Free runescape accounts no surveyssx

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

TODAY’S TOP OFFERS
Good morning Monkeys! How’s everyone getting on so far this month?
Ladbrokes - Bet £5 Get 10 Free Spins (Racing)
https://members.oddsmonkey.com/Offers/offer?id=14336&dt=20240521000000
Bwin - Bet £10 Get a £1 Free Bet Per Goal & 10 Free Spins (Atalanta v Leverkusen)
https://members.oddsmonkey.com/offers/offer?id=16740&dt=20240520000000
NetBet - Bet £5 on a Bet Builder Get a £5 Free Bet (Atalanta v Leverkusen)
https://members.oddsmonkey.com/Offers/offer?id=16733&dt=20240520000000
Ladbrokes - Bet £5 Get a £1 Live Casino Bonus
https://members.oddsmonkey.com/Offers/offer?id=16713&dt=20240518000000
There are also Horse Racing Offers daily
https://community.oddsmonkey.com/topic/103829/tuesday-s-racing-offers-21-05-24?_ga=2.157501945.2129834715.1716277111-549260843.1688139962
There are also 25 Extra Place Races for us to get stuck into today, with multiple extra places being paid in the 17:00 Punchestown and 18:20 & 20:20 Cork races.
https://community.oddsmonkey.com/topic/103830/tuesday-s-extra-place-races-21-05-24?_ga=2.157501945.2129834715.1716277111-549260843.1688139962
Don’t forget about other ways to make money today too:
Reload Offers
https://members.oddsmonkey.com/offers/offers?sc=1&t=3
Weekly Bet Clubs
https://members.oddsmonkey.com/offers/offers?sc=1&t=2
Price Boosts
https://community.oddsmonkey.com/topic/4801/price-boosts-no-chat?_=1706019779769
Free Daily Games
https://community.oddsmonkey.com/topic/71613/free-games-list-for-both-sports-and-casino-offers
If you have any questions regarding the offers or anything else, please comment here and I will be sure to reply ASAP. If your query is urgent, please come onto Live Chat, where we can help you instantly!
https://members.oddsmonkey.com/Account/ContactUs

When you sign up, your account is credited with a free $1.25 credit, which can be worth up to 500MB of data (for example in Europe).
When you sign up, you get a free $1.25 credit on your account. Then you get another $5 bonus credit when you top up your account with $20 for your first purchase. If you sign up and top up with a referral code, both you and your friend will get $3 credit.
So if you sign up with the code and top up your account with $20 20$ + 1.25$ (when you sign up) + 3$ (referral code: GFNX2) 5$ (for your first top-up of 20$ or more) = $29.25 credit.
Best Features: No Data Expiration: Your data will not expire and the eSIM only needs to be installed once. In-app Call: In-app calling is available. Simple to Use: Top up your account and use it for roaming in all covered countries. No need for new eSIMs every time. Reasonable Rates: Data rates of $2.45 per GB in Europe and $3.25 per GB in the US are ideal for low-volume travel.
Some Cons: Limited Country Coverage: Coverage is still limited, especially in Asia. There is currently no coverage in Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea and Hong Kong.
https://roamless.com/

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

Hi scapers,
I (82M) am in a bit of a moral dilemma and could use some perspective. For over two decades, I have been an avid Runescape player, and shifted to Old School shortly after it came out. I've poured countless hours into the game, specifically working towards completing the collection log, and I am now ranked 5th on collectionlog net hiscores. This has been my passion and a significant part of my life.
As I age, I realize that I may not be able to complete this log myself. I have a sizable estate, which has allowed me to fund dragon impling jars, boost raids, pet hunt and such. My grandson, James (22M), has always been close to me. He used to play OSRS with me when he was younger, and I always thought he shared my love for the game.
A few months ago, I sat down with James and discussed the possibility of him taking over my account to complete the collection log after I'm gone. I even offered to leave him a substantial part of my estate if he agreed to it. To my surprise, James declined. He told me that while he enjoyed the game as a kid, he has moved on and has no interest in dedicating the time required to grind out such a goal.
I was deeply disappointed. I felt that this was a way for him to honor my life's work and keep a part of me alive. After thinking it over, I decided to change my will. I cut James out of my will, redirecting my inheritance to other family members. When James found out, he was hurt and upset. He accused me of being manipulative and controlling, saying it wasn't fair to tie some stale baguette to his inheritance and that he shouldn't have to bear the burden of my unfinished goals. My daughter (James' mother) is also angry with me, saying that I’m prioritizing an online game over my family.
I still believe that my request was reasonable and that James could have taken up the mantle as a gesture of respect. However, I am now questioning my decision. AITA for cutting my grandson out of my will because he won't continue my RuneScape legacy?

So, I understand that my Experian Credit Score doesn’t really guarantee my getting a loan or not but I just wanted to get a sense for whether I should be worried about my credit score or not.
So, my score is just over 800 out of 999. Pretty good, so I just wanted to check if I needed to really work at improving that or if I’d probs be fine.
For context, I’m sub 25 and employed. I’m looking to buy a house of about £450k value in London through the First Time Buyer scheme within the next 1-4yrs (interest rates please come down faster!). I have roughly 10% of the deposit and I make what would be about 2x what it looks like the monthly repayment would be.
If you do think my credit score is a problem, how could I improve it? I already use rent tracking. I have 1 credit card with an over 2k limit (my bank actually voluntarily increased it without me requesting) that I use about 25-50% of every month. I have a couple of interest free arranged overdrafts that I’m using (student accounts that are still open), and I’m looking to get those cleared by September. Is there anything else I could do? The only thing I have in finance is my phone and I have no other personal loans. I feel like I’ve exhausted my options and the only real thing I can do is make more money.

"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.]

Beginner friendly game Even if players of all experience levels are welcome. I wanted to make a game that focus on new or inexperienced player. Or players that wanna return to D&D after not playing in a while. And for players that wants to find a good friendly respectful long term group to play with and enjoying the game with.
Waterdeep Dragon Heist is a great campaign to start with if you wanna get into D&D. It is designed for PC levels 1 – 5 and is complete urban adventure with a few dungeon crawls. There is a fair amount of investigation and a lot of roleplay. This is not really a Hack and Slash adventure.
https://preview.redd.it/rlo7i34atq1d1.jpg?width=512&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=85a76965599668d76abd45db818414714e5ed287
And if the group wants we can continue into another campaign after this one is done as level 5 is a good level to go into several other great campaigns I try to run games with a good mix of Roleplay, combat, social interactions, exploration and all the good things that makes a good D&D game. But i try to listen to my players if they want more of something or less of something i try to adapt. After all we are here to have fun and i will try to make the game enjoyable for all.
In my game you can expect - A Good mix of combat and rp - A living and Breathing world - Updated maps all with Dynamic lightning - A slightly reworked campaign to make give it that little extra - A game and a DM that welcomes new players - Combat, social encounters, RP, Exploration, Mysteries. - Many Memorable NPC's to interact with - Possibility to continue the adventure beyond Waterdeep and Dragon Heist - A safe space, everyone is welcome. no racism or discrimination - All brought to you by an experienced and friendly DM
Sessions are 3 hours. We use Discord for voice and the game is run on Roll20. Link to the game https://app.roll20.net/lfg/listing/395988/beginner-friendly-waterdeep-dragon-heist-thursday-free-session-0
Payment $17 per session and player paid via Startplaying Link to the game on Startplaying. https://app.roll20.net/lfg/listing/400251/waterdeep-dragon-heist-beginner-and-lgbt-friendly-game-saturday
If you do not have a Starplaying account sign up here https://startplaying.games/referral/ckqo2gzfy23o4bopkamba7goz
It is free to join and a good place to find games. and they take care of payment in an easy and safe way. you never have to share any payment information with me

Beginner friendly game Even if players of all experience levels are welcome. I wanted to make a game that focus on new or inexperienced player. Or players that wanna return to D&D after not playing in a while. And for players that wants to find a good friendly respectful long term group to play with and enjoying the game with.
Waterdeep Dragon Heist is a great campaign to start with if you wanna get into D&D. It is designed for PC levels 1 – 5 and is complete urban adventure with a few dungeon crawls. There is a fair amount of investigation and a lot of roleplay. This is not really a Hack and Slash adventure.
And if the group wants we can continue into another campaign after this one is done as level 5 is a good level to go into several other great campaigns I try to run games with a good mix of Roleplay, combat, social interactions, exploration and all the good things that makes a good D&D game. But i try to listen to my players if they want more of something or less of something i try to adapt. After all we are here to have fun and i will try to make the game enjoyable for all.
In my game you can expect - A Good mix of combat and rp - A living and Breathing world - Updated maps all with Dynamic lightning - A slightly reworked campaign to make give it that little extra - A game and a DM that welcomes new players - Combat, social encounters, RP, Exploration, Mysteries. - Many Memorable NPC's to interact with - Possibility to continue the adventure beyond Waterdeep and Dragon Heist - A safe space, everyone is welcome. no racism or discrimination - All brought to you by an experienced and friendly DM
Sessions are 3 hours. We use Discord for voice and the game is run on Roll20. Link to the game https://app.roll20.net/lfg/listing/395988/beginner-friendly-waterdeep-dragon-heist-thursday-free-session-0
Payment $17 per session and player paid via Startplaying Link to the game on Startplaying. https://app.roll20.net/lfg/listing/400251/waterdeep-dragon-heist-beginner-and-lgbt-friendly-game-saturday
If you do not have a Starplaying account sign up here https://startplaying.games/referral/ckqo2gzfy23o4bopkamba7goz
It is free to join and a good place to find games. and they take care of payment in an easy and safe way. you never have to share any payment information with me

I never thought I would ever enter one of these "Entitled" subreddits with a story of my own before, but apparently, the fates have decreed otherwise, for last week, I too, was blessed to be in the presence of a Karen. An EB. A whackjob. Whatever you want to call her.
The lady in question is someone whom I shall refer to, going forward, as "Hyacinth", mostly because she acts a LOT like Hyacinth Bucket from the Britcom "Keeping up Appearances". For those familiar with the TV show, why she has earned this moniker will soon become painfully obvious.
To continue...
I met Hyacinth about a year ago. Some friends and I were setting up a public exhibition, and I had volunteered to be one of the tour-guides, to explain said-exhibition to potential museum visitors, and guide them through the photographs, antiques, and other things that made up our display. One day, a friend texted me if I was free that Friday to meet-and-greet a group of people who were coming to see the exhibit. I said "yes".
Among this group was Hyacinth.
I did not at the time have any inkling of how bad this would get.
Fast forward about six months, then.
In the short time I've known her, a few things have become painfully obvious about Hyacinth - she loves - LOVES - LOOOVES (did I say 'loves'?) to talk about her family, her relatives, who she's related to, how she's related to them, why, what they do, how much they earn, how much they're worth, who else she knows, who her friends are, what they do, how much they earn, and how much they're worth. The words "Millionaire" and "Billionaire" pop up so often, you'd think you were reading the Forbes List. And she would talk about them for AGES - what should be a five-minute phone-call would turn into a 30 minute lecture about how well-connected she is.
For the most part, she was generally civil. She invited me out to meals with her friends, she asked me to tell them about myself...always, again, for some reason, with heavy emphasis on family history and connections and occupations and jobs and stuff. By now I had accepted that she was just weird, and eccentric and whatever. Takes all types, as they say, and I assumed that was it.
Something to know about the two of us is that we're both members of a local club. This club is a cultural club, dedicated to the promotion and preservation of our shared ethnic heritage. There's the main club, and then there's the smaller youth-group within the main club. Said youth-group is run by a friend, and we have a FB group. In this group we share videos, recipes, photos of food, family, friends, events we went to, or hosted, or participated in, and occasionally, historical stuff related to our culture - photographs, antiques, family heirlooms, and such-like.
The reason for this post is because of what happened about a week ago - in this group.
I had written a FB post about similar such organisations as our club, and a bit about their history, how they had formed, why, and where at. For visual interest, I'd added a photograph into the post, which was of the first-ever such club, at its formation, which was WELL OVER 100 years ago (our club doesn't go back that far!!).
I posted it in one group on FB and then shared it into the youth-group's FB group as well, and just...left it.
In a matter of a couple of hours, Hyacinth was attacking me on FB.
Which members of this photograph are my ancestors? Which ones are my relatives? Which ones are my family?? I told her none of them are - it's a historical photo in the public domain, it was relevant to what I was writing, it was relevant to our group, I shared it. End of story.
No, not good enough.
She immediately demanded to know by what right I shared this photograph, whether I'd asked anybody's permission, and why I hadn't contacted the descendants of the people in the photograph - which is WELL OVER 100 years old - 120+, to give you an idea.
I told her I had no idea how to do that, even if I had the names. She got furious and demanded I contact these people (how??) and ask their permission, or she would, and get me sued. She was also FURIOUS that I dared to share the photo in another group, which wasn't about our club, or culture, or heritage - and that I have NO RIGHT to do so!!
I'm like - that's my damn FB group - you don't have any right to tell me what I can or can't share in my own group. You don't get to dictate to me how I use my social media account.
But no, not good enough. She went on a diatribe that lasted two days, and a messenger diatribe that lasted at least two hours. Now she's threatening to send emails and screenshots and whatever, because I dared to share a public domain photograph, to some people who she says are SUPER RICH and SUPER INFLUENTIAL and SHE KNOWS THEM and THEY'LL SUE ME!!
Anyway, I reported her to our group-admin, who is my friend, who reported her to the club committee, citing harassment of a member as the reason.
The committee is currently in conference about this (and other incidents) surrounding Hyacinth - to decide what to do with her, finally, at long-last. According to my friend, Hyacinth has made loads of enemies, has done nothing but complain, has made outrageous suggestions to the club, and has attacked at least 2 or 3 other members - my incident is just the most recent one IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS!!
I'm waiting on my friend to provide an update about this, and if necessary, for me to provide evidence of the encounter.
My friend was shocked that this happened - and frankly, so was I - that Hyacinth was this aggressive about something which is REALLY a non-issue. We both agreed that any friendship that existed between us and her, was now fully, and completely dissolved.
Hyacinth is not going to like that - as I said - she's all about bragging and connections and who she knows and how famous they are...she's not going to like this at all. Especially if they kick her out of the club.

Storm King's Thunder Is an amazing open world campaign where you will face Giants, Dragons and more. With lots of room to explore the world and room for me to ad in my own things including Characters backstories and personal quests if wanted
It is originally a level 1-10 campaign. But the first 5 levels is a bit meh so those will be skipped and we will instead start at level 3 with a bit of homebrew until we hit level 5 and dive head first into Storm kings Thunder and it will be a bit extended and take you to level 12 or more.
I try to run games with a good mix of Roleplay, combat, social interactions, exploration and all the good things that makes a good D&D game. But i try to listen to my players if they want more of something or less of something i try to adapt. After all we are here to have fun and i will try to make the game enjoyable for all.
I also try to personalize the game for my players by adding in some elements from their backstory if possible, some personal story arc and so on
Same with the campaign i try to personalize it by changing things up a little bit ad some things, Change some things. ad or remove others. and not running it 100% by the book.
I have Run this campaign several times and have made some changes to it while still holding true to the original. I use some updated maps. and other small things to make the experience as fun and exciting as possible
In my games you can expect
A Good mix of combat and rp
A living and Breathing world
Updated maps all with Dynamic lightning
A slightly reworked campaign to make give it that little extra
A game and a DM that welcomes new players
Combat, social encounters, RP, Exploration, Mysteries.
Many Memorable NPC's to interact with
A safe space, everyone is welcome. no racism or discrimination
All brought to you by an experienced and friendly DM
We use Discord for voice. Sessions will be 3 hours
Link to the game on Roll20 https://app.roll20.net/lfg/listing/399535/monday-beginner-friendly-storm-kings-thunder-starting-level-3-free-session-1
**Payment** $19 per session and player. Payed via Startplaying. Information about this will be provided Link to start playing https://startplaying.games/adventure/clw1nqd13000310qd80v66aqy
If you do not have a Starplaying account sign up here https://startplaying.games/referral/ckqo2gzfy23o4bopkamba7goz And you get a $10 credit
It is free to join and a good place to find games. and they take care of payment in an easy and safe way. you never have to share any payment information with me
**Rules:** Just be a decent person. No racism, homophobia, sexism and so on. No personal attacks, don't be rude. You know the drill. Treat others with respect. if you are unable to do so you will be removed from the game And be 18+ years old

Storm King's Thunder Is an amazing open world campaign where you will face Giants, Dragons and more. With lots of room to explore the world and room for me to ad in my own things including Characters backstories and personal quests if wanted
It is originally a level 1-10 campaign. But the first 5 levels is a bit meh so those will be skipped and we will instead start at level 3 with a bit of homebrew until we hit level 5 and dive head first into Storm kings Thunder and it will be a bit extended and take you to level 12 or more.
I try to run games with a good mix of Roleplay, combat, social interactions, exploration and all the good things that makes a good D&D game. But i try to listen to my players if they want more of something or less of something i try to adapt. After all we are here to have fun and i will try to make the game enjoyable for all.
I also try to personalize the game for my players by adding in some elements from their backstory if possible, some personal story arc and so on
Same with the campaign i try to personalize it by changing things up a little bit ad some things, Change some things. ad or remove others. and not running it 100% by the book.
I have Run this campaign several times and have made some changes to it while still holding true to the original. I use some updated maps. and other small things to make the experience as fun and exciting as possible
In my games you can expect
A Good mix of combat and rp
A living and Breathing world
Updated maps all with Dynamic lightning
A slightly reworked campaign to make give it that little extra
A game and a DM that welcomes new players
Combat, social encounters, RP, Exploration, Mysteries.
Many Memorable NPC's to interact with
A safe space, everyone is welcome. no racism or discrimination
All brought to you by an experienced and friendly DM
We use Discord for voice. Sessions will be 3 hours
Link to the game on Roll20 https://app.roll20.net/lfg/listing/399535/monday-beginner-friendly-storm-kings-thunder-starting-level-3-free-session-1
**Payment** $19 per session and player. Payed via Startplaying. Information about this will be provided Link to start playing https://startplaying.games/adventure/clw1nqd13000310qd80v66aqy
If you do not have a Starplaying account sign up here https://startplaying.games/referral/ckqo2gzfy23o4bopkamba7goz And you get a $10 credit
It is free to join and a good place to find games. and they take care of payment in an easy and safe way. you never have to share any payment information with me
**Rules:** Just be a decent person. No racism, homophobia, sexism and so on. No personal attacks, don't be rude. You know the drill. Treat others with respect. if you are unable to do so you will be removed from the game And be 18+ years old

I 21M got dumped about a month ago, I’ve been having a rough time since. However for the last couple years probably I think I’ve been pretty gross towards women. I go to a small state school and am majoring in music. I started late after I kinda failed to get recruited during Covid. I only got in through athletics and I lied about a lot of shit to get in. Since then I quit the athletics team and have devoted my time to music and doing as much as I while I’m here. Or that’s what I would have said prior to a month ago.
I might get judged for the rest but I’m not perfect. So I learned a lot from this senior. When I first met him he was dating some chick. Then when we got close he had dumped her. He spent every Sunday running Theory and stuff so I could do better in ensembles. Then after a performance he went on a 6 hour long manic episode while we did shrooms. I was off the same amount as he had. However I’m like 6’4 and 200 pounds, he was like half that. He started bringing up his ex though. He’d whisper her name. Dude was in a time loop by his own account. I kinda stopped chatting after that, he graduated in the winter. I’ve only seen him once since.
So I dated his ex, I kinda just got the vibe that I could if I wanted to when I met her in classes this semester. It honestly was for a time the best relationship of my life. I believed I could be happy with her in the future. I think I actually liked her. I didn’t constantly tell myself that it can end whenever. She however 2 months in decides she has commitment issue and dumps me over text. It about to get worse, my roommate liked the senior her freshman year. But my ex ended up dating him. For some reason despite my roommate having some troubles with this my ex kinda set us up. She got me invited to a party, I wish that night had ended with my ex in my bed. At 2 in the morning my roommates comes home after the party, and slams on my door demanding that my ex leave. She even said that she would open if wouldn’t after I told her that I’m naked. This was the first night my ex and I had been together, and Jesus Christ my roommate fucked me. The night created a reason for us to keep talking, and I used it. I already had dirt on her ex, but then she gave dirt on my roommate. Now it has been 4 months.
I’ve been miserable ever since. I have panic attacks at school, and spend every minute of free time just being sad. My grades definitely got hit. However I won a scholarship this semester, and things academically are the best I’ve been in my life. I have opportunities to do thing I never imagined, and even now those things make me happy. However my time has been spoiled as off late. I know I should come back here. It’s been a great deal for me, and all that. However, I really don’t want to. I’m really tired of the way I feel here and I would like to be happier if I can. I was single before but I’ve never really been dumped. I have done well for longer periods however if she’s near, it can cause me to panic. I’m angry, but mainly I just feel like I’m and idiot who can’t get over a girl who dumped me over text.
I am scummy though. I haven’t gone a week straight without a women in the department buying me food. I always know what I’m doing when I’m doing it. Every time I act surprised and very thankful, but it’s kind of becoming normal. I’m beyond appreciative of it, I just feel gross sometimes. There was another girl in the program before my ex. Who I found attractive. She had gotten dumped in February and we matched on tinder, but she had looking for long term in her bio. So I didn’t hit her up. Then the next week the party would happen. She’s in a class with me, our teacher messed up the finals dates. A few assignments became due earlier than said (fucking crazy I know). So I texted her I would be in the library.
I hate how I think. I know it takes 2 to tango. I’m like a fucking terminator. Even if I’m not thinking about it in depth, I just keep making these things happen and I usually am aware that I’m doing it. I don’t know how good I am at not acting in selfish interest.
Im rebounding. This girl who is supposedly good friends with my roommate, has seen me having a break down at school over my ex like last week. Why? I think I might be evil or something. . I enjoyed spending time with her tonight. I feel bad that she didn’t reject me to be honest. I kinda live off validation from women. The university hasn’t helped with this.
Am I broken? Like I’m starting to think there’s something wrong with me. I’ve had no issue just making things more gross around my friends. Do you think it’s a bad idea to return in the fall? I’m afraid given my track record I might end up making people around me mad. If I don’t have any support I don’t think I could stay. My roommate buys me food often, and she has listened to me be more sad than I have any right to be. I again feel gross, and I fear that it might be time for me to stop doing this. To be honest I just wanna run and forget. It’s probably my fault I feel this way.

Hi, so ayun na nga na-layoff ako. This is probably the most stressful and depressing situation I had to face in my career in its entirety. Nangyayari pala talaga ang lay-offs, my biggest regret was not upskilling myself when there were doors open. Now it’s too late.
Moving forward, I wanna see this as an opportunity and a sign to probably switch careers to free lancing. I had a PC setup na ginamit ko for gaming as well as a decent gaming headset. I have 200mbps na internet. So sabi, why not gamitin ko to finally get myself a remote job.
I’m new to VA and the likes. May maissuggest po kayo na VA agency that would hire a no-experience VA but a 12-year seasoned BPO employee that worked for financial accounts?