This is my first Reddit post. We Are in Indiana as well as it seems requirements differ so much from state to state from my research on this. My daughter has an early September birthday so although the district cut off is “August 1” we have a state cut off for “Oct 1” you are able to petition for early entrance. She has done preschool for a year and her preschool teacher did an assessment that indicates she is ready. I spoke with the district principal and he said it’s such a personal choice he can’t recommend one way or another. He also did an assessment. But we will not know those results until June 1. From my understanding these assessments are just identifying letters, shapes, colors which my child is able to do. My son is in kindergarten this year so I am well aware kindergarten is much more than this now. They learn to read,write, tell time. Honestly my mind has been blown every week with what they learn. My child wants to go to kindergarten but I guess I am worried about sending her early. I just don’t want her whole academic career to have me thinking “what if” we waited. My husband wants to do whatever the assessment indicates. I am just torn. I know so much is required of kids and I don’t want to ruin school for her for 13 years as far as making friends or feeling “too young” she is mature and plays well now with kids in her preschool that will be entering kindergarten but I know that can change. I am just trying to forecast to make sure I am not doing her a disservice by trying to start early. I have done my own research but just looking for other opinions.

Hi, recently switched to a rifleman and I want to share my thoughts as well as hear your opinion on the subject if you have some experience with this build/weaponry.
For reference this is my build:
https://nukesdragons.com/fallout-76/character?v=1&s=6a64aaa&d=sg2sb2p02pd1pk1po2pp2pl1ce0cu2la2l71l10lk2lu2lv2s72ao0a12a04a32ib4s12im1in1ir2eh2eu0e00ek0&lp=x13x43x73x83x93xm3
Unyielding, mainly energy weapon based.
I'm living on popcorn, purified water (used to overeaters pa), company tea and eventually canned coffee.
I do not pretend to be able to deal the same damage as a true meta build. And i accept the limit of unyielding (radiation zones/damage, some particular daily ops combo).
Still I aim to a certain degree of efficiency to deal with my way of playing.. soloing expeditions, being able to carry an event if necessary and classic endgame stuff.
I'm not interested in free aim, vats based.
My equipment is mainly based by 4+1 weapons:

• "+1" being Aristocratic/Explosive/15 reload Black powder rifle, kind of meme weapon, but it perfectly fit so I like to have it on the favourite wheel for when i can just have fun without worrying about dps/time and this stuff.
  
• Instigating/50 more critical damage (50 from so on/ 25 less action points cost (25 from so on) Enclave rifle: reflex and aligned sniper rifle.
  

I would prefer something like Anti Armor to be not linked to enemy life but it's fine. Enclave plasmas puck a punch in any way you build them.. strong, smooth fast reload, with severe beta capacitor the ammo capacity goes from 9 to 15. Only true issue is stealth (as all the energy weapons) and the high ap cost. But as rifleman, is sustainable.
-Bloody/50 hit chance/25 Laser rifle: I use the snappy receiver (or whatever it is) for keeping a nice rate of fire. I tried the aligned sniper barrel but.. that stuff seemed a bit crap to me, not just the reduced ammo capacity (from 30 to 9) but the fact that it doesn't seem to really compensate that with an increase on damage, on paper looks fine but using it.. no no. Probably bounded to the "charging". Switched to the other aligned long rifleman barrel

• AntiArmo25% faster rate of fire/25 Ultracite Laser Rifle: that's been a freaking surprise. Laser are a bit delusional on commando, especially the Ultracite and with faster fire rate

But on a rifleman.. wow.. this weapon seems to be made for this, powerful, with a rate of fire higher than my finger can press (63 with calibrated capacitor where 63 should be the number of ammo shoot in 10 seconds). 30 ammo capacity and a decent enough reload
It's not stealth but surely my favourite weapon with this build. With the rifleman barrel it also looks really cool and well fitted.

• Quad/50/25 Gauss Rifle: this is the main weapon, especially for bosses.. silent (at least in theory since it has the silencer, not used enough to say if the explosive effect break the stealth), with perforating capacitor for 40% armor penetration and a really high base damage.

I hate it aesthetically.. is higher than my character..
But it also is the weapon that most makes me wonder how it works (or to best use it). My idea, using a quad, was to not lose time charging shot, just spamming. But i don't know (if someone of you have some experience I would appreciate your thoughts) how much damage do i lose not charging shot, if it would be better to completely charge at least the crit shot.
It's also a bit buggy, going 404 and not getting you sprint, stim and reload till you either bash/fire a complete charged round or switch weapon.
It seems to be mostly a problem in first person and this bugs me since Escape Artist is smoother in fp.
Finally, the most important part.. advice me on some outfit to use.. being "free" or atom shop, whatever, if you have a good combination. Right now I'm using Bos Spec ops suit with gray knit cap and gas mask with goggles. And i genuinely like it, but maybe you know some better combinations that might fit this build.
Thanks for reading (eventually lol)

I often mention the names of other people that I talk to my therapist about. However, certain topics that are sensitive/ hard for me to talk about it’s easier for me to refer to some individuals as just “he”, for example. In the past, I have had different therapists always ask me what the names are of the individuals that I’m talking about. While I’m okay using people’s names for most topics, topics like heartbreak or when I like someone, are difficult for me to talk to about and it would be easier for me to open up if I could just refer to the person as “he”. How can I reply if my therapist asks me what the person’s name is? I have a lot of social anxiety and I don’t know how to respond without making it awkward

Hi everyone, my sister is on the waitlist for her visa appointment at the German embassy in Islamabad. Her reference number is 5000-ish. She has an acceptance letter for the winter term. How many applications does the embassy process per term? Is she going to make it in time?

A company reached out to me to try and find someone suitable... So here I am.
​
​

About the company

Small business, hospitality adjacent.
​
​

About the role

You will be responsible for marketing the brand and its products online and offline for wider exposure.
You can expect to be required to travel within the UAE and GCC mostly, but there may arise a need to travel to other countries across the MENA region. Passport holders who can get visa easily will be preferred.
​
​

Expected salary

To be negotiated with the employer.
​
​

Requirements

Must already be in the UAE with valid residency visa.
Language Proficiency: English and Arabic, professional level, reading and writing as well. Fluency in a third language preferred.
Experience: Open to all levels of experience, but ideally young candidates who have the skills and need experience. Training will be given.
Driving License: Valid Dubai driving license and car preferred (fuel expenses will be covered). If not, company car may be provided.
Preferrably female.
​
​

Process

You can forward a cover letter that briefly introduces yourself or discusses your CV.
You may forward me images or imgurl link of your CV through DIRECT MESSAGE ONLY.
Make sure to remove any personally identifiable information from your CVs. Do NOT include the following:

• Face
• Name
• Phone number
• Email address
• Names of companies you worked with in the past
• Names of schools and/or universities you studied at

If the company is interested, I'll get back to you.
​
​
Do not send me a chat request about this topic or you will be ignored or blocked. Sorry, but I just don't like chats on Reddit and any other app. Chats overwhelm me.
All the best!

1. Does one have to stick with the familial lineage/tradition or how if there is a process to change sampradya? My father was abandoned and adopted and did not know his real father. However, I clearly remember my previous life's guru's eyes and his face has some relativeness to my present life father. This life, I met a guru (online) who looks very different from past life but still has the very same eyes and vibe of my former guru. However, things are still not going well and it's difficult to work together because of some karma. I know I would have to deal with that eventually but is it okay to have a detour? Or i dunno really, do I really have to stick with what doesn't seem to have been working over many lifetimes and just tiring me out, can I just permanently leave? I've tried to leave over and over again in previous life and at present, but it seems to bring me more suffering, and I just intuitively know I'd only be delaying my life course... but does it matter how slow or fast I reach enlightenment?
2. How does one work well with a compatible guru? In choosing/changing tradition, what are the top things to consider? Do I have to choose based on which I find the most agreeable perspectives? How strict the guru with attendance and practice and if the demands of spiritual work would suit to juggle with my current other responsibilities? Should location really matter, being able to be present in person rather than just online classes? Is it better to open up and have a close relationship with the guru or to keep distance and stay as more of an impersonal student and just ask objective spiritual questions? How far should a student go in forbearing with what seem to be imperfections of a teacher? If I have a problem with the teacheteaching/approach, should I confront/ask or better just silently disappeart?
3. What other Advaita Schools that have representatives in the Philippines? So far I am only aware of 2 Advaita schools that are available in my country: Ramakrishna and Chinmaya. Chinmaya seem to align closer to my former lineage and to my dharma or life mission. However, some teachings/approach which I may disagree (although still tolerable when I'm in a state of higher spirituality but difficult when I am in my lower consciousness). And similarly, I might get stressed out (react or feel a sense of repulsion/aversion) as with how I differ with my past guru. I've been reading some books from DLS but I find literature from the Ramakrishna order (specially that of Vivekananda) a lot more precise/understandable on some points. So far, as I had been following Swami Sarvapriyananda on YT, in all his long talks I find nothing that causes me cognitive dissonance, and its digestible enough even when I'm in my lower state of awareness. However, Ramakrishna in the Philippines seem to go too far for me about inclusivity towards other religions. I like tolerance but I feel a bit wary looking at their regular schedule of activities with dedicated time slot for recitations of non-Hindu scriptures. I just want to learn the pure form of Hindu teachings without mixing too much of other references. (Although I am comfortable enough with the style of how Swami Sarvapriyananda sparingly injects a bit of Christian or Buddhist teachings just for the purpose of connecting with some people in the audience.)
4. Would it be alright to follow different sampradyas, study under different gurus, at the same time? I'd like to just continue enjoying Swami Sarvapriyananda's lectures and that is already so much lesson to study, and it is working for me so far successfully answers on my core issues that I struggled over the past decade with no answer. However I also would also like to build networks/relationships with local Hindus just so that I won't feel or think like it is such a lonely path I have to do all by myself, so I would also like to attend in person classes (of which I haven't yet decided). Would it be alright to attend classes of different gurus from different traditions at the same time? Or would it be better to just stick to one teacher at a time?

So I recently posted that my Husband was told that he has Parkinson. However, I need to share the story behind that, and would welcome opinions. So about 4-5 years ago he was cleaning up some leaves under a tree in our yard, and large branch broke off and fell on him, he caught it in time with his right hand. Since then he has been having cramp and numbness in his right hand. He never got it checked out. He said last year he started feeling a more pronounced sensation in one finger of the affected hand. As the months progressed he started to feel muscle weakness and spasms in the entire arm. Then in November his speech became slightly slurred and I noticed he had tremors in the right hand. Each week his speech became more slurred and the tremors became much worse. In December I noticed his hand movements were slower, and whenever he is doing any task his bottom lip on the right side protrudes, hangs and quivers. In March his primary doctor referred him to a neurologist, they did a MRI which was okay. The neurologist diagnosed him with essential tremors, and prescribed him Propranolol, which did not help. In April I brought him to the ED, because the symptoms became much worse. His speech is muffled/slurred and oftentimes incomprehensible. He started to walk with a slight shuffle. The bottom lip to right protrudes further and hangs down even more now, whenever he is concentrating on a task e.g driving. He said his right arm feels heavy, and rigid, and the muscles in his right leg feels rigid and weak. His movements are very slow. He told me yesterday his left leg is starting to feel weak as well. So since November of last year he is a totally different person. These symptoms pretty much progressed over a 6 month period. In the ED they worked him up for a stroke, it was negative. The earliest appt I was able to get for him to see a neurologist who specializes in movement disorders is in August. I’m fearing what he will be like at that time. Does Parkinson progress this fast?

It was my cousin sister's wedding and we are Indians, so if you are Indian or know Indian friends/weddings, you know the drill - the daysss long wedding events, the heavy dresses and jewelry, and also, some serious family dramas.
My cousin and I are very close even if there is a huge age gap between us. Naturally, when her wedding came around I was very excited and I helped a lot with the planning and decoration and the food - literally everything. It was exactly as we have imagined her wedding to be like. Just perfect in every way possible. But again, it's a wedding. How is a wedding ever complete with a Drama Llama? So dear potato community, here is the tea.
The man that my cousin was marrying to, my current BIL, is an amazing man who has been with my cousin since their college days. They were friends in their college days and when they started working they joined the same company so they remained close to each other. Friendship turned into love and they decided to date and eventually get married. Both the families were informed and everyone was very happy with their decisions, except just one person. BIL's sister. She didn't have any personal problems with my cousin, her only issue was that her best friend liked my BIL, let's name this friend the 'idiot' (because she truly is an idiot and this is honestly the nicest word I can use for her).
When idiot found out that BIL loved someone else and is getting married, she went ballistic. She has been trying to get his attention for so many years and he didn't even turn towards her even for one day and he was being head over heels for my cousin. I understand her being upset, I have been a girl in love and in heartbreak too, but I wouldn't try to break someone's marriage because of my heartbreak.
Yes she tried to stop their marriage via BIL's sister. The two forged all types of absurd accusations on my cousin and tried to anonymously sneak in the accusations in means of messages from unknown numbers to my cousin's then future FIL and MIL, to emails and even letters delivered to their doorstep. My cousin was really stressed because she thought the FIL and MIL would think the accusations are true and would stop the wedding. I told her, "don't worry sisso, I am here." (add dramatic music here and imagine a cape on my back).
My cousin's father (my maternal uncle), me and my brother first went to the FIL and MIL to let them know that all of this was false and that my cousin is innocent. We asked them for some time and that we will find proof of who has been sending them those false news and will let them know of everything and then they are free to judge and make decisions from their side. We got the permission from them and decided to get to work immediately.
One thing I forgot to mention was that BIL used to live in his own house in a different state from where his parents lived after he got a job. Before this, my cousin and BIL used to live in one town and went to college together. Once they got their jobs, they both came to my city, BIL got his own house and my cousin came to live with me. His family came to live with him when he told them that he wanted to marry so they came help him with the wedding arrangements. What's unfortunate is that the sister also brought her best friend, the 'idiot', who was in love with my BIL since she was 15 and BIL was 17.
I mentioned BIL having his own separate house in a new town because it was important to mention. Both his sister and the idiot didn't know he installed security cameras in his house and that the camera was pretty well hidden so they couldn't have noticed either. We asked BIL if we can see the camera's recordings and we saw someone early in the morning at 4 am dropping a letter. Guess who it was... THE IDIOT!! We showed it to my cousin's FIL and MIL and they cross questioned the idiot about it and she was in tears and admitted to everything. She and BIL's sister apologized for everything. They were forgiven and it was a happily ever after... or so you thought...
Everything after that was pretty peaceful, all the arrangements were made and we are now at the wedding day. My cousin was really jumpy and on her toes at all times, she was panicking so bad about everything. My brother and I had to sit her down and talk her out of her panic. She however mentioned that she was scared that idiot might try to pull up some sick stunt to ruin her wedding day. I however told to her calm down cause I wouldn't let my precious angel's wedding get ruined. I have seen enough Charlotte's videos to know that we must always have a backup plan prepared in advance in situations like this. And so I did. I collected a lot of information and evidences and kept them in place in case they come in handy.
I had my suspicions that they would do something to mess up the wedding way before it even became a thought in my cousin's mind, so I did a little research about the two. Since we all belong from the same hometown, I got in contact with my friends who still lived in the town that my cousin and my BIL used to live in. I asked around about these two baboons and found out that BIL's sister had a boyfriend and has even slept with him. Premarital smex is a big no no here. As for the idiot, I found out that she was slowly getting BIL's sister into illegal substances and into becoming a call girl. Again, a big no no. And I think no parent in this world would want their child to do something that would end up in trouble for them and the child as well. I knew my cousin's FIL and MIL would be worried about their daughter and take actions immediately if I let them know of this. I would have told them this after the wedding was over anyway, but that would have been in private so no one else would know, but I guess the girls wanted something else.
Once the wedding ceremony started and the guests were all there, they were enjoying, everyone was having fun and giving their blessings to the new husband and wife to be. These two pain in the asses were going around and gossiping about my cousin to everyone. We noticed that, and we came up with a quick solution. I asked two of my male friends, who is very attractive to go and talk to the girls. However I told them to switch on their recorder and be with them no matter what. God bless my two friends, they did exactly what I told them without thinking twice. They came to me after an hour or so and told me what was going on.
The two girls were planning to ruin her wedding dress. When I tell you that shit was costly, IT WAS COSTLY. It was really heavy with all the heavy stone work that was done on the cream colored lehenga and if it was stained it would be ruined. We could not afford that in any cost. She was taking a glass of juice from the juice counters and tried sitting right behind the bride but I stepped in and told her to go sit behind her brother and that I would sit behind my cousin. She was trying so hard but me and my brother kept pushing her off and away from my cousin. Eventually she did manage to throw it but it accidentally landed on someone from the groom's side and she got scolded by her. While her grumpy face was funny to see, I still had enough because if that aunty wasn't there, it would have been my cousin. After the wedding was over and people were going to start taking the photos with the couple, I announced that me and my brother had some things to say. Initially we talked about the bride and the groom but then we shifted the attention to the groom's sister and her friend. We played the audios of the calls I had with her friends in the hometown as a surprise to the groom's sister. There were a lot of angry faces, some on the sister and some on me and my brother. I tried to explain, that had she and her friend not try to ruin my cousin sister's wedding dress, this wouldn't have been broadcasted to the entire wedding venue. I then called my two male friends and both of their faces was in gasps. Both of them pulled out their phones and I played the recordings on one of the phones, which explained how they were still spreading fake news about my cousin and also them planning to ruin my cousin's dress. We also got the video recording of them actively trying to throw the red colored drink on my cousin's dress.
Both of them got kicked out from there and weren't allowed to enter until the rest of the ceremony was over. Both of them stood outside, making attempts to convince anyone who would listen to them and let them in, but no one paid heed to them. Once everyone got home they were scolded badly and my BIL's sister kept screaming at me that I was so mean and rude to have their truths exposed to not just her family, but to every relative and friends who was there to witness the show. While my cousin was glad that I had her back and my brother is standing in support of me, my parents and some of our relatives think that it should have dealt within the family and shouldn't have been exposed to anyone outside of the immediate family members. AITA?
Note: I am so sorry if the post ended up being too long but I just wanted to give all the context that would be required to judge the entire situation and my actions as well. Also if something doesn't make sense just blame it on my sleepy head cause I wrote it in half sleep mode.

So Colby King is apparently the first person to dox Ebony who Ebony made a post about on the 19th of May, with photos attached

"To the members of The House of Ebony compiling info on all these bozo's, I thank you..." https://x.com/EbonyPrince2k24/status/1791881399168905686

He then made a post on the 21st of May

while it may not be easy to fight such well oiled machines, The tools are different these days. I commend those who have come forward, so that I no longer stand alone... https://x.com/EbonyPrince2k24/status/1792202880755372514

I suspected that the comment about "well oiled machines" was in reference to Colby and that this post was more personal than just being doxed.
He then tweets

In case you all didn't know, dixxing is a crime. I doxxed no one... I released no ones information publicly, that wasn't already released... You all on the other hand are simply stupid... https://x.com/EbonyPrince2k24/status/1792840198319153532

I think we can all fill in the blanks of dixxing (dicking)
He's now made another post screenshotting a text conversation with a suspected Colby

https://x.com/EbonyPrince2k24/status/1792841058067399147 https://x.com/EbonyPrince2k24/status/1792843780346814717

I do think Ebony may be paranoid at this point (and he has every right to be). I do think there's a large chance that his phone number was leaked through a data breach online which would give the text messages a lot less meaning given the vitriol he has been receiving on twitter. However, there is a non-insignificant chance that Drake and his goons (who this "Colby" could definitely be a part of) are using their network to find Ebonys phone number through personal sources.
When it all falls down it'll be interesting to see where Colby is placed however, Ebony seems to think he has a non-insignificant part to play in the situation (whether that be because Colby happened uppon Ebonys identity or whether he is a part of the scheme)
Personally, I think Colby has an arms length involvement which should be investigated further.

So I’m currently shortlisting for an admin job within my team (26k north west based hybrid) and I can’t believe the low quality of so many of the applications. I was part of a hiring round back in November and we received around 85 apps with most being ok and 20ish being very very bad. This time around we’ve had closer to 120 apps but the overall quality is way down. Most talk about how passionate they are about wanting to work for us as it’s the sector they want to be in but with literally no reference to the person spec in the job description. Others read like they’re written by AI and just don’t make any sense. Looks likely I’ll only end up interviewing internal candidates.

Since I already expect to be beaten by other fans, I will try to express this theory of mine in a very schematic way step by step
A) Apparently, although there are many nuances and even conflicting sources, we can say that the Jedi and the Sith have at their base two different motivations for acting: in theory, and i underline "in theory", Jedi are moved by altruism, by the idea to act for a greater good, are at the service of the community, give great importance to inner serenity, etc The Sith on the other hand, generally and i underline "generally", are driven by the desire to fully experience their emotions and satisfy their personal passions
B) However, this should not automatically lead all Sith to be evil: living following one's emotions and passions is not necessarily bad. Modern psychology would classify this type of behavior as "Dionysian", which is contrasted with the other classical behavior which is "Apollonian". But these two terms are in no way synonymous with good or evil. So why should a path based on emotions and passions, even emotions and passions of a personal nature, necessarily lead to evil ?
C) I'll give you some examples: a revolutionary who fights for freedom is driven by a great passion, the classic avenger of the night is often driven by a personal revenge against evil. A person who dedicates himself to becoming the greatest sportsman in the world or to becoming an excellent artist is dedicating his entire life to a personal passion and probably also has very strong emotional reasons for doing so but this does not necessarily make him a person evil. In short: there are not only negative personal desires and negative personal emotions, such as ambition, anger, etc Imagine if Anakin had simply killed the desert raiders who killed his mother, but without touching the women and children of that tribe. His act, driven by a strong emotion, would have been less negative and fit into the stereotype of the "avenger of the night": who is a dark hero, almost an anti-hero we could say, but certainly not a villain. The "road warrior" or the Punisher or the Gatsu model character from Berserk would fit perfectly into this category

D) I'll give a direct example of a popular character from another saga, who however has several points in common with a very famous Sith. The character I use as an example is Severus Snape from the Harry Potter saga: if we analyze Snape's motivations we can see that everything he does over the course of the seven books is driven by only two motivations, which are love for Lily and the desire to take revenge against Voldemort. Every single action of Snape, however cold he may apparently seem, is driven by these two reasons... which as you will notice are purely emotional in nature. At the beginning, and perhaps even at the end, Snape doesn't care much about the fact that Voldemort also kills Muggles or at least that isn't his main reason for fighting him: he wants to avenge Lily in the name of his Love for her. So Snape fits perfectly into the description of a Sith: he doesn't do what he does for a lofty reason of love for "community" and for an abstract ideal of the common good, he just does what he does because he is moved by emotion and passion. In this I notice a very strong parallel with Palpatine: both characters have a mask of cold and rational man, both are mentally disciplined enough to hide their true motivations and manage to hatch even very complex plans and plots BUT both are in reality driven by unbridled emotions and passions, simply in Snape's case we talk about love and revenge while in Palpatine's case we talk about ambition. Here we can notice another important thing: the Sith are "motivated" by emotions\passions but are not necessarily "dominated" by them. Not 24/7 at least: Palpatine has the galaxy believe he is a calm and rational politician, he has the clarity to make a very elaborate plan... all this despite being "moved/motivated" by ambition
E) So, having seen in the previous point that you can very well create a positive character who is driven by the desire to satisfy personal passions and fully experience your personal emotions, I return to my initial question: why no Sith is a positive character ? Now I don't pretend that all the Sith are Severus Snape but I can't even understand why they are all evil: I think that there could easily be some Sith who fight for a positive ideal... maybe they will fight in a violent and questionable way, maybe they will be similar to those who in Dungeons & Dragons are called "chaotic good", maybe someone will have a politically incorrect attitude like Deadpooll, but they should still exist
Possible Answer 1: the dark side just streams through emotions BUT the evilness is a Sith fault) I thought a possible answer might be not in the very nature of the light side and the dark side but in the training that the Jedi and Sith receive. In fact, we know that the Jedi are not the only users of the light side just as the Sith are not the only users of the dark side, so perhaps the fact that the Sith are always channeled towards negative emotions and negative passions could be due to the type of people who (by tradition) the Sith choose as students and because of the training they receive. However, if this hypothesis were true, then it would mean that it is not so much the dark side that is evil (at least not necessarily) but the Sith training! This would make a life based on emotion and passion dysfunctional. So there could be characters (who use the dark side and who are not Sith) who have an emotional & passionate but positive attitude. However, no such character comes to mind.

Possible Answer 2 : the dark side is evil BUT not necessarily streamed/link by emotions and desires) We might assume that the dark side is actually evil and corrupting, however you see it. The connection with emotions would derive from the fact that the Sith tradition has found a way of approaching the dark side in emotions and personal desires. However, if this hypothesis were true, then there would also be other ways of approaching the dark side that are not linked to desires and emotions, there could be users of the dark side who are calm, cold and thoughtful and not at all interested in their emotions : a sort of "monks" of the dark side or "jedi of the dark side" or "vulcans of the dark side". But I can't think of any example of a "dark side tradition" or "dark side order" that doesn't reference the Sith way in some way.

Possible answer 3: the dark side is a just a boogymen because the plot need villains) We could think that it is a structural problem of the dark side: dark side users must follow their personal emotions and desires but they will necessarily necome evil in doing this. The Jedi suggest many times that the dark side necessarily brings moral corruption, even if it is true that said by the Jedi it is a source a little biased. At this point my question becomes: if the dark side is necessarily evil & necessarily corrupts & necessarily based on emotion and passion, then honestly the very idea of ​​the dark side seems poorly structured to me. Because if this hypothesis were true it would make a strange and unfair comparison between emotionality and evil, between passion and self-destruction... This seems to me not only extremely bad narratively but also false. There are numerous historical examples of people who have saved lives, in some cases even many lives, simply by following their hearts, their emotions and their passions. It is obvious that even a Jedi has an emotionality that leads him to empathize with the evil suffered by other people, however even an emotionality focused on his own passions and deep emotions can be positive: I think for example of a Sith who fights evil not both because he thinks of the good of his community but because evil disgusts him or because he has revenge to carry out against a powerful evil organization. If you allow me another nerdy comparison I would say Gatsu from Berserk: especially at the beginning he is moved by very strong passions and powerful, very violent emotions, but we cannot say that he is the villain of the story because, even if with extremely harsh means, his aim is to eradicate a great evil... He doesn't do it to save the world: he does it for his personal revenge but his aim is still to stratify evil. Why was a Sith or a dark side user never conceived like this?
What do you think about my question ? Please be kind in the comments, thank you :)

Discover the 7 techniques essential for early childhood reading success. Explore expert tips and strategies to empower your child's literacy journey.

Introduction

In today's fast-paced world, literacy is a cornerstone of success. As parents, nurturing our children's reading abilities early sets a strong foundation for their future achievements. This comprehensive guide dives deep into the top strategies and techniques to foster early reading skills in children. From interactive storytelling to language-rich environments, discover how you can unlock your child's potential and pave the way for lifelong learning.

Use These 7 Techniques to Help Your Child Become an Early Reader

1. Immersive Storytelling Adventures

Immerse your child in captivating narratives that ignite their imagination and curiosity. Explore a myriad of storybooks ranging from classic fairy tales to educational adventures. Incorporate interactive elements like sound effects and role-playing to make reading sessions engaging and memorable.

2. Phonics Fun: Mastering Letter Sounds

Delve into the world of phonics to help your child grasp letter sounds effortlessly. Utilize interactive games and apps designed to reinforce phonemic awareness. Practice blending and segmenting sounds through playful activities, ensuring a strong foundation in phonics principles.

3. Building Vocabulary Brilliance

Expand your child's vocabulary through daily word exploration activities. Create word walls adorned with colorful visuals to reinforce new words. Encourage conversations and storytelling, providing ample opportunities for your child to use and understand diverse vocabulary in context.

4. Sight Word Mastery Made Simple

Empower your child with sight word mastery strategies for fluent reading. Incorporate flashcards, games, and repetition to reinforce high-frequency words. Celebrate milestones as your child confidently recognizes and reads sight words independently.

5. Engaging Literacy Environments

Craft literacy-rich environments at home and in educational settings. Create cozy reading nooks filled with a variety of books catering to your child's interests. Foster a love for reading through frequent library visits and participation in reading-themed events.

6. Interactive Read-Aloud Sessions

Enhance reading comprehension and critical thinking skills through interactive read-aloud sessions. Encourage active participation by asking open-ended questions and prompting discussions. Explore diverse genres and themes, nurturing a well-rounded approach to literature appreciation.

7. Empowering Parent-Child Partnerships

Cultivate strong parent-child partnerships centered around reading and learning. Engage in joint reading activities, modeling fluency and expression. Provide positive reinforcement and encouragement, fostering a supportive environment conducive to reading success.
Also Read: Exploring the Best Preschool Franchise Opportunities in India

FAQs: Your Burning Questions Answered

How can I motivate my child to read regularly?
Encourage reading as a fun and rewarding activity by incorporating incentives such as sticker charts or reading challenges.
What role does technology play in early literacy?
Technology can complement traditional methods by offering interactive learning platforms and digital libraries tailored to young readers.
Are audiobooks beneficial for developing reading skills?
Audiobooks can enhance listening comprehension and pronunciation while instilling a love for storytelling.
How can I identify my child's reading level?
Consult with educators or utilize reading assessment tools to determine your child's current reading proficiency and tailor activities accordingly.
What if my child shows reluctance towards reading?
Address underlying concerns or challenges by exploring alternative reading materials or seeking guidance from literacy specialists.
How do I create a literacy-friendly home environment?
Establish a dedicated reading space, stock it with age-appropriate books, and integrate reading into daily routines like bedtime stories.
Is it normal for children to progress at different rates in reading?
Yes, children develop reading skills at varying paces. Focus on providing individualized support and celebrating each milestone achieved.

Conclusion: Empowering Early Readers for Lifelong Success

In conclusion, nurturing early reading skills in children is a transformative journey filled with joy and discovery. By implementing the seven techniques outlined in this guide and fostering a nurturing reading environment, you're laying a solid foundation for your child's academic and personal growth. Embrace the power of literacy and watch as your child blossoms into a confident and enthusiastic reader, ready to embrace the world of knowledge and imagination.

“We’re a meat family,” my dad would proudly tell strangers. He’d wait for the quizzical look, then launch into detail, starting with how many freezers we had, how long we could sustain ourselves on the contents. It was just his way of starting a conversation, which made sense when you considered that raising and home-killing animals for food was, for want of a better term, his life-long hobby. His prize possession was one of those industrial-sized vacuum sealers: you could put half a pig inside and wrap it in plastic so tightly that every wrinkle and skin fold waxed unreal with shiny detail.
If we hadn’t lived in a rural area, albeit semi-urbanised, I guess it would have been pretty weird. But the mostly farming-stock locals only found his extra enthusiasm a little bit odd.
When he wasn’t being a bit embarrassing talking about it, I never really paid much heed to his hobby. I had a child’s vaguely grateful awareness that though our family went through some lean financial times, our stomachs never suffered like some of the families around us. All the beef, pork, ham and bacon in those big old chest freezers passed down from his dad really could have fed us for years.
I should preface all this by saying that I wasn’t a particularly bright kid, though neither was I dumb. I didn’t fail badly at anything in school, I just never achieved beyond a pass. I didn’t know it yet back then, still quietly dreaming about being a ballet star or a dressage champion, but mediocrity was my destiny. And I think that’s why I got on so well with my Aunt Liz.
Liz was my dad’s live-in youngest sister. She was one of those women who get described as ‘bubbly’ — not really pretty, not really smart, not a lot going on besides just being… well, all Liz. But she was salt of the earth; kind, caring, and great with kids. She was the only person who would willingly mind my two older brothers, who fought like hellcats and caused more trouble than the whole last generation of my family combined. People would privately lament to my parents that it was a shame Liz didn’t have kids of her own, but dad would just shake his head and say Liz liked it that way – that all the fun of looking after kids is being able to give them back to their parents.
I guess she was like me; nice, but mediocre. Lovely, but somehow forgettable when she wasn’t doing something for you.
But when Liz left us, I couldn’t forget her.
In hindsight, it was pretty weird timing that we had a big fortieth birthday party for Liz right before she disappeared. She was radiant that night; she’d hired a local girl to do her hair and makeup, and it was honestly the first time I’d ever seen her look pretty. She’d even worn a push-up bra under a tight red dress, which flattered her very plump curves well enough that the neighbour’s farmhand was spotted disappearing into the woolshed with her for a snog. In my dawning awareness, that gave a plain girl hope: if Aunty Liz could get a guy at forty, maybe things would turn out okay for me.
Anyway, I couldn’t forget how her pink cheeks, her eyes, her whole self, glowed that night before Liz went to bed. She said it was the best birthday ever, and that she was very much looking forward to the next stage of her life.
Would I have done anything different, if I had known? If I had realised what, exactly, that next stage was?
The week after the party, Aunt Liz said she was going on a little holiday up north, to visit some old school friends. She packed her things – she didn’t honestly have that many – and drove her little orange mini out onto the main road. And with a wave of one fleshy hand, she was gone. Nobody really thought much of it when she didn’t call, because nobody rural had cellphones back then. And Liz was, as I said, somehow kinda forgettable when she wasn’t right in front of you.
When we hadn’t had contact for six weeks, Dad tracked down the land line numbers for their old school buddies. They were surprised to hear from him — Liz had never arrived, so they had just assumed she’d cancelled her visit. No-one had thought to check. I eavesdropped on the conversation, and it sounded for all the world like *they* had forgotten about Aunt Liz, too.
From there it became a missing person case. The local cops came and talked to all of us; the farmhand who’d been seen snogging her was briefly detained, then let go, dad got grilled at length, even my hellion brothers were questioned thoroughly to see if this was one of their wild and dangerous pranks gone wrong.
But everything was a dead end. Nobody knew where Liz was, or what had happened to her.
The remains of her old mini were found halfway across the country, burned out on a beach, on a derelict stretch of ragged, rocky coastline. The police assumed murder and combed the area for remains. But even the most expert divers couldn’t conquer the incredible undertow and fast-shifting seabed of that coastline to look for evidence, so none was forthcoming.
Eventually the cops collectively shrugged and said that there was really nothing more they could do unless more information suddenly came to light. The locals knew nothing, no witnesses had come forward, and the trail was cold. As far as anyone knew, poor aunt Liz had been murdered on some desolate beach, far away from her home.
It didn’t feel fair to me. She’d once mentioned wanting her remains buried on our farm, in the graveyard plot beside grandma and grandad.
So, in my grief, I went into her room to look for something of hers to bury beside them.
Like I said, Liz didn’t have many things. Her room was pretty spartan, and her wardrobe was mostly sensible farm stuff. There was one exception: she, like me, did like to read, and she had a pretty good collection of well-thumbed books. I think it’s the escapism – even the most mediocre girl can lose herself in the plot of some trashy romance novel, imagine there’s still hope of being swept off her feet by that handsome stableboy, his inexplicable yearning for chubby plain girls.
So I set myself the task of going through the books, to find the right one to bury in the graveyard plot.
Most of them were exactly what you’d expect, but some of them were racier than I was used to. I felt various parts of my body flushing and tingling, as I read breathless prose about calloused hands touching the softest flesh of the protagonist. Okay, if I’m honest with myself, I might have got a little *too* invested in my project at that point. But that was also why I persisted going through her entire collection, until I found the ragged paperback from 1970, entitled Tawny Sands. And inside that trashy cardboard romance cover, I discovered not the tale of Tawny Sands, but some carefully hand-cut, stitched-in pages. A handwritten story in my Aunt’s rounded penmanship: Memoirs of a Long Pig.
I read her story twice in a row, utterly gripped.
Aunt Liz was no Stephen King – heck, she wasn’t even the Goosebumps guy – but her story was gripping and compelling, and I couldn’t put it down. Even if I hadn’t known her, I think that would have been true.
The gist of it was that Liz, when she was sixteen, had discovered that our family had a very long history of eating what she described as ‘Long Pork’. It’s an antipodean term, anglicised from the Pacific Islands: human meat.
Like me, young Liz still had some hopes and dreams. In one of her many failed attempts to find a special talent, she’d taken up cooking as a hobby. Naturally, with our family’s overabundance of meat, she’d scoured the freezers in the shed for ingredients: the racks of ribs and stacks of pork chops, butcher-paper wrappings all neatly labelled with the first letter of the name of the animal they came from.
She found familiar meat from Rodney, one of the pigs that had been recently slaughtered, emblazoned with an ‘R’ in her father’s strong, blocky lettering. There were cutlets labelled ‘M’ for Mary, from one of the lambs she’d hand-reared, and ‘F’ for Ferdinand, the steer they’d killed the month before. But she couldn’t explain the many, many curious parcels of meat on one side of the huge freezer, all labelled ‘J’ – at least, not until she took it all out and assembled it as well as she could on the scoured concrete floor of the killing shed. A big, frozen jigsaw puzzle without the box, her best attempt to discover what kind of beast the pieces had come from.
The animal, she quickly realised, was a Long Pig. Her own Aunt Jenny, who had died the month before – just after her fortieth birthday.
Fortunately, or perhaps not, for Liz, her father entered the shed right at that moment and realised his daughter had discovered the family secret. He sat down calmly on the lid of the freezer, and explained to her that this was a long-running family tradition, dating back to at least before his grandfather had been born.
“There are always people in life, Liz,” he’d said, “who won’t really amount to much. They want to be useful, want to be more. They strive and they strive, trying job after job, hobby after hobby, trying to hit on something they’re really good at. Something that makes them special. Those people can waste their whole lives, chasing dreams that never come true. Eventually they die unfulfilled, knowing that all their time has been wasted. That what they leave behind will fade quickly.”
His voice was oddly gentle as he leaned down and patted one of the neatly wrapped cuts of Aunt Jenny, still sitting frozen on the shed floor.
“Your Aunt Jenny was one of those people. So was my Aunt Irene.” He paused to gaze at his daughter, his next words peppered with emphasis. “But you see, my sweet Liz, they did find a purpose in life. They did find a way to be special, and they left this world utterly certain of their gift.” He stood up, stretched his back. “Let me show you.”
Liz waited while my grandad meticulously stacked the meat back into the freezer, all but one J-marked parcel that looked for all the world like a thick venison steak. He took her back to the farmhouse, and reverently unwrapped the deep red, heavily marbled meat to let it thaw. Then he laid it in the family’s ancient, cast-iron pan, basting it with butter and rosemary until a heavenly scent filled the kitchen, and Aunt Liz couldn’t stop her mouth from watering.
“Just try it. Let her show you. You’ll see exactly what I’m talking about.”
Even though she knew it was her aunt, Liz couldn’t stop herself from taking that first bite. There was something transcendent about the smell, overriding her natural revulsion that this was human meat, not one of their farm animals. For the first time, she truly realised it: we’re just another kind of animal. And weren’t her memories of Mary the lamb almost as fond as her memories of Aunt Jenny?
Liz explained then, in her curly handwriting, the explosion of taste that had assaulted her when she tried the steak. It was tender, it was succulent, it was rich beyond imagining. The fats melted on her tongue, lingering somewhere between pork and beef, but oddly neither. The flavour of the meat defied identification; something familiar, yet not.
But one thing she couldn’t deny; it was the most delicious thing she had ever eaten. Tears dripped onto her plate, mingled with the juice, the grease — not grief, but a pure, real, giddy delight.
“You’re tasting your aunt’s love for this family,” my grandad explained. “Her entire life was carefully curated, to eventually make unforgettable moments for us, just like this. This was her way of being special. This was the greatest gift she could possibly bring to our world – and because she realised that, she died with not a single regret. She knew her life had purpose. She was perfectly, completely fulfilled.”
I felt those words. I felt them lodge in my own belly, settling uncomfortably deep. I knew Aunt Liz, probably better than anyone else in the family. I’d seen how fucking happy she’d been on her fortieth, how goddamn fulfilled she was, despite apparently being a *nobody* and achieving *nothing*. Somehow, in the space of a single day, she had gone from being a forgettable background character to becoming the *main character*, immortalising herself in our family’s history with her sacrifice. Quite literally becoming part of all of us, forever.
I went to the killing shed after I finished with the book. I looked inside the freezers.
But there were no vacuum-sealed packages labelled ‘L’, no matter how deep I dug into the frozen stacks of plastic-wrapped flesh. Panicked now, not sure if I wanted to connect all the dots or unconnect them, I tried to think back over the last few months, recall any meals that had been unusually good. A few Sundays ago, we’d had a stew that really hit the spot and left me craving more. And I realised that the family had a really good night that night; my brothers behaved themselves, my parents didn’t fight, and grandma and grandad had been there. Hadn’t they looked far more… expectant than they should have?
I strained my brain, trying to recall if I’d seen the homekill bag on the kitchen bench – if I’d registered what letter it was. I knew it wasn’t an L. I would have remembered if it was an L.
And then it hit me, the memory, the connection, sizzling as if branded with a hot iron.
It had been an ‘E’.
E for Elizabeth. Not for Edward the pig.
I snorted at my own stupidity – of *course* Liz was short for Elizabeth – and as I comprehended my lack of smarts, I felt something give inside me.
I wasn’t clever, and nothing, nothing would ever make me smart. I had no big talents. I wasn’t beautiful, or even cute – and even if I had a million plastic surgeries, it still wouldn’t fulfill me. It wouldn’t be real.
I was a Liz.
I was a Jenny.
I was whoever the first aunt had been, the aunt who had dedicated her life to making her flesh as delicious as possible, who had worked every damn minute to be the best Long Pig she could ever be.
I wondered how many magical family evenings had been spent eating Aunt Jenny. How many glorious, satisfying, memorable dishes had been made out of her.
And… I wanted that. I wanted to finally know I had a *purpose* in life. One so simple, and so easy to achieve.
I wanted what Aunt Liz had.
***
It's my fortieth birthday today and I’m so fucking excited. For the last twenty-four years, I’ve dedicated myself to this moment; I’ve eaten exactly what I needed to, I’ve exercised just enough, but not too much, to maintain that perfect balance of marbling vs tenderness. I’ve relaxed and meditated to keep all those amazing flavours inside of me. I’ve researched all the greatest meats in the world, from prime Angus beef to A5 Wagyu. I really think I may have outdone myself.
I’m having my hair and makeup done at the local salon this afternoon, and I’m going to look so pretty; all prize piggy on show at the fair. I’m even going to have a big red ribbon in my hair, in memory of Aunt Liz.
Maybe there’ll be a cute boy I can snog in the wool shed, maybe there won’t – I don’t really care; because the most important, most certain thing is that I’m going to be the most delicious Long Pig in the history of our entire family.
I’m going to make everyone so damn happy, and I’m just so glad I can share my story with you all, instead of hiding it in a grubby book like poor Aunt Liz.
My only real disappointment? That you won’t get to taste me.
Reader, I have loved, loved my life. My Long Pork will be out of this world: once tasted, never, ever forgotten.

Let’s make it aware that there is a job offer scam that lies and take you to Scam Factories and you become a slave, and you may even die. Post here all cases of Disappearance of people who may be associated with this type of scam.

Know The Signs!

Have you been trafficked?

• Did you apply for the job via Social Media (e.g. Facebook, Instagram), WhatsApp, Telegram or an online platform?
• Did you have an online interview?
• Have you been promised a job with a company in Thailand?
• Were you promised a lucrative salary?
• Did you receive a letter of confirmation for your new role?
• Did you investigate the company you applied to and are they registered?
• Do you have an agent or consultant handling details for you?

How to prevent yourself or someone you know from being trafficked

• Never give anyone your passport!
• Research the company you are applying to join. For example, check their website, search for them on social media and LinkedIn, check the legal registration of the company.
• Ask for references (face to face or virtual) from current employees.
• Ensure you received an official letter of offer and check the email addresses match the companies contact information.
• Research the visa requirements for working in a foreign country.
• Notify your countries Immigration Office of your intention to travel or contact your countries Embassy once you arrive at your destination.
• If you are about to cross a river in north-west Thailand don’t, it is likely you are being trafficked into Myanmar.

Forced Scamming:

Trapped in secure compounds.

• Victims are trafficked into secure compounds within Myanmar along the Thailand-Myanmar border with no way to escape. They are watched by armed security and their movements monitored 24/7 by CCTV.

Physically tortured, Sexually Assaulted & brutalised.

• Victims are punished if they refuse to work, until they comply. They are sexually assaulted and brutalised to keep them compliant and their torture used as a warning to others. All have scars, some visible and some hidden, that they will carry with them forever.

Forced to work 20 hour days, 6-7 days a week.

• Victims are forced to work 16-20 hours per day and often 6-7 days each week. They are locked into offices with rows and rows of computers forced to participate in illegal activities, including cyber scamming.

Passports confiscated & phones strictly monitored.

• Victims have their passports confiscated usually under false pretences. All phone activity is strictly monitored with random checks are conducted daily. Victims are forced to use company phones and can only access their personal phones in their rooms.

Could this be your situation? If you or someone you know has been trapped in forced criminality, contact your nearest embassy or email the Global Alms Counter Trafficking Unit at admin@globalalms.com with the details

This is a post for awareness. Let’s help each other. Only serious comments.
Below are more links to other related posts.
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2023/12/asia/chinese-scam-operations-american-victims-intl-hnk-dst/ (Scam Factory location: 16°38'53.0"N 98°31'15.8"E https://maps.app.goo.gl/hjxFLTUJ1SK1aLMM8?g_st=ic)
http://chinascope.org/archives/32233
https://youtu.be/m6qFCdHvYuI?si=rs2J71V1XIeFF7we
https://www.globalantiscam.org/contact
https://www.reddit.com/Thailand/s/L8OTm9Lvye
https://www.globalalms.com/protection
Fill up the form https://www.globalantiscam.org/contact

(My account created recently for privacy/scam concerns)

General
I am looking for a lady between 28 and 35 years old, for a committed monogamous childfree relationship. My goal is to become a true team, supporting each other, caring for each other, nurturing each other and helping each other grow and realise our goals and dreams as much as possible. I'm hoping to find someone that values a relationship as much as I do and takes it seriously. It's not the only thing my life revolves around, but it's also not just something 'nice to have' for me.
I tried to be as concise as possible while still providing what details I think are crucial to know; I realise this post turned out very long, but I prefer those because I can get as good an idea as possible with detailed descriptions, bar actually talking to the person, and find that very valuable, so if that also applies to you, that would be awesome.
Basics
I am 186cm tall, slim/fit built, dark brown hair, brown eyes. Both my arms are tattooed (full sleeve), as are my calves and the areas above my ankles. Regarding pictures see below. I am a runner (ranging from 5k to full marathon), training multiple times a week. I'm also vegan. My love languages are physical touch and words of affirmation. While I am mostly securely attached, withdrawing from me triggers anxiety and I have made a horrible experience with a fearful avoidant partner in the past, so that is something I fear I cannot deal with again.
I am also an atheist.
I am a very warm, soft and sensitive person, I think I am humorous, I am self reflecting a lot and I can also be really passionate and romantic. Those are traits that also are really important to me in a woman.
I can be quite social, I am a good talker, but also love to listen to really get to know someone on a deeper level. I can enjoy an evening out with friends just as much as the silence of sitting at the shores of the river and watching the sunset in solitude (although I've been craving to watch it together with a partner for a really long time now). I can be out in a pub, at a rave, a metal show or in the stadium watching football and have the time of my life, but I cannot do these things every day; I need recharge time (on the sofa, in the woods for a run, a lazy Sunday staying in bed etc.). This should give you an idea; basically, I am a homebody that thoroughly enjoys going out in moderation.
I won't say too much about hobbies; suffice it to say I am into the dark, the obscure, the macabre, the occult, the mysterious, the erotic. It won't surprise you that I had a gothic phase in my youth, bonus points if you did too!
What I am looking for
Although similar hobbies and interests are a plus (and there have to be at least a couple things we have in common), emotional and sexual compatibility are more important to me. I am a very sensitive and emotional person (I do cry easily and by this point I don't think I'll ever be able to change that, sorry), so if you're too, we will definitely understand each other. I need someone who I can open up to (which I do rather quickly, anyway), be myself, bare my soul to and I need these things from you, too. I've had my share of emotionally unavailable women who were afraid of intimacy so I know I can't deal with that again because of the way how those things affect me. I am always emotionally invested with the woman I pursue and in those cases that was to my detriment. But my ability to feel so deep is also something I wouldn't want to change because as of yet, although it's getting harder, I haven't given up on finding someone.
With those emotional needs come two requirements that I found to be vital over the years: First, being able to be silly and cutesy together and to accept each other's inner child and care for it. I am not talking about having to deal with another person's immaturity or inability to perform basic adult skills, rather with the way sadness, hurt, anxiety and being overwhelmed manifests for me (and maybe for you, too?). I need someone who is able to comfort me, to hold me, to allow me to be weak and needy for a while until I've calmed down, and I'm more than ready to offer the same. Your inner child can come out for a while, no problem (: Also in a positive way: Thankfully, today everyone seems to be understanding of the cuteness overload cats (or any animal baby, really) can cause; I need that with a partner. I also still have plushies as comfort animals (some of which in quite a litteral sense as they make for really amazing pillows) and ideally, you do too.
There is a saying that in every relationship, one person is the stronger one. In the past, I have been with women who obviously were stronger than me, but that doesn't mean they always had to be strong, far from it. I certainly, like I said, need to be able to feel protected, but it's not like I'm a particularly needy partner, like everyone, I have my ups and downs, but I can pull my weight and have been told by past partners that I am very caring and that they felt safe and understood with me, and providing that for my partner is really important for me as well – this just to put the picture I'm (somewhat haphazardly) trying to paint into perspective.
Second, sexual compatibility. I have a high libido and I have kinks, so you should, too, in order that we can explore and enjoy them together. I found out how fulfilling living out those fantasies can be after years of never being able to try and in a relationship, sexual fulfillment for both partners is a must for me. Someone on here has coined the term 'filthy best friends and partners' which I have no shame to be stealing because it's such an apt description.
I'm looking for a balance between healthy independence and being emotionally present. A relationship where we 'get' each other; we're both each other's number one and treat each other like royalty. Where a disagreement leads to more intimacy between us as we understand better, not to resentment. Where we're comfortable baring our souls to each other, becoming a safe haven and secure base for each other. I don't like the modern notion that you 'should never feel too safe in a relationship' because that sounds like running from the mafia (and believe me, I love mafia movies); you should always put in effort, yes, but safety is one of the things I always want to experience and provide in a relationship. We shouldn't fear that a disagreement leads straight to breakup. I know ‘self-sufficiency’ is trending right now, but I feel like as partners, we’re partly responsible for each other and not our own but also each other’s happiness. Being dependant and dependable at the same time is important; making each other’s wellbeing a priority. I love the relationship model outlined in Stan Tatkin’s ‘Wired for Love’ and you should, too. If you’re not able to healthily depend on someone and their support while you’re having a hard time, look elsewhere. I know codependency is the latest thing everyone’s afraid of, but experiencing someone you’ve grown very attached to just bailing because they’re counterdependent and can’t stand working on themselves while simultaneously letting you in is something I’d rather not go through again. If I have to be afraid you’ll run at the first major problem that surfaces, even if it’s a ‘you’-problem, it’s not going to work. I think that all things can and need to be talked about. If you think ignoring someone for days is a form of communication, please look elsewhere. If you think’s it’s okay to lovebomb someone and then leave after a couple of months with the minimum amount of information and no proper conversation because you’re not ready to own up to what’s happening to you emotionally, please look elsewhere.
I am looking for someone real. We all have our problems, I don't want or need a 'perfect' person. You don't have everything figured out or 'all your shit' together. Be imperfect. Admit when you feel sad and angry, lonely, hopeless or even helpless – it's all relatable. Don't hide it. Be quirky, be dorky, be witchy, be opinionated, be yourself. Don't pretend.
I'm looking for someone to share romance with. Not great gestures, but small, meaningful ones. Poems for each other, expressing our feelings; cards with heartfelt messages that we put our perfume/cologne on, and a symbol that means something to us only, the print of your lips with lipstick, the way I sign and seal my letters for you.
Just as important to me is agreeing on living a healthy life, staying in shape both for ourselves and for each other, regularly working out and eating healthy. I am drug and disease-free and expect the same of you. I do drink as I love a good beer or glass of wine, rum or whiskey, but I've never really been drinking much and especially during the past year have further reduced it. One vice I have is that I enjoy a couple of cigars a year, but I can definitely accommodate you in this regard.
Another important point is aligned life goals: many childfree people seem to be adventurous, but that is a trait I don't associate with myself at all. I value safety more than adventure. I want to build a home together with my partner, a safespace for the both of us, where we always feel loved and protected, a place that we create together, make it cozy together so we just love to get back home there wherever we might have been, a home we decorate together for Halloween (my favourite holiday) or Christmas or Springtime, as we live in tune with the seasons, seeing them change around us, enjoying nature on a walk or the rain outside, reading in our cozy home. I value stability and harmony.
Appearance-wise, I am into ladies on the smaller side (albeit not regarding height), so I'm looking for someone petite/slim/skinny/healthy-fit. Likewise, I am not really muscular and don't have visible abs; like I said, I'm a runner, so if you're more into the gym-type, I'm not a good fit.
The natural progression for me would be to move from text to voice calls, videochat and then meeting up, all of that rather sooner than later. Not that there’s a need to rush anything, but having my heart broken because I already developed feelings due to a longer timeframe and then everything unexpectedly turning to shit is not something I want to have to live through again. I’d rather see earlier if we’re compatible or not; as someone who catches feelings fast I need to protect myself, I unfortunately had to learn that
Caveats/Possible red flags

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

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

"Why Did Jesus Die on the Cross?"

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

Why Penal Substitution Is Unbiblical

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

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

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

The Content of Paul's Gospel Message

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

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

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

Justification, and the "New" Perspective on Paul

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forced optimism is what I call the new trend to rename everything bad into something better sounding. Sometimes, it is not even something bad, just something considered less desirable, or something that comes with advantages or disadvantages.
Two main cases come to mind:
Used stuff is labeled as "pre-loved" - this phrase is infantilizing and assumes I am too dumb to understand that a thing is used if the word used is not used (pun not intended but accepted with pride). On the other hand, it also sounds predatory because there might be people out there with genuine cognitive problems that will not understand what that means or won't think it through when buying.
Differently abled (and variations like birth defect = birth enhancement) - I understand the very valid concern that people with disabilities don't want to be viewed as infantile or helpless. People with disabilities are first and foremost people, and as such, they have infinite potential. I am absolutely astonished how much some of them accomplish in unexpected fields, like people with no fingers or arms learning to play guitar - and not only do they play - some of them could outshred the most famous touring guitarists alive today. It truly is impressive.
At the same time, their disability still makes life harder for them - not easier. It is simply the truth. The fact they overcame the presented difficulties should, in my opinion, be worn with pride, and people without disabilities should give them the respect they deserve. I don't care how people with disabilities refer to themselves and in their own discussions, but I don't intend to accept being shamed into lying to myself and everyone around me by calling obvious disabilities and deformities "enchantments" or "super powers". I am an overweight person and I don't call myself "differently fit" or "fat-enhanced". I am overweight and possibly even obese. I don't need people lying to me about it. We are far more than our bodies and accepting that our bodies are not perfect is part of life. Bodies are not a competition (unless, you know, you enter into a body building competition or beauty contest or whatever).
There. Explain to me why I'm wrong.

Forced optimism is what I call the new trend to rename everything bad into something better sounding. Sometimes, it is not even something bad, just something considered less desirable, or something that comes with advantages or disadvantages.
Two main cases come to mind:
Used stuff is labeled as "pre-loved" - this phrase is infantilizing and assumes I am too dumb to understand that a thing is used if the word used is not used (pun not intended but accepted with pride). On the other hand, it also sounds predatory because there might be people out there with genuine cognitive problems that will not understand what that means or won't think it through when buying.
Differently abled (and variations like birth defect = birth enhancement) - I understand the very valid concern that people with disabilities don't want to be viewed as infantile or helpless. People with disabilities are first and foremost people, and as such, they have infinite potential. I am absolutely astonished how much some of them accomplish in unexpected fields, like people with no fingers or arms learning to play guitar - and not only do they play - some of them could outshred the most famous touring guitarists alive today. It truly is impressive.
At the same time, their disability still makes life harder for them - not easier. It is simply the truth. The fact they overcame the presented difficulties should, in my opinion, be worn with pride, and people without disabilities should give them the respect they deserve. I don't care how people with disabilities refer to themselves and in their own discussions, but I don't intend to accept being shamed into lying to myself and everyone around me by calling obvious disabilities and deformities "enchantments" or "super powers". I am an overweight person and I don't call myself "differently fit" or "fat-enhanced". I am overweight and possibly even obese. I don't need people lying to me about it. We are far more than our bodies and accepting that our bodies are not perfect is part of life. Bodies are not a competition (unless, you know, you enter into a body building competition or beauty contest or whatever).
There. Explain to me why I'm wrong.

Forced optimism is what I call the new trend to rename everything bad into something better sounding. Sometimes, it is not even something bad, just something considered less desirable, or something that comes with advantages or disadvantages.
Two main cases come to mind:
Used stuff is labeled as "pre-loved" - this phrase is infantilizing and assumes I am too dumb to understand that a thing is used if the word used is not used (pun not intended but accepted with pride). On the other hand, it also sounds predatory because there might be people out there with genuine cognitive problems that will not understand what that means or won't think it through when buying.
Differently abled (and variations like birth defect = birth enhancement) - I understand the very valid concern that people with disabilities don't want to be viewed as infantile or helpless. People with disabilities are first and foremost people, and as such, they have infinite potential. I am absolutely astonished how much some of them accomplish in unexpected fields, like people with no fingers or arms learning to play guitar - and not only do they play - some of them could outshred the most famous touring guitarists alive today. It truly is impressive.
At the same time, their disability still makes life harder for them - not easier. It is simply the truth. The fact they overcame the presented difficulties should, in my opinion, be worn with pride, and people without disabilities should give them the respect they deserve. I don't care how people with disabilities refer to themselves and in their own discussions, but I don't intend to accept being shamed into lying to myself and everyone around me by calling obvious disabilities and deformities "enchantments" or "super powers". I am an overweight person and I don't call myself "differently fit" or "fat-enhanced". I am overweight and possibly even obese. I don't need people lying to me about it. We are far more than our bodies and accepting that our bodies are not perfect is part of life. Bodies are not a competition (unless, you know, you enter into a body building competition or beauty contest or whatever).
There. Explain to me why I'm wrong.