lack significant meaning, which leads to rather disappoint feelings.

Kakuchopurei - Jonathan Leo - 80 / 100

While the story & gameplay's broad strokes might be familiar, Senua's Saga: Hellblade 2's execution, perspective, and overall production values are just stellar and highlights Ninja Theory's strengths in delivering what it does best: story-heavy cinematic gaming. The characters are fleshed out and well-written, with proper focus on your main character and her turmoils that carry over from the first game, the fighting feels weighty and challenging without being completely frustrating, and the HUD-less approach to presentation is welcome.

Kotaku - Claire Jackson - Unscored

A spellbinding meditation on anguish and compassion, Hellblade II delivers one of the most gripping interactive and sensory experiences of 2024

Merlin'in Kazanı - Murat Oktay - Turkish - 89 / 100

The chaotic story of Senua continues. We set out to take revenge on the Viking raiders who have inflicted devastating losses on the people of Orkney.

Metro GameCentral - GameCentral - 5 / 10

A joyless slog of barely interactive entertainment and a muddled portrayal of mental illness… that just so happens to have the best graphics ever on a video game console.

MondoXbox - Giuseppe Genga - Italian - 9.5 / 10

Senua's Saga: Hellblade II is a true masterpiece: a deep and highly immersive narrative experience that manages to make us feel all the protagonist's torment within an impressively realistic world. Ninja Theory reveals itself to be one of the most valuable studios in the Xbox stable here, reaching levels of absolute excellence in graphics, audio, narration, and acting. A must-play.

New Game Network - Alex Varankou - 70 / 100

Senua's Saga: Hellblade II keeps the basics intact, and while a strong lead character, great animations, and simple but enjoyable combat continue to deliver, the poor pacing and performance issues prevent this sequel from breaking free of its past.

Nexus Hub - Sam Aberdeen - 8 / 10

Senua's Saga: Hellblade II is the best-looking game we've ever played - a true visual powerhouse backed by an emotionally charged story and gripping dark fantasy setting, if you can look past some of its shortcomings.

One More Game - Chris Garcia - 9 / 10

Hellblade 2 is a triumph in masterful storytelling and impeccable audio design for Ninja Theory. It is an emotionally powerful experience that depicts a sensitive subject that is hardly talked about in the medium.
To achieve this, the game stripped out several features and systems like combat and exploration in favor of a deeper narrative affair. This is not for everyone, but it is something I would encourage everyone to try at least try out.

Oyungezer Online - Onur Kaya - Turkish - 8 / 10

Next gen graphics and presentation is now among us, next gen game design on the other hand, will be running late.

PC Gamer - Robin Valentine - 58 / 100

Despite its greater scale and visual splendour, this sequel fails to escape the shadow of its predecessor with a muddled tale that Senua herself feels out of place in.

PCGamesN - Cheri Faulkner - 9 / 10

Senua's Saga: Hellblade 2 is an impeccable story of coming to terms with trauma and making difficult decisions, punctuated by moments of outstanding beauty and strength.

Pixel Arts - Danial Dehghani - Persian - 9 / 10

Hellblade 2 is a stellar example of a sequel done right, building on the elements that made the original a landmark in gaming. It stays true to its roots, prioritizing depth and atmosphere over broad appeal. Fans of the first game will find much to love here, as it remains a unique and compelling experience. However, if the original didn't resonate with you, Hellblade 2 follows a similar path and might not change your mind.

Polygon - Yussef Cole - Unscored

Where the first game felt like a journey of self-discovery, both for Senua and for the player, Hellblade 2 feels more invested in creating the myth of Senua: Senua as legendary giant slayer, as mystical seer touched by the underworld.

Press Start - Brodie Gibbons - 9 / 10

Senua's Saga: Hellblade II is yet another arresting, artful chapter in an adventure now two games long. Though it might approach iteration with a very safe hand, only going so far as to correct the original's shortcomings, Ninja Theory's clear strengths in story craft, audiovisual design, as well as their care for the dark subject matter manage to shine through brighter than ever before.

Rectify Gaming - Tyler Nienburg - 10 / 10

Senua's Saga: Hellblade II emerges as a visual and storytelling masterpiece, and is unquestionably the best-looking game I've witnessed on Xbox Series X since its launch.

Rock, Paper, Shotgun - Rick Lane - Unscored

A more uncompromising version of the first game, Hellblade 2 offers a well told story and immaculate presentation. But it's also even simpler, to the point where it treats interaction like an inconvenience.

SECTOR.sk - Matúš Štrba - Slovak - 9.5 / 10

Senua's Saga: Hellblade II is, at its core, a short game, but an excellent one. But it's not for everyone. It's a bloody and often disgusting experience based on strong emotions and immersion in a character that just won't let you go. It's more of an artistic experience than a traditional game.

Saudi Gamer - Arabic - 10 / 10

An exceptionally well realized portrayal of Senua's struggle both real and praying on her fears, with brutal and satisfying combat and puzzles that require you to appreciate the world. It successfully continues what the first game started and improves upon almost every aspect.

Seasoned Gaming - Ainsley Bowden - 9 / 10

Senua's Saga is a journey unlike any other. It's fantastical, evocative, and demonstrative of Ninja Theory being masters of their craft.

Shacknews - TJ Denzer - 9 / 10

Hellblade 2 still does incredibly well. The new story is weighty, the audio is exceptional, the scenery is ridiculously dense and rich, and the combat feels intense and impactful in new and interesting ways.

Slant Magazine - Justin Clark - 3.5 / 5

The newest chapter in Senua’s story is powerfully told but feels like it’s missing a few pages.

Spaziogames - Gianluca Arena - Italian - 7.6 / 10

Senua's Saga is as strong as its predecessor, if not more, and delivers both in its storytelling and on the technical side. The gameplay, however, has still a lot of room for improvements and boils down to almost-QTE combat and boring puzzles. An experience more than an actual and so-called video game, but an experience worth living nonetheless.

Stevivor - Jay Ball - 9.5 / 10

Senua’s Saga Hellblade 2 is a video game only on its surface. Scratch that away and you’ll see that it’s a deep, thought-provoking, interactive experience proving games are an art form that demands skill and talent. Ninja Theory should be very proud.

TechRaptor - Robert Scarpinito - 7.5 / 10

Senua’s Saga: Hellblade II features intense audio, beautiful graphics, and wonderful camera work, creating a powerful presentation that’s worth experiencing. However, the narrative doesn’t quite stick the landing.

The Escapist - Unscored

Video Review - Quote not available

The Outerhaven Productions - Jordan Andow - 5 / 5

Senua’s Saga: Hellblade II sets a new bar for performances and presentation. Combined with smart improvements to gameplay, it is arguably the most cinematic, immersive, story-driven experience we’ve ever seen.

TheSixthAxis - Dominic Leighton - Unscored

Just like its forbear, Senua’s Saga: Hellblade II is an oppressive, powerful and haunting example of the power of video games, and one that sets its own parameters for what a digital experience can be. It is a game that must be experienced, not least because, there’s nothing else quite like it.

Tom's Hardware Italia - Andrea Riviera - Italian - 10 / 10

What Ninja Theory has achieved transcends reality, creating a work that is practically perfect for what it aimed to be: an audiovisual adventure with a strong narrative component. Beyond state-of-the-art graphics and sound that will undoubtedly set a standard in the coming years, what truly astonishes is the maturity with which the team has taken an excellent game like the first Hellblade and molded it into something so qualitatively impressive that it becomes difficult to even describe. This elevates the medium to a new communicative level, capable of evoking emotions and surprising players from start to finish. Experiences like Hellblade 2, which leave a lasting impression on the soul, are few and far between in a generation, and we can only rejoice in seeing how the beautiful artistic vision of the Ninja Theory team has become a reality.

Too Much Gaming - Carlos Hernandez - 5 / 5

Hellblade 2 feels like a living, breathing shapeshifter, manipulating its surroundings around the player with precision and consistency, making it one of the most visually stunning video games of this generation. This is an amazing title that carefully balances its artistic and gaming ambitions, a masterpiece that I encourage any gamer to experience.

TrueAchievements - Sean Carey - 9 / 10

Ninja Theory has created an outstanding sequel with Senua's Saga: Hellblade 2. An unforgettable narrative adventure that is brought to life through impeccable sound design, fantastic visuals, and a story that will stick with you long after the final credits roll. Hellblade 2 is one of the best games Xbox has to offer.

TrueGaming - عمر العمودي - Arabic - 8 / 10

Senua's Saga: Hellblade II is a technical achievement for the gaming industry, the visuals are impressive and realistic in a way we haven't seen before and the audio design is very impressive. The game itself though, we think it could've offered more as puzzles are repetitive and combat is quite limited. However, the storytelling is strong in this chapter of Senua's journey, though it feels heavy and depressing.

VideoGamer - Tom Bardwell - 9 / 10

Though uncomfortably bleak and distressing, Helldivers 2 is something truly special.

WellPlayed - James Wood - 6 / 10

Senua's Saga: Hellblade II is an achievement in visual fidelity but fails to define itself amid clumsy retreads and unengaging new ideas.

Worth Playing - Chris "Atom" DeAngelus - 7 / 10

Senua's Saga: Hellblade II is a beautiful but ultimately hollow game. The fantastic presentation props up a story that is less personal and engaging than in the first game, and the gameplay feels like an afterthought. It was great to see Senua again and to see her outside of the grief-misery she was enveloped in during the first game, but beyond that, there's not much to Hellblade II. It's a short and less memorable experience that shows off Ninja Theory's visual craft to its fullest - but it achieves little else.

Xbox Achievements - Dan Webb - 90%

While Senua’s Saga: Hellblade 2 might not set any new standards with its simplistic gameplay mechanics, from an audio-visual experience standpoint, it's frankly quite a stunning experience. Hellblade 2 is as close to playing the leading role in a big budget movie as you’re likely to get, and Ninja Theory’s continued coverage on the complexities of severe mental health issues deserves to be commended once more. Bravo, Ninja Theory. Bravo.

XboxEra - Jon Clarke - 10 / 10

Despite the backing of a company as large and as well-funded as Microsoft, Ninja Theory have, in my opinion, nurtured their independent spirit and kept it well and truly alive in every facet of Senua's Saga: Hellblade II. It's brutal. It's breath-taking. It's brilliant. If this is “Independent AAA”?
Sign me up for more.

ZdobywcyGier.eu - Bartosz Michalik - Polish - 9.5 / 10

Senua's Saga: Hellblade II is undoubtedly one of the best games of this year. Not only does it shine in terms of audio-visual setting, but also in terms of story. The only element that could be considered caveat is at the same time its greatest asset, namely cinematography. Sometimes one gets the impression that the developers, in an effort to achieve the best possible effect, had to make a lot of compromises, which significantly limited the gameplay possibilities. Nevertheless, for a great narrative and immersion, this is something to turn a blind eye to.