I'm in the final stretch of one of my favorite campaigns ever. During this run, I experimented in many ways, including giving a shot at AI.
I used Midjourney to produce character portraits for both PCs and NPCs and ChatGPT to brainstorm names when needed. I'm a visual learner, and the possibility of producing a portrait on demand for even minor characters helped me bring them to life and roleplay them as complex individuals.
I think the same goes for my players. I printed a short brochure with all the game characters with their respective portraits, and I felt like the players were much more invested in them. I probably could have done the same by borrowing character art from the internet, but using AI significantly sped up the work.
I also used it to generate battle maps to then print on A3 sheets, since we play in person. The results were mixed, but it worked fine.
THAT SAID,
I find unacceptable the use of AI for any for-profit work. On the other hand, I believe that using it for a home game is not different than downloading a battle map from Google Images. I'm still conflicted about the use of AI, it's not eluding me the fact that in the past we commissioned character portraits to real artists and we are probably not doing it this time. I tried using AI as a tool to complement my work as a DM, and the advantages are undeniable.
What are your thoughts and experiences in that regard?

Hey everyone, hope it's okay if I share my project. It's open with GNU license.
It's in very beta currently, expanding every day. I've made it for myself initially but given the amount of effort why not share it with everyone. It is driven by what I call "ExDD" methodology - excitement driven development so code quality wise it's far from great, I also don't have a lot of time on hands after work so I was more focused on the features themselves.
It has some features packed in:

• ability to switch models with each message
• regenerate answer (along with model change)
• diverge - start new conversation from particular point
• disable selected message from current context
• arrow up to adjust previous question
• RAG with chroma DB
  • upload files
  • provide a host path and index all files in directory
  • model selection for embedding
• Personas - adds system prompt with predefined text
  • personas can be switched "mid air"
• model options
  • again, this can be tweaked "mid air"
• favorites - you can save conversations in separate list
• url pull - if you put an url in your message it will "download" the website and put it's contents inside. Watch out for the context overflow and gibberish output caused by that.

There are many other features on my todolist (one of them is error handling...) so it will grow rather quickly. Both backend and frontend is written in javascript so fellow JS developers feel free to alter it to suit your needs.
Currently it's working only in docker and only with ollama. In nearest future I'd like it to work as a desktop app and to support any openai style APIs.
Here's github link: https://github.com/sth-io/pole-ai/tree/main at the bottom you'll find docker compose (there are pre-built images on dockerhub)
I don't expect much traction on this (as in don't do it for fame/money etc), but if I'm making it anyways, why not share, right?

Attapoll - Free Money Attapoll - free £0.60 for signing up. Great little survey app. Easy to make a few pounds or dollars each day. Sign up now - I'm inviting you to join AttaPoll. Get paid to take surveys. Download the app here: https://attapoll.app/join/mwlfp

Dittin is a free to chat roleplay bot that you should all try out, whether it’s NSFW or now it doesn’t matter. Have your character meet the girl or guy or they/them of your life and build a story with them. College romance? Sure! Office cheating scandal? Of course! Your wildest fantasy can come true here with Dittin AI! A website absolutely free to chat on.
https://dittin.ai/free-credits/post-on-anywhere
https://discord.gg/Rbnm39Kv

Whats the point in subscribing to Crunchyroll in the first place when they do shoddy work like this? I would much prefer there being no closed captions if this is their approach. I could download the videos and generate my own subtitles with better results and it would be free. I hope this was like someone sold them the closed captions and that person tricked them rather than them trying to fool us with terrible subs.

In short: howwwww!? Help, please!
I have seen a handful of comments and posts across Reddit about people setting up Siri shortcuts for this app, but I haven't been able to find a step-by-step or anything close. I bought the one-time premium and downloaded the Shortcuts app, plus created a few shortcuts from the Shortcuts app using the scant few Baby Tracker options it gave me. STILL can't get the "Hey, Siri..." functionality. Siri just does not understand what I want when I say "Hey, Siri...(“add expressed," "add pumping," etc.)" whether I use my iPhone or Apple watch to prompt Siri.
Being able to track feeds and pumping hands-free would be AMAZING. My understanding is my husband could also use the shortcuts, since he can access the Baby Tracker app too. I want to make tracking as easy as possible for him since he has ADHD and I'm not always around to mark stuff down; if we're not consistently tracking at least most of the time, it feels pointless :(
Any help is much appreciated! Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have already made short post that I finished series finale. I stiil feel sad, depressed and that feeling when tv show ended.... unbelievable how "The Shield" is stuck with me. Can't believe this journey is over.
I wanted to say so many things. Firstly, how can I miss this? I was too young when it came out, but I hear about "The Wire" everywhere even now. "The shield" feels like out of the radar all the time. WE MUST DO SOMETHING WITH IT! Please, just watch "The Shield"!
My friend told me to watch it and he stumbled upon this Tv show in one cool review that was left by some user (girl , actually) on my native language site about movies/tvshows.
When I look at some photos and pictures of "The Shield" I have thoughts that it is like CSI or some other typical cop show with nothing more. How wrong was I with such first impression.
What I really like that "The shield" has blu-ray release. So cool tv show is reinnovate for high quality format and has a lot of bonus features on blu-ray.
My friend also told me that I need to watch especially until Season 5 where it will be so high level quality writing that I gonna really appreaciate "The Shield".
As for myself, I fond of cinema. I just not go easy on any movies/tvshows. I am very nit-picking because I like to learn about cinematography, screenwriting, directing and so on. For me movies like the greatest art and I study movies as an art. That's why I feel bored about modern movies and TV shows. Screenplays are not bold, not so complex, characters feel flat and creators afraid to insult other races, woman right and so on. Many movies and TV shows of modern era feel convinient. I am tired of that. And I started to watch "The Shield" six months ago.
"The Shield" was aired in the right time! Year 2002 like "The Wire". From the pilot episode "The Shield" don't try to be convinient, it shows you what Vic and his team doing, what "The barn" doing everyday. Everything around characters feels not-convinient: drug-addicted, child trafficking, other awful staff around. Characters not just saint and clean, they do what they have to do like it or not as a viewer. That's what I wished for a long time. "The Shield" just clicked with me. I can't even imagine TVshow about cops can be on such level with great cast, great characters, really good screenwriting, directing and editing.
Before "The Shield" I can't tolerate semi-documentary cinematography and "hand-held" effect of camera in movies. In "The Shield" I fall in love with such camerawork and editing. That's really what I can't imagine I would love in cinemas. In this Tv show every take is so close, editiing beetwen close-mid plan camera panning and it feels so great in terms of "The Shield" storytellling. You are always near characters, you like breathing just around their shoulders and see every bad side of Farmington so close that you feel how disgusting this district is. Incredible work from cinematographers and editors.
Dynamic feeling of everything that happens on the screen. The greatest part of "The Shield" it is never trying to dragging some melodrama to extend seasons or try to be sentimental in the scenes. Modern TVshows really like that and i don't. Don't need to play with the viewer. In "The Shield" everything happenes so fast, so realistic that sometimes you can't even catch a breath. Not a single dull episode. In every episode something cool will definetely happens and it keeps you attached to the screen. And I don't mean that "The Shield" hasn't some melancholic or not-fast pacing moment. On the opposite, "The Shield" has everything what makes cinema alive and fascinating.
Let me explain what I really like about "The Shield" and I have never experience such different emotions just in one piece of the cinema:
In "The Shield" you can feel like a kid again and rooting for cool-masculine guys who breaks door and shout: "Police! On the ground!". After some episodes I really wanna just play in cops and criminals on my yard with friends. That's how action feels in this Tv show. I wanna buy merch with "Strike Team" on it and snake eating rat logo. Incredible.
In "The Shield" as an adult you can feel totally devastated by events that just happened on the screen. You can feel pure emotions from character actions. And what most important you don't want to judge character right away you want to put yourself in his shoes because what character did feels so realistic. Characters here not some fancy cards, you can feel them like real human beings.
In "The Shield" you can laugh as an adult. Humor in some scenes and from some characters really spot on and not stupid. It is full drama but some episodes has great humor parts. And again it feels so real and natural like human beings in real life would joke about something. Bilings sutuations and lines from later seasons are just pure gold.
In "The Shield" you want to discuss some parts of the story. It feels like after reading a good complex books with interesting characters you start to think about their actions and how you can think about your actions in the real life. What it is like to be a coward? To be hypocrite? What about loayalty and friendship? Trust me not so many movies/TVshows can be so full-thinking. It's a miracle that such depth can be in cop TV show. I stiil can't imagine how believable characters are and situations in "The Shield". Script and story of all seasons and how characters arcs redeemed is golden!
So I trying to say "The Shield" can feel like popcorn-blockbuster cop show in some parts with overacting but sometimes it's pure complex drama with silence scenes and great acting and very realistic characters. It's the best mixture of movie formula that I have seen in my life! I stiil can't imagine that I saying such words in terms of cop TV show.
"The Shield" was ahead of its time. It is a real piece of art. In modern days I want to see Tv show with overacting (when it need to be done), cool action and the same time it can provide me with great drama sequences and believable characters.
[SPOILER] section below. Please read only if you watched the series.
What I also like about "The Shield" it has great leading character. Michael Chiklis was born for this role. Maybe in first seasons you can think he overacting sometimes and can't be so dramatic but in the late seasons Michael have shown one of the best acting scenes in cinema. Pure mastery. This 42 second silence in front of Olivia was something unique and incredible. Then final eyes scene with Cloudette and finale running eyes scene in the ending of season 7 when he sits alone.
Vic is so well written in every season. He is the anchor of the show. So charismatic, strategy wise, musculine and cool and what I like the most this character feels real. When Vic came alone in gang territory and didn't fear anything you believe in that. You understand as a viewer that not anybody in "the barn" have balls for things that Mackey can do. He uses "shortcuts" in police work that only he can manage. He has really metal backbone. Even when he mentally broke at the end of the 1st season he needs just a couple of minutes to grab his shit together and go further. Character has a great amount of willpower and dedication to do anything that he wanted to.
Vic is the greatest anti hero in cinema history. Many side characters hate him but when there is a problem that no one can resolve Mackey step up. Farmington is so dirty that it needs people dirty as Vic to clean it.
I actually always rooted for Vic as a viewer because nobody in "The Shield" is black and white. Even Claudette free Kleavon from death penalty to keep her warm place. And I like that "The Shield" shows every character is corrupt somehow.
But I can't believe that Vic betrayed Ronnie. It hits hard. After that I as a viewer understood Cloudette words: "Vic is trying to be someone he wants you to see him". We viewers see Vic true nature in the final episode and it hits hard too. He always was like that and we didn't want to accept. And some part of me like him but other part can't forgive him for what he did to others. Such a great character downfall through all seasons. And this shot when he smiled to his gun and go somewhere. Where did he go? He can't sit tight he always need to be "living on the edge" this his type of character.
I wanna write about other characters. Shane for sure. But Post is too big. I leave it for later.
10/10. I am empty and depressed that "The Shield" journey ended for me. Can't believe that many people don't know about this masterpiece. I am glad I stumbled upon it. It touched my strings for cinema love that not any movie or tv show touching in years.
So many emotions and thoughts. Thanks to Shawn Ryan, Michael Chiklis, Walton Goggins and every other member of "The Shield" crew and FX. I wish I had a chance to tell it to them personally. I am grown man but I feel emotions like a kid again. Pure emotions from "The Shield" story.
To sum up my words. I like this ending montage of Season 2. It has great editing and you feel emotions. I literally cried when I rewatched it after the final. Clodette touches Dutch and thanked him. Aceveda moving forward. Coriine in thoughts. Dutch investigate a murder again. And Pile of money scene... Vic the only one who is laughing but others feel mix emotions. Gives shivers to my spine.
The Shield - Overcome Season 2 Ending (youtube.com)

"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.]

TITLE : The Interpersonal Communication Book 16th Edition Sixteenth Edition by Joseph A. DeVito - Pearson Digital Textbook Ebook PDF Download Reddit
AUTHORS : Joseph A. DeVito
EDITION : 16th Edition - Sixteenth Edition
PUBLISHER : Pearson
Feel free to message or Send me a chat request on Reddit / Discord / Email if you need the Textbook Pdf
Discord ID: textbookfinder#1311
Email id: [findmytextbookforme@gmail.com](mailto:findmytextbookforme@gmail.com)
Original Textbook Cover Photo: https://postimg.cc/4Y4dvTKf
Thank you :)
[ Please Join this SUB and help us to GROW ]

I'm extracting Vocals with Moises. And I have the well known folder with the grime acapellas.
Can I simply use these and make remix or is there a difference between self extracted and the acapellas in the folder, U know which one.
I asked artists but they didn't read yet.
When I make a friendly disclaimer and make it as bootleg free download.
Will this be enough that I can upload it on yt, SC and Bandcamp?

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

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

Original Val

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

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

Speed

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

Durability

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

Skill
Statements and styles

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

Against skilled opponents (Solo)

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

Against Skilled opponents (groups)

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

Against superpowered opponents (1v1)

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

Against Superpowered opponents (groups)

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

Against Skilled Superpowered opponents

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

Accuracy

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

Agility

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

Weak Point Sensing

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

Retroboot Val

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

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

Misc

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

Hi all. Just wanted to try getting a narrowed down idea of my type. Feel free to comment your thoughts! Thanks!
• How old are you? What's your gender? Give us a general description of yourself.
I'm a 25 year-old male. I'm a diligent student and am living away from my home country for now 9 years. Ive spent those 9 years trying to understand the way the society works here and have adapted rather well, to the point where people can't tell I'm a foreigner. I'm pretty active, although it's more so activity for the sake of activity. As such, I'm kinda fit.
• Is there a medical diagnosis that may impact your mental stability somehow?
Yes. GAD and PTSD.
• If you had to spend an entire weekend by yourself, how would you feel? Would you feel lonely or refreshed?
I would have fomo if I were to see everyone else that I deem as friend doing something cool on socials. Then I would become resentful. However, I myself am perfectly okay being in my own company. I prefer it. That is not to say I don't like being with my frens. I would feel refreshed but there would come a point where I would feel as if I can't bear being so alone. Especially after long periods of time. However, I am accustomed to being alone and finding the joy in it. Like I said, I would resent the very sociable folks because I felt left out
• What kinds of activities do you prefer? Do you like, and are you good at sports? Do you enjoy any other outdoor or indoor activities?
I like activities that i can enjoy anywhere. Though i think this is because of how used to using a phone i am. Mobile gaming etc... is pretty neat. I like activities in which i can see a story unfold. Reading is one of them, iwas a huge reader as a kid. But i gravitate more so towards watching cool shows. However i much prefer shows and things that arent as popular because then people wont annoyingly yap about the surface level of the shows that we mutually have watched. Though I do like creative activities, like painting, I also like shopping and walking around. I like doing things that I feel are leading towards something grand. So, for instance, journaling and practicing a skill daily brings me some pleasure. I used to be a huge football fan until I realized how corrupt the sport was. I do like some sports though. I've always liked tossing and catching balls, playing with bouncy balls as a kid etc... I like skateboarding, though I haven't owned one in years.
• How curious are you? Do you have more ideas then you can execute? What are your curiosities about? What are your ideas about - is it environmental or conceptual, and can you please elaborate?
Quite curious. I'm sometimes out of touch with reality just entertaining my mental musings. I will be sat and thinking about some random topic or thing iused to hear about and then research it. I'll try to make sense of the world and the "why" behind things. For example; why do I have nightmares when it's cold? Why are xyz so unreasonable? Why am I so attached to this toy? Why don't people do instead of y? I feel like social media has influenced this process tho. Giving us random things to consume, it leads us to clicking on videos and articles that spark new interests so easily and quickly, so I'm unsure. Though I tend to want to know why certain things are happening or WHAT is happening. Especially if theres like a crown gasping at something, for instance.
• Would you enjoy taking on a leadership position? Do you think you would be good at it? What would your leadership style be?
i have taken leadership positions in the past, and I did well. I much prefer to appeal to the good nature of my "teammates" and encourage them to do a good job.however, I prefer to select my team. I do not want laziness or incompetence in my crew. So I will scan my options and choose who I will team up with. If I have options that are limited to not-so-skilled individuals, I will play a leadership role and do most of the thinking. Tho I don't enjoy it.
• Are you coordinated? Why do you feel as if you are or are not? Do you enjoy working with your hands in some form? Describe your activity?
i'm coordinated, yeah. I actually prefer situations where I can grasp the essence of a problem and use my hands. I prefer writing over reading, so I guess I like using my hands fo effect the mediums I work with. I used to want to be like a spy who is interacting with a bunch of gadgets and mobilizing himself towards a goal. My activity is usually at my own pace. I frequently try to finish tasks ahead of schedule because I want to spend more time lazing around and doing whatever I want. I tend to seek clarity in instructions I am given and sequentially take care of each piece of the task I am given. I recently started using to do lists because the workload became HUGE. I will, however, not compromise my comfort.
• Are you artistic? If yes, describe your art? If you are not particular artistic but can appreciate art please likewise describe what forms of art you enjoy. Please explain your answer.
i am. I am skilled with pencil shading and line art and do pretty well with colours and aesthetics. I know what I like and try to make something that appeals to me and is objectively nice. I tend to also make pieces that resonate with myself, so things that I like. I even sought to learn to draw faces to draw myself and my friends ad fantasy characters. I'm good with visual arts but I'm also a pretty good actor. I've always excelled at making accents and role playing. I like thinking of people in terms of the archetypes they fill and even portray my friends in memes
• What's your opinion about the past, present, and future? How do you deal with them?
The past, I have a love hate relationship with it. I made mistakes that I regret and have been through horrible things. But I do appreciate things from the past that bring me meaning. Certain flavors, sceneries, good memories. As for the present, I tend to be locked out of the present moment. I struggle to live in the moment and can seem rather weird. I think more about things than actually doing them. It feels like I play a character at any given moment for any given interaction tho. As for the future, I tend to find it weird. I want a better future and sometimes think, in a tight situation, "don't worry. Tomorrow this will be over." I love thinking that the future is open and that better days are ahead. I often wonder what it will feel like doing things ive never done. Absent of anxiety, that is. With anxiety, whole different story. "Tomorrow is bound to be worse than today" when anxious
• How do you act when others request your help to do something (anything)? If you would decide to help them, why would you do so?
i help those i'm cool with or at least neutral towards. If the individual is full of nonsense and lazy or offers no value in return, no way.
• How important is efficiency and productivity to you?
I've been lazy all mylifr and I never stopped hearing about it. So just to prove people wrong, I will move bricks and mountains. Whichever is important to a degree of thinking "less is more". Productivity is alright too, but at my own pace ofc
• What are your hobbies? Why do you like them?
i listen to music, journal, watch cartoons and movies, work out, walk, try to find ways to "fix" my life (my friends tell me this is what I do most), play games, try some good food, meditate (I tend to neglect this one), research interesting things, draw, accomplish a goal
• What is your learning style? What kind of learning environments do you struggle with most? Why do you like/struggle with these learning styles? Do you prefer classes involving memorization, logic, creativity, or your physical senses?
I hate classes with lots of aural input from a lecturer, If it triggers my misophonia.i prefer learning things practically. explanations will just have me needing to read more and try to focus on boring notes. Using my hands and brains is preferred. I score high in Kinesthetic for VARK tests. Oh, and visual. I prefer classes that involve logic, creativity and physical senses. I can memorize things but this is the most tedious learning style for me.
• How good are you at strategizing? Do you easily break up projects into manageable tasks? Or do you have a tendency to wing projects and improvise as you go?
I can strategise when needed. I weigh the task up first. If the task at hand is hard, I will break it down and dedicate more energy to it. Else, I'll just do what feels right. I even ignore instructions sometimes.
• What do the "highs" in your life look like?
The flavour of the world feels warm, with a tinge of coldness. I would feel as if my suffering paid off and I am nowhere except where I am supposed to be. That there is no rush and no need to care of what others think about me. Where I can just do what I deem best amd find a balance between stability and adventure
• What do the "lows" in your life look like?
Nightmares, hypichondriasis, overthinking, rumination, anxiety, panic, jealousy, having no autonomy
• How attached are you to reality? Do you daydream often, or do you pay attention to what's around you? If you do daydream, are you aware of your surroundings while you do so?
I daydream quite a lot. But I will still feel what's around me enough to get somewhere where I can be in my head in peace. XD
• Imagine you are alone in a blank, empty room. There is nothing for you to do and no one to talk to. What do you think about?
I like empty rooms, especially if they used to be lively and full of people in past events. Goes to show that no matter what happens, some things remain. I would think of what life would be like if I were to live here forever. I would also be reminded of that meme where there's just a futon, a screen, a fridge and a katana: "all men need to be happy". If the room has no windows or doors, I'd be scared. Assuming it has windows and a door, I would look outside, eventually. How big is the room? If it's a HUUUUGE empty hall, that's so cool. I'd walk around and imagine myself in some great elvish building and maybe even lie down to see the roof. I even dreamt of such a building before, hexagon shaped cross section.
• How long do you take to make an important decision? And do you change your mind once you've made it?
I take a bloody long time to decide on anything important. For instance, i took 4 hours to decide what race my DnD character would be. Once I've made my decision, I will not regret it unless it goes wrong
• How long do you take to process your emotions? How important are emotions in your life?
I have always tended to act on emotion but i have been more balanced in the past 4 years. I regulate them to not make a mess and use them to deem what I will and will not tolerate in the future. I enjoy expressing them
• Do you ever catch yourself agreeing with others just to appease them and keep the conversation going? How often? Why?
No. Cause that's fake. If I don't agree, I'll just say "cool" and move on. Why talk if I'm going to say what YOU want to hear? I must say what I want to say.
• Do you break rules often? Do you think authority should be challenged, or that they know better? If you do break rules, why?
Yeah, but I often get told that what I'm doing isn't right and then I just get mad at the person that told me that. "No sir you can't wear shoes in this room" I'll think cwell, screw you too!" Besides that, I often follow the rules of any given institution well enough.

Weary Eyes guitar tabs download as PDF and Guitar Pro on: https://paidtabs.com/search/C-ngNbhz5ds
Click here for a free preview of the score (first page)
This score has 3 PDF pages
Credit: this score was transcribed/uploaded by @blizzardvekic
If you cannot find the score, it might be because of a copyright issue. Click on "Request" button at PaidTabs.com to request and get the score.