Mom teaches daughter and son

My boyfriend (40m) and I (42f) both went through long-term breakups before dating. Both relationships have children with those exes. Surprisingly my ex and I have developed a decent coparenting relationship. I have full custody and he visits with the kids when he can (we live in different states).
My boyfriend had a mutually agreed 50/50 with his ex until he took a new job in a different county and we decided to move in together. We haven’t physically moved in yet because she and her parents have been manipulating his son (10) to act out. I’ve been really supportive so far, but since we had to delay the move (about a week ago) it feels like we talk mostly about her behavior. She was really mean to his daughter from a previous relationship and there were giant red flags their entire relationship. She would take out huge loans to go on vacation and he would have to pay them back. She also got pregnant (10 yr old) while sleeping with multiple people when they were supposed to be exclusive and essentially trapped him. He says he stayed out of a sense of loyalty to his children but eventually the accumulation of disrespect, cheating and just plain mean behavior outweighed the guilt of only seeing his kids half time.
He is an amazing father. He is really wonderful with both my kids and his. We have talked marriage and he even said he wants to have a baby together within the year. I’ve honestly never been more in love. But it feels like she’s now the primary topic of conversations. I get it, she practically neglects the children leaving them in school/daycare from 6a-6p every day because she’s “too busy” working from home. And since finding out we were moving in together, calling me the other woman, she’s been really manipulative and controlling. Not letting him see the kids whenever she can find an excuse (currently there is no legal agreement in place).
How can I continue to be supportive and limit how much of our lives are spent talking about her?
Tl;dr How can I continue to be supportive and limit how much of our lives are spent talking about his terrible ex?

19 wpp, FTM. I’ve been EP since my son was 1 week old. I’ve been all consumed with pumping, when next to pump, how long, which pumps give be the best output, tracking ounces, drinking water like crazy, ensuring I’m eating, etc.
There’s been days I’ve felt so guilty pumping because of less time I’ve had to take care of my son but had come to terms with and become really proud that I’m able to barely produce enough so that he’s 100% on BM.
This week is my second week back to WFH while also taking care of baby but my first alone as my mom was here helping last week. I wouldn’t say it went poorly but it did feel like a dose of reality that if I am going to be able to work and take care of baby I cannot keep going at 7ppd. I had previously tried dropping to 6 ppd and it led to me needing to dip into my freezer stash a bit which I hated but my husband kindly reminded me this is why we have it.
Realistically 5 ppd would be super doable but I’m so scared to lose my supply and have to start supplementing. (Which I have absolutely nothing against formula, I was formula fed and think it’s incredible we have it.) But I worked soooo hard to learn everything about pumping and get my supply where it’s at that I just feel so stubborn about dropping pumps and potentially taking a hit to my supply.
Pumping has just become such a huge part of my life and I feel so incredibly grateful I’ve been able to produce what I have because I initially thought I wasn’t going to be able to produce milk at all. I know I need to but I’m having such a hard time coming to terms with this.
TLDR: need to drop pumps but too scared to take a hit to my supply after all of my hard work

I actually have a bad fetish about my mom ....nd I have even done a lot of roleplays about it ... I'm into roleplays for atleast 5-6 years now ......I love it then the roleplay is in hindi ... because it feels more dirty and passion Is there anyone up for a bad sexy roleplay of mom no limits you can go as dirty as you wanted ...nd we can even create a 3some 4some ...my mom me and my friend....and if anybody wanted we can add even more elements like blackmail , outdoor , teacher , princepal brutal , gangbang , etc
I love women's older than me .. special those bhabhi types and Indian milfs ...they just seems so sexy and hot a perfect turn on for a desi boy .....if these any bhabhi or any milf reading this post we can have so much fun ...and I can assure you that it will be the best roleplay you'll even gonna have. .. And if you are 30+ we can have any other roleplays that you want ...just dm me
Kinks - talk dirty about mom while roleplaying ...tell me all the secrets of mom how bad of a bitch she is
Roleplay idea's - cheating mom get caught by son , mom and son was sleeping together , dad is working in someother country so mom have some needs , dad's business get in loss so mom have to pay the price for that and you can tell me if you have any ideas
And You guys can tell me if you have any bad fetish about any family members..or am I the only one here ...or if you have seens anything of your family members ,caught them doing anything or saw someone fucking

Okay so some back story, we met at work6 years ago, she was shy and quiet and the most beautiful thing I had ever seen.
She already had a kid I knew that and also thought it was absolutely worth it. She did tell me not to worry about the kid which I did think was weird and I told her I was serious so I would not be doing that.
Anyway 3 years we decide that I had a new very well paying job and we both wanted a baby. It took a while but it worked out eventually and I have a beautiful daughter now. My relationship with her son was constantly strained as she just never allowed me to be a role model or a dad to him just constantly blocking activities of just me or him or if I had to do any sort of parenting she would immediately undermine me and coddle him all the time.
Anyway this is where the problems start. The moment she was pregnant she got aggressive and mean. Now I know that can be part of it, women have it rough. But I mean really mean. This is in the UK she was on benefits (this is not to be rude it was her best choice) so her income was real low and I had to do most of the buying etc.
I did everything for her. Took her out bought her things. Showed her affection took her and her son on things that she could never afford and I did treat her really well. I got a bit distant when the abuse was constant, everyday it was something else. Like literally insulting me for how I looked or dressed or a wet towel literally in the hamper, you get the picture it was not nice.
We even got a house which was a joint effort through a housing scheme. I dropped all my savings into that house even levelled the garden (we didn’t even have a finished bathroom) cos she told me she wanted it. I did a lot of it myself. Laid the floors pulled waste (like almost 2t of concrete) out of the garden ground and levelled it almost completely alone.
This is all to say that I did so much for her I truly loved her and to me it didn’t matter she was yelling and shouting everyday cos we were going to make it work. Anyway a year and a 1/2 in the house and it’s almost daily. Shouting screaming. Not all one sided anymore but I had been chipped away that much.
I left. This is my biggest mistake of my life, as she got to do what she wanted. She truly didn’t want me there.
She swears she begged for me to come back or said we should go counselling. I can tell you she did not even message me. Only responding to me or messaging if she wanted something.
I never should of left I loved those 2 kids (I still try to see the son as much as possible - she still tries to interfere) and I see my daughter less than 50% against my will.
I gave her everything, things she never would have had in her life. The house now would still be unfinished if it wasn’t for what I put in.
This is what I need help with. She is almost 31 and she’s got with a 21 year old at work. This is kind of grim to me. I have been asking to come back try for the kids and I love her so much etc etc.
She’s got with someone a decade younger who doesn’t drive has dropped out of college and she says he’s mature but I have met him and he goes out drinking and partying. To me this is a selfish choice as this is not someone who benefits or even cares for the kids.
She’s allowed to be with whoever she wants I get that. And even though I tried my best together and after and I should feel I tried my best but I just feel defeated
A 21 year old she works with. No drive no ambition, (these are facts not attacks on him, I used to work there too. He’s happy to stay minimum wage and does not care to even learn to drive) over me who gave both those kids everything I could and I really did treat her so well truly sucks
She said it’s cos we didn’t have a good connection??? We had a kid together moved in together and then she begged to get a dog with me for the kids even though she hates dogs? To me that makes no sense
The advice now for me is what am I suppose to do? How do I get over her new partner? Again she can do what she wants and yea she says it’s serious and so does he. And what do I do about the son I care a lot but I get a lot of mixed messages about how it should be handled.
Full clarification i unfortunately do still love her. She was the only person I have ever been with emotionally and physically so maybe there’s strong emotions I don’t understand on my end that she doesn’t have? She truly just tossed me away
Sorry final bit I don’t know where to fit it in
We (just me) tried again this year (05 Jan - 6th March) I spent loads of money treating her and the time I got back with the kids. I played with the kids and gave her breaks from them (which is something I did not do well before) but she did not do anything in return emotionally or even try messaging me I had to do everything. Turned out she was messaging this 21 year old for at least a week before that ended.
Thank you for any input
EDIT: I feel like I just need to be clear about the partner cos I know it’s not all about what you offer and what you can do. I just feel like why not someone your age? Or someone who can at least provide experience to those kids? She has said she never wants kids again and apparently he says he doesn’t want one? To me this is just weird I don’t think a 21 year old would truthfully be able to answer that question? Yeh probably doesn’t want kids now but maybe in future when he’s got more figured out. And like I said he’s got no motivation and no drive. It is truly a hold up point for me.
I loved her and I did so much I don’t get how it can be just thrown away. She won’t even meet in person to talk it out. She just says ‘I’m with someone’ I have given up contacting now cos it seems that is truly what she wants. It’s been very depressing but there’s not much I can do about it

All these names are fake for privacy.
I have 2 sisters Alexandra and Vanessa. While I love both my sisters I was always closer to Alexandra.
Recently my wife and I had a baby girl. We both quickly agreed on a first name but we couldn't agree on a middle name. I finally suggested that we could use Alexandra as her middle name and my wife who is also close to her agreed.
Well when I told everyone about our decision Vanessa wasn't happy about it. She asked if we have a fucking problem with her and we said we don't. She then asked then why would you name her after her and not me? Why is everyone always naming kids after her?
To be clear one of my brothers has a daughter whose middle name is Lexi and another one has a son whose name is Xander but it's not like we are doing this on purpose they just liked those names that's all.
Now Vanessa thinks we are all assholes especially because she was a great help to us during my wife's pregnancy but to be clear Alexandra was also a great help to us.

Not sure whether or not I am the asshole in this situation. My dad and my sister have had a rocky relationship for as long as I can remember and the amount of contact has become nonexistent ever since she moved out a few years ago. Yesterday, my sister dropped my mom and I at our house (my mom had to drop her car off at the dealership for some vehicle recalls) and left without saying hi or acknowledging my dad. When my dad asked who dropped us off I told him it was my sister. This made him furious and started expressing his feelings about how he feels like he was tossed to the side after everything he has done for her and doesn't even get acknowledged in return. He was even more furious that I didn't stand up for him and told my sister to at least go in and say hi because it is my job as a man to call someone out on their unfair treatment of others. I do not feel it is my place to tell either one of them what to do as the conflict is between them. I have been told by my dad to tell my sister this tell my sister that multiple times, but I never do because I feel he should talk to her if he feels that way. Unfortunately, both of them have too much pride to communication with each other.
I understand why my dad is upset. One of his children doesn't want to talk to him at all. But I understand why my sister is the way she is towards him. Yes he has provided for us and I will forever be grateful for the blood, sweat, and tears he has had to she to make sure we don't suffer like he has. However, he has had a tendency to not attend events that my sister has been involved in where she wanted him there, so she feels as if it is pointless to even maintain the relationship with someone who wont even show up to his daughters events.
TLDR; My dad is upset with me for not standing up for him in a conflict between him and my sister. Am I the asshole?

I haven’t spoken to my mom in 9 months, and I don’t plan on mending my relationship with her. A little context, I moved abroad to pursue my studies and now I plan on staying after they are done. I told my dad this, at first he was hesitant but eventually agreed. However, my mom poised his mind and told him I was up to no good and that I will ruin my life by following a non Islamic path. On the contrary, since I moved from home, I become closer to god because I finally have the mental peace that I have been longing for. I am not longer in a society that is based on wealth, superficiality and laziness. My mom told me if I wanted to stay there, then I will not be her daughter. Two weeks ago, I found out my sister got two tattoos and my mom allowed her to do so. This made my head spin, because this was a woman that was blocking my blooming career due the fact that it was abroad, however letting my sister get a tattoo. I cannot wrap my head around this as, she acts like she’s religious and pious, but picks and chooses what’s okay and what’s not okay. After hearing this, I am definitely not going to make mends with her, and live my life in a way that makes me happy. How do I deal with someone like this ?

(idk how to put multiple flairs) ANOTHER TW: MENTION OF DEPRESSION
I’ve been thinking about this for a bit and..I’m not sure how to cope or feel about this. I’m still being raised by my mom, now or what she would prefer me not to call her my mother, and she is like one of the best parents ever. Single mom’s rule right? But then we had a fallout. During the pandemic I had become depressed over many things and gained weight than I’d like to have and even got SA’d by a grown man during. (She didn’t know about this because I was too afraid at the time)I was 13 at the time when these things happened, making it hard to exist I guess. I’m 16 now, and for the past years from what my mom tells me is that I appear to be stoic whenever we hang out or spend time together, but I’m never like that with my friends. She also thinks I don’t care about her and never have loved her since 12–13. She always tells me that I have traits like a sociopath, and I feel terrible thinking about it. I already knew these things but I didn’t know what was wrong with me. Tonight, she even stated how she’s lost her original daughter and was replaced with a stranger. And she made it clear that I have to move out at 18. In the past I also had talked about my mom to my friends in a bad way because of certain things that happened during the pandemic that made me want to vent my feelings a lot. I didn’t have anyone else to vent to, cause when I would bring it up with my mom she didn’t want to talk about it. Anyway, she keeps suggesting I move in with a friend once I’m 18 or move out early. She even said how she doesn’t want me to keep anything to remember her by. And she started to cry about how shes gonna pass away alone..I always knew my mother had horrible thoughts and wanted to act on it. (She hasn’t but I’ll never know that after I leave.) She thinks I never cared because I showed nothing, but whenever I cry in front of her she says my tears are fake because I’m better the next day. It’s not that I’m better or stoic about it, it’s that I try not to cry as much as I used to when I was younger in situations like these and try to cope. It’s always something in the back of my mind. I feel like when I do move out or as she says she will if I don’t leave, I’ll always think about her and grieve, because she’s someone who’s deeply cared about me and took care of me. But whenever I state that to her, she says she just has to take care of me because law, otherwise she wouldn’t be. I genuinely don’t know what to think. Anything could happen to my mom when I leave the house and I’m left with neither parent because my dad is a deadbeat, I ruined my chances at having a parent at all.

Hi all, my husband and I recently got married and are house hunting. My in laws have many opinions on the home we should buy but only communicate these opinions to my husband. They only want us to live in a new build home which are typically out of our price range or in the suburbs making the commute unbearable. My husband somewhat told them these points but they don’t care - they are too worried we will pick an old home that will fall apart night one of moving in lol. I asked my dh to start a group text because in laws only send zillow homes they like to him and opinions about homes we like to them. Dh sent one home in the group text and his mom literally sent 12 texts in a row firing off complaints about the house. We’ve had issues before so this immediately triggered me and husband said he knew he shouldn’t have made a group text.
Fast forward a couple hours - his parents are both sending him advice and homes outside of the group text! Like the whole point of the group text was to keep me in the loop. Not only that but they are still harping on the homes we like and I’m positive they think these are homes I am only picking out. His mom then sent more homes - only to husband not me - which I find rude? We’re purchasing this home together so why only give him your input? I asked dh last night to please only send them homes after we put an offer in because their negativity is draining. He said he knew he shouldn’t have made the group text and that he will tell them right before we put an offer in because that “makes him a good son”
HELP! These people are going to make me lose my mind. I woke up at 4am with my heart racing because of this. Part of me wants to ignore it and let him keep going with their shenanigans because ultimately we will buy what we love but the other half of me wants him to respond to them and say we aren’t looking for advice, we aren’t getting a new build and we aren’t moving to the suburbs. I have a feeling if i ask him to do the latter, he won’t anyway.
Thanks for listening.

"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.]

If I do, it might be a long and tedious process because that would involve trying to raise a child (toddler) 18hrs flight apart. (I will want to move back to my birth country if divorce happens)
Just a quick background. My husband and I are from different parts of the world, different culture and growing up we were exposed to different exvuronment. We both come from complete families and both speak the same language and we met when he was working in the country I grew up in. We moved together to another country because of work right after getting married.
He is someone who prefers to keep things light and cannot stand highlghting issues even if obvious, anything that sounds less than a happy news or description. Where for me, I am someone who addresses most serious things the way it is, with him and closed ones, to talk about how to resolve issues.
Recently his mom has been very sick, diagnosed with terminal illness. I asked him to visit immediately upon knowing it but he waited for 2 months before finally getting on a flight. Stating it was his mom's wishes he put me and our child first. He eventually went when his dad gave him a call saying his mom was suddently unresponsive and he should fly there immmediately, so he went last week. He took care of his old parents meals everyday while he was there. I even suggested we move across countries so we all can help take care of the them. He refused. He has a sibling living near them but physical help coming from her is minimum as she has a day job.
While he was at his parents and I stayed because that was what his mom wishes, just to have her son visit her, I truly understand she have no extra strength to have a toddler around (our child) it will exhaust her.
He texted me and told me he was unhappy his dad was not helping with chores while he was there and left everything to him and his sick mom. So he brought it up he was unhappy he cooked and cleaned and said his dad should help. I texted back agree with him but asked him to remember both his parents are really old in their 80s and even though his mom is the one with terminal disease, his dad's hands where shaking like someone with altzeimer or age related neuro issues and he might have altzeimer like my own grandpa and dad, showing the same symtoms, so be kind and extra accommodating.
My husband then told me I was speaking badly about his dad and asked me to stop since he never spoke bad about my parents and wouldn't interfere. I replied and explained, I was not trying to speak badly about his dad and asked him if he understood the difference between speaking badly and sharing concern. He insisted I was just bad mouthing.
It's been 10yrs of marriage, we see each other 247. To me, this doesn't seem like a marriage at all. This is just one of the incidences. There were many others throughout the last 10yrs. I personally believe we are unable to understand each other and we are not compatible after trying for a decade.
Extra notes, He calls my mom, mom from thr moment we got married. I have to call his mom by her name because that is what my mother in law prefers.
I told him we should go seperate ways and he needs a doormat gf who will not care nor have any opinions to make him happy. Everything from him to his family is so non inclusive.
My sibling and parents when my dad was still alive welcomed him as part of the family. I don't see if coming from his family.It's just too lopsided in my opinion. I do not feel we are truly a family. More like a partnership. I haven't been able to smile or even pretend we are happy because to me, it seems we have a bigger issue that irreconcilable. TLDR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For context, my parents and siblings have always gone on holiday with this family—it's been like this my whole life. I enjoy it because it makes holidays more fun. HOWEVER, the mom from the other family always points out skinny girls, saying how beautiful they are because they’re thin, how she wished she looked like them. She constantly calls herself fat (she’s not) and keeps dieting. Before covid, I was always naturally skinny but during quarantine, I gained a lot of weight because I had nothing to do so I lowkey just ate whatever I wanted. I’m almost sure I might even go to the overweight bmi category. This woman always used to call me beautiful, but when she saw me after covid, she suddenly stopped. It was my first trigger. I know it sounds stupid that not getting complimented triggered me but it is what it is. I started dieting bc I felt so incredibly huge, which quickly went out of control once I began receiving compliments about how great I looked after losing weight. I was fucking dying bro, my hair were falling out, I was feeling faint all the time, but I was at healthy weight and I looked better, right? Well I still felt so fat, so I just kept losing more and more weight. No one even knew I had an eating disorder till I got diagnosed this year—everyone was just saying how great I looked. AHHH. I'm still very underweight, but I look bigger than last year when I got the most compliments from this woman. I know it’s stupid to be so anxious about meeting them, but yeah. Also, her daughter is now refusing to eat because she feels fat (wonder why when this her mom bro), and it's just so triggering. Jesus, this is so stupid. I don't even know why I'm writing this lol. I need to stop getting triggered by everything like bffr girl, people are out there dying, stop crying about your weight. I guess I just wanted to let this out lol, I’m gonna delete this soon anyway

My in-laws live a few hours away but need to move to some type of assisted living home, potentially by the end of June or early July. MIL is the one who needs medical assistance, FIL can live independently at the moment, although he is in his 80s and will probably need assistance in the near future. They are from the island and have a daughter and a son (my husband) nearby, so they would vastly prefer to be here. They'll consider Westchester and Connecticut if necessary.
If anyone has places they can recommend, I'd appreciate it. I'm not considering financials at the moment since I'm not entirely sure what assets they have, so price isn't an issue in my research right now.
Thanks!