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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey everyone,
(Names changed for Privacy)
I’m Georgie, a music teacher at a high school, and recently I served as a judge for our school's annual music competition. Alongside me were Mrs. Johnson, a fellow music teacher, and Mrs. Smith, an older, history teacher who doesn't have much knowledge about music. (Her singing is terrible and is never on beat, and while this shouldn't be too much of a factor, seeing other fellow teachers too, they are normally fine) Throughout the competition, Mrs. Smith kept making comments that were objectively incorrect. She claimed one performer was off-key and unclear when they were perfectly on pitch and articulate. Mrs. Johnson privately agreed with me that the performance was flawless but only gave generic feedback publicly.
On the other side of things, she also praised a performance that was clearly pitchy and flawed, describing it as perfect. While I understand that music can be subjective, I feel like it just showed her clear bias towards certain genres. (which is fair but I try my best to be an impartial judge so its frustrating)
I tried to politely disagree with Mrs. Smith’s comments during the first few performances, hoping she would reconsider her approach. Sort of saying that this certain part was just a key change or really part of the song/genre and so on. By the middle of the show, I was fed up with her inaccurate and misleading comments. I felt it like at some points, they were even just exaggerated in of itself and not even encouraging.
During one of the transitions, within the judging table and the audience around, I snapped and said something to her like, "It's clear you don't know what you're talking about. Your comments are misleading and unhelpful to the contestants." It's not the exact words, but I know my comment was blunt and probably quite rude. Now, I’m wondering if I went too far. I felt that her feedback was unfair to the performers and potentially damaging, but maybe I should have worded it differently. I'm not sure how else I could have gotten my point across. She did become nicer, but it did become awkward.
So, AITA for calling out another judge’s lack of musical knowledge and biased feedback in such a blunt manner? Thanks for your input.
​

Soooo I recently received a fine in the mail for apparently throwing a cigarette butt out of the window. An anonymous reporter took a photo of my vehicle from behind and said a man in sunglasses threw a lit cigarette out the window. I am female and a non smoker.
As per the EPA ‘Under Section 131 of the Environment Protection Act 2017, photographic or video evidence is not required for a litter infringement notice to be issued. An eyewitness statement is sufficient under that law provided the reporter is willing to attend court, which is confirmed at the time of the report.’
So apparently they can dish out $800 fines based on the word of some random person without any evidence. I told them I wasn’t paying and I would prefer the matter heard in court. So protip for your enemies, you can dob them in for littering and they will get a fine with no questions asked.
Any advice for when my matter is heard in court? Has anyone been through this process?

Is the Story of Adam and Eve literally true, parable, or pure myth?

According to The Book of Akash, the story of Adam and Eve is a Midrash (Jewish story for children meant to teach a moral lesson) based upon Pharaoh Ay (as Adam) and Queen Khiyah (as Eve), who lived in the walled Garden of Meru-Aten and were cast out of Meru-Aten by General Horemheb who wanted to become Pharaoh.The Book of Akash says:*Ay was a reincarnation of the the soul of the first Adam (Adapa of Eridu), who later reincarnated as Enoch, Adamu the second king of Assyria, Melchizedek king of Salem, and then as Ay son of Yuya.
*Ay was the father of Nefertiti who married Amenhotep IV who changed his name to Akhenaten. Nefertiti had six daughters and one son: Tutenkhamun (Tut). Akhenative closed down the temples to Amun, putting the priests out of business, and built the City of Aten (Atentaten), and also a royal residence called the walled Garden of Meru-Aten, in what is now Amarna, Egypt. Meru-Aten had fruit trees of all kinds, and a sacred fig tree dedicated to Hathor goddess of fertility. It also had a petting zoo and evaporation pond.
*After Tut died, Ay was made Pharaoh, at the age of 70, but his wife died years before. Soon after being made Pharaoh Ay's only son, Nakhtmin, died. This left Ay without an heir to the throne.
*Ay knew that if he begot another son, that son had to have the blood of Amenhotep III (father of Akhenaten) in order to have the divine right to the throne. So Ay marries Khiyah (Ankhesenpaaten) who was Queen as wife of her brother King Tut. Khiyah was the daughter of Akhenaten, the son of Amenhotep III. Amenhotep III was married to Ay's sister who was the mother of Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten). Akhenaten claimed to be Aten in the flesh and Ay was given the title "Father of the God".
*Horemheb, general of the army, desired to be Pharaoh. So he had Akhennaten poisoned, then Nefertiti, then Tut, and tried to marry Khiyah, but she rejected him and she tried to marry a Hittite prince but Horemheb had the HIttite prince assassinated as soon as he reached Canaan (then controlled by Egypt).
*Ay married Khiyah (Ankhesenpaaten later renamed Akhensenpaamun), so that his "claim" to the throne would be strengthened (her paternal grandfather was Amenhotep III and her maternal grandfather was Ay son of Yuya father of Nefertiti. Yes, Ay married his own granddaughter. Why? So that he could beget a son (Nakhtmin was dead) who had royal bloodline back to Amenhotep III, and thus had a "divine right" to the throne of Egypt.
*Akhensenpaaten/Akhensenpaamun (nicknamed "Khiyah") agreed to marry her grandfather because she was "tempted" by the Cobra Crown: symbolic of the Wisdom of the Gods. Only the King and Queen of Egypt wore the Cobra Crown. This is the meaning that Eve was "tempted" by the serpent. It was not real serpent, but a crown. It "tempted" Khiyah like diamond rings "tempt" women.
*Eve being made from the "rib" of Adam is a play on Hebrew words, since "penis" and "rib" is the same word in Hebrew: TSELA. Eve (Khiyah) was made from the TSELA (penis) of Adam (Ay): meaning she was made out of his seed (i.e. daughter or granddaughter).*The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil does not refer to a literal tree, but to "carnal knowledge" (sex) which can be both for good and for evil.
*The Tree of Life is not a literal tree, but a symbol of the placenta. Every placenta has large veins that resemble a "tree" on it. YWHW "took away the tree of life" and prevented Adam and Eve from partaking of it: the meaning is that YWHW prevented them from conceiving a son (because what they were doing was a sin unto death).
*Egyptians in that time ate figs and wore fig leaves when they wanted to conceive a firstborn son. The firstborn son was heir of the family and responsible for taking care of the parents when they became too old to work. The fig tree was sacred to Hathor, goddess of wisdom. The Garden of Meru-Aten had a sacred fig tree. Eating figs and wearing sewn-together fig leaves (sacred to Hathor) was thought necessary to ensure that a couple would conceive a healthy first-born son.*Via his spies at Meru-Aten, General Horemheb discovered that Ay and Khiyah were trying to conceive a son. Horemheb then took his generals and raided Meru-Aten at night. They tied their swords with rags and poured oil on them and let them in order to see (flaming sword). Egyptian generals wore armor of polished brass and thus were called "Shining Ones" (Hebrew: "Cherubim"). Horemheb cast them out of the Garden of Meru-Aten into the desert where they perished. Their servants found them and buried them in sheep skins.*Horemheb becomes Pharaoh, but has no heir (he was gay).
*Ay was the reincarnation of Enoch. Enoch was made the Angel Metatron and adopted by YWHW as a firstborn Son (Third Book of Enoch). As Metatron he was "Mediator" between YWHW and human kind. But with his major sin as Ay, the Soul of Enoch lost his "station" as Metatron. He lost his inheritance. He became the Prodigal Son.
*Ay and Khiyah had to reincarnate, be born of literal virgins (Mary and St. Ann), live sinless lives, celibate lives, and Ay, being Adam/Enoch reincarnated, had to die on a fig tree in order to atone for the "original sin" of the Soul of Adam in the Garden of Meru-Aten in 1320 B.C. in Amarna, Egypt.*Jesus knew who He was. He called himself "the Son of Man" (a term for Enoch). He knew that he would have to die on a fig tree in order to atone for committing the "original sin" with Khiyah in the Garden of Meru-Aten: where Ay and Khiyah ate figs, and wore fig leaves, and tried to beget a son and heir to the throne
.*The punishment of Khiyah (who became Mary) was to lead a celibate life, and to watch her beloved Son be tortured and die on a cross made from a fig tree. This is why Jesus cursed a fig tree on His way to Jerusalem: because it reminded Him of the Original Sin, and that He needed to die on such a tree. He was not looking forward to it, but knew He had to do it in order to regain His lofty station as the Angel Metatron.
*Atonement was made, and the Soul of Adam/Enoch regained the station of Metatron (Mediator) and First-Born. Ay was the Prodigal Son who lost his inheritance, and Jesus was the Prodigal Son who was welcomed back by the Father.*How do I know this? Guessing ? No. I was to the right of Jesus, on another cross, and said to Him : "Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom" and Jesus replied: "Truly I say unto you, today you will be with me in Paradise." My name was Ebion. I was an Essene, and the Romans crucified me for "stealing from Rome" (i.e. not paying taxes and telling other Jews not to pay taxes to Rome either). In the eyes of Rome I was a "thief". But I was a celibate and spiritual man, an Essene. I knew Jesus was the Messiah, and he called me to follow Him, but I refused because I did not want to lose my position as Treasurer of the Essenes in Jerusalem. I knew Who He was, but I could not leave my high station and the admiration of the other Essenes. How do I know this? I was told that by a psychic woman, and also Jesus appeared to me, emerging from a wall in my room, when I was 18. He was porcelain white, and had a crown of thorns. He moaned, and I saw a large drop of white blood running from a large thorn in His temple running down the right side of His head. As God and Jesus are My Two Witnesses: that is what I saw and what I heard.
*Jesus never wrote a book during His life. But He wrote a book through my hand, called The Book of Akash. It contains the truth about God and the Cosmos: the only two things that exist. Answers to all the mysteries of the Cosmos can be found therein.*The following YouTube video explains somewhat about the history of Ay son of Yuya, Khiyah, Tut, and Horemheb (played by a black man in the video). The video suggests that Ay had Tut killed in order to become Pharaoh. Not true at all. Ay loved his grandson Tut. It was Horemheb who poisoned Akhenaten (because he closed down the Amun priesthood and temples), and Nefertiti, and Tut, and Nakhtmin. Horemheb was a very evil man, and did evil, and gained the throne for himself by murder and strategy.
*The story of Adam and Eve in Genesis is a Midrash (Jewish moral parable story for children). It was based upon the real story of Pharaoh Ay and Queen Khiyah. The "details" of the story were hidden in metaphors (talking snake, Eve being made from the "rib" (tsela) of Adam, Cherubim with flaming sword, etc.). The story is not "myth" but based upon real people and real events in ancient Egypt in 1324 to 1320 B.C.
*Jesus has reincarnated five times. I met His fourth reincarnation, who was a miracle worker from Lebanon who was born in Jerusalem in 1909 and died in New York City in 1984. I first saw His face in 1977 when I was 16 years old. He visited me with lightning with no thunder, to my home, in the year 2005. His fifth incarnation is alive on Earth today, incognito. No...not me (God forbid!) but a man who works miracles. Jesus will incarnate for the 7th time in the 24th century (2300s), and, after Armageddon, will establish His Kingdom, called the United Order, a political, judicial, economic, and religious Order, that will last a thousand years.*We all have up to 6,000 lifetimes in order to reach Nirvana, and if we do not reach Nirvana by that time we shall be thrown into the Lake of Fire (when the Giant Red Sun engulfs the Earth) and simply cease to exist.
*Our current life is our Day of Account for our deeds in our last life, and our next life will be our Day of Account for our actions, good and bad, in this life.
*We are all judged by the Universal Law of Karma, and we are all judged according to our works, good and evil, and receive an exactly just recompense for our actions: good and evil. Whatsoever we shall sow, that also shall we reap.
Watch the YouTube video. It is a good introduction to the true historical story of Ay and Khiyah. But, again, please note: Ay did not harm Tut, but loved him. Ay did not marry Khiyah for sex, but to beget a son and heir who had a divine right to the throne of Egypt. It was a sin unto death, and they died. And they came back and atoned. Jesus is the Prodigal Son. Watch the video. It is not long. Please share this post with others. Thank you.
https://youtu.be/J2dEV9MO8_U

Is the Story of Adam and Eve literally true, parable, or pure myth?

According to The Book of Akash, the story of Adam and Eve is a Midrash (Jewish story for children meant to teach a moral lesson) based upon Pharaoh Ay (as Adam) and Queen Khiyah (as Eve), who lived in the walled Garden of Meru-Aten and were cast out of Meru-Aten by General Horemheb who wanted to become Pharaoh.The Book of Akash says:*Ay was a reincarnation of the the soul of the first Adam (Adapa of Eridu), who later reincarnated as Enoch, Adamu the second king of Assyria, Melchizedek king of Salem, and then as Ay son of Yuya.
*Ay was the father of Nefertiti who married Amenhotep IV who changed his name to Akhenaten. Nefertiti had six daughters and one son: Tutenkhamun (Tut). Akhenative closed down the temples to Amun, putting the priests out of business, and built the City of Aten (Atentaten), and also a royal residence called the walled Garden of Meru-Aten, in what is now Amarna, Egypt. Meru-Aten had fruit trees of all kinds, and a sacred fig tree dedicated to Hathor goddess of fertility. It also had a petting zoo and evaporation pond.
*After Tut died, Ay was made Pharaoh, at the age of 70, but his wife died years before. Soon after being made Pharaoh Ay's only son, Nakhtmin, died. This left Ay without an heir to the throne.
*Ay knew that if he begot another son, that son had to have the blood of Amenhotep III (father of Akhenaten) in order to have the divine right to the throne. So Ay marries Khiyah (Ankhesenpaaten) who was Queen as wife of her brother King Tut. Khiyah was the daughter of Akhenaten, the son of Amenhotep III. Amenhotep III was married to Ay's sister who was the mother of Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten). Akhenaten claimed to be Aten in the flesh and Ay was given the title "Father of the God".
*Horemheb, general of the army, desired to be Pharaoh. So he had Akhennaten poisoned, then Nefertiti, then Tut, and tried to marry Khiyah, but she rejected him and she tried to marry a Hittite prince but Horemheb had the HIttite prince assassinated as soon as he reached Canaan (then controlled by Egypt).
*Ay married Khiyah (Ankhesenpaaten later renamed Akhensenpaamun), so that his "claim" to the throne would be strengthened (her paternal grandfather was Amenhotep III and her maternal grandfather was Ay son of Yuya father of Nefertiti. Yes, Ay married his own granddaughter. Why? So that he could beget a son (Nakhtmin was dead) who had royal bloodline back to Amenhotep III, and thus had a "divine right" to the throne of Egypt.
*Akhensenpaaten/Akhensenpaamun (nicknamed "Khiyah") agreed to marry her grandfather because she was "tempted" by the Cobra Crown: symbolic of the Wisdom of the Gods. Only the King and Queen of Egypt wore the Cobra Crown. This is the meaning that Eve was "tempted" by the serpent. It was not real serpent, but a crown. It "tempted" Khiyah like diamond rings "tempt" women.
*Eve being made from the "rib" of Adam is a play on Hebrew words, since "penis" and "rib" is the same word in Hebrew: TSELA. Eve (Khiyah) was made from the TSELA (penis) of Adam (Ay): meaning she was made out of his seed (i.e. daughter or granddaughter).*The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil does not refer to a literal tree, but to "carnal knowledge" (sex) which can be both for good and for evil.
*The Tree of Life is not a literal tree, but a symbol of the placenta. Every placenta has large veins that resemble a "tree" on it. YWHW "took away the tree of life" and prevented Adam and Eve from partaking of it: the meaning is that YWHW prevented them from conceiving a son (because what they were doing was a sin unto death).
*Egyptians in that time ate figs and wore fig leaves when they wanted to conceive a firstborn son. The firstborn son was heir of the family and responsible for taking care of the parents when they became too old to work. The fig tree was sacred to Hathor, goddess of wisdom. The Garden of Meru-Aten had a sacred fig tree. Eating figs and wearing sewn-together fig leaves (sacred to Hathor) was thought necessary to ensure that a couple would conceive a healthy first-born son.*Via his spies at Meru-Aten, General Horemheb discovered that Ay and Khiyah were trying to conceive a son. Horemheb then took his generals and raided Meru-Aten at night. They tied their swords with rags and poured oil on them and let them in order to see (flaming sword). Egyptian generals wore armor of polished brass and thus were called "Shining Ones" (Hebrew: "Cherubim"). Horemheb cast them out of the Garden of Meru-Aten into the desert where they perished. Their servants found them and buried them in sheep skins.*Horemheb becomes Pharaoh, but has no heir (he was gay).
*Ay was the reincarnation of Enoch. Enoch was made the Angel Metatron and adopted by YWHW as a firstborn Son (Third Book of Enoch). As Metatron he was "Mediator" between YWHW and human kind. But with his major sin as Ay, the Soul of Enoch lost his "station" as Metatron. He lost his inheritance. He became the Prodigal Son.
*Ay and Khiyah had to reincarnate, be born of literal virgins (Mary and St. Ann), live sinless lives, celibate lives, and Ay, being Adam/Enoch reincarnated, had to die on a fig tree in order to atone for the "original sin" of the Soul of Adam in the Garden of Meru-Aten in 1320 B.C. in Amarna, Egypt.*Jesus knew who He was. He called himself "the Son of Man" (a term for Enoch). He knew that he would have to die on a fig tree in order to atone for committing the "original sin" with Khiyah in the Garden of Meru-Aten: where Ay and Khiyah ate figs, and wore fig leaves, and tried to beget a son and heir to the throne
.*The punishment of Khiyah (who became Mary) was to lead a celibate life, and to watch her beloved Son be tortured and die on a cross made from a fig tree. This is why Jesus cursed a fig tree on His way to Jerusalem: because it reminded Him of the Original Sin, and that He needed to die on such a tree. He was not looking forward to it, but knew He had to do it in order to regain His lofty station as the Angel Metatron.
*Atonement was made, and the Soul of Adam/Enoch regained the station of Metatron (Mediator) and First-Born. Ay was the Prodigal Son who lost his inheritance, and Jesus was the Prodigal Son who was welcomed back by the Father.*How do I know this? Guessing ? No. I was to the right of Jesus, on another cross, and said to Him : "Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom" and Jesus replied: "Truly I say unto you, today you will be with me in Paradise." My name was Ebion. I was an Essene, and the Romans crucified me for "stealing from Rome" (i.e. not paying taxes and telling other Jews not to pay taxes to Rome either). In the eyes of Rome I was a "thief". But I was a celibate and spiritual man, an Essene. I knew Jesus was the Messiah, and he called me to follow Him, but I refused because I did not want to lose my position as Treasurer of the Essenes in Jerusalem. I knew Who He was, but I could not leave my high station and the admiration of the other Essenes. How do I know this? I was told that by a psychic woman, and also Jesus appeared to me, emerging from a wall in my room, when I was 18. He was porcelain white, and had a crown of thorns. He moaned, and I saw a large drop of white blood running from a large thorn in His temple running down the right side of His head. As God and Jesus are My Two Witnesses: that is what I saw and what I heard.
*Jesus never wrote a book during His life. But He wrote a book through my hand, called The Book of Akash. It contains the truth about God and the Cosmos: the only two things that exist. Answers to all the mysteries of the Cosmos can be found therein.*The following YouTube video explains somewhat about the history of Ay son of Yuya, Khiyah, Tut, and Horemheb (played by a black man in the video). The video suggests that Ay had Tut killed in order to become Pharaoh. Not true at all. Ay loved his grandson Tut. It was Horemheb who poisoned Akhenaten (because he closed down the Amun priesthood and temples), and Nefertiti, and Tut, and Nakhtmin. Horemheb was a very evil man, and did evil, and gained the throne for himself by murder and strategy.
*The story of Adam and Eve in Genesis is a Midrash (Jewish moral parable story for children). It was based upon the real story of Pharaoh Ay and Queen Khiyah. The "details" of the story were hidden in metaphors (talking snake, Eve being made from the "rib" (tsela) of Adam, Cherubim with flaming sword, etc.). The story is not "myth" but based upon real people and real events in ancient Egypt in 1324 to 1320 B.C.
*Jesus has reincarnated five times. I met His fourth reincarnation, who was a miracle worker from Lebanon who was born in Jerusalem in 1909 and died in New York City in 1984. I first saw His face in 1977 when I was 16 years old. He visited me with lightning with no thunder, to my home, in the year 2005. His fifth incarnation is alive on Earth today, incognito. No...not me (God forbid!) but a man who works miracles. Jesus will incarnate for the 7th time in the 24th century (2300s), and, after Armageddon, will establish His Kingdom, called the United Order, a political, judicial, economic, and religious Order, that will last a thousand years.*We all have up to 6,000 lifetimes in order to reach Nirvana, and if we do not reach Nirvana by that time we shall be thrown into the Lake of Fire (when the Giant Red Sun engulfs the Earth) and simply cease to exist.
*Our current life is our Day of Account for our deeds in our last life, and our next life will be our Day of Account for our actions, good and bad, in this life.
*We are all judged by the Universal Law of Karma, and we are all judged according to our works, good and evil, and receive an exactly just recompense for our actions: good and evil. Whatsoever we shall sow, that also shall we reap.
Watch the YouTube video. It is a good introduction to the true historical story of Ay and Khiyah. But, again, please note: Ay did not harm Tut, but loved him. Ay did not marry Khiyah for sex, but to beget a son and heir who had a divine right to the throne of Egypt. It was a sin unto death, and they died. And they came back and atoned. Jesus is the Prodigal Son. Watch the video. It is not long. Please share this post with others. Thank you.
https://youtu.be/J2dEV9MO8_U

I have wanted to share my story just didn’t know where or how and I think Reddit is the place to do it finally.
I (34 F) was married to my ex husband(32 M) for 9 years before I found out about his affair. Literally caught him at the start and watched it grow. I originally reacted with disgust and the violence of hurling our wedding photo at his head. But over time stood by biding my time while it continued to happen.
After I caught him then began the conversations where we were up until 3 am and we slept separate. I was told he loved me but wasn’t in love with me blah blah blah. He left multiple times to “clear his mind” which I can only assume was to be with her. And eventually admitted that they had become physically intimate.
This broke me, we had met when I was 15 he was the only man I had ever been with, and I the only woman he had been with, or he led me to believe that. It was at this point, 2 months after discovering the affair, that I decided to visit my mom in another state to get clarity and space to think through what I wanted to do and to allow him to do the same.
At the end of my week away we decided to give our marriage a chance and even planned a weekend getaway for when I returned. Which appeared to be lovely, but I could still not sleep, while on this getaway. I didn’t trust him and eventually learned how to pull up the phone history in real time through TMobile and discovered he was still talking to the other woman. By the end of 1 week “of trying” he ran off to her in the middle of the night because he couldn’t do this and she was threatening to binge drink herself into the hospital, despite having her child at home with her.
It was at this juncture that we chose to start our separation and the longest 5 months of my life began. I chose to stand for my marriage. Meaning I would welcome him back still if he wanted to come back, but at the same time knowing one day I would reach my limit and be done. In his eyes we were slowly separating everything for an eventual divorce, but he didn’t want the divorce yet.
During this time we were still physically intimate weekly; for two reasons it fulfilled my physical needs and was my petty attempt at getting back at her and him.
So after 5 months of being the wife that stood by waiting while her husband openly cheated, I reached my point of being done with the situation of him being with her M-F and with me on the weekends. I decided to move home. So I sped up selling the house and was gone within a month of making this decision. But we both still didn’t want a divorce.
After moving home (a state away) we still spoke frequently while he was living with her. He called and spoke to me on his commute home to her. Even mentioned how much he missed sex with me. I on the other hand started to see clearer and clearer and began to be done. I was pulling away and he could see it and was trying to hold on. Until I was finally done, I actually took my little brother asking me why, and me not having an answer anymore to be done.
I didn’t say a word I just slipped away and started online dating; it definitely was the confidence boost I needed and had no intentions of finding a serious relationship. Granted probably not the best thing to do at the time.
About 3 weeks into dating I finally responded to my now ex husband. And asked him for a divorce. This began the pleading and begging but with no actual action on his part of getting me back. But I was done my heart was cold towards him and enjoying the attention I was receiving.
We divorced 3 months later due to the state he lived in having a 90 day waiting period.
I have moved on and found a truly better match in my current husband and am a mother finally. I am truly happy with my life now more than I ever was with him. I have received many apologies from him but never a truly satisfying one.
However I am still friends with my ex mother in law so I know that he and the other woman had a child together and married a year after that. I know I shouldn’t care but I want their relationship to fail and feel horrible for that feeling for the child’s sake. So I suppose I wrote all of this to get my final slice of closure in a piece of the world knowing my story and it being out there.
Thank you for reading.

Because I haven’t done any verifying yet, I’ll try to word this to not imply anything about myself. But a debate has come up and I’m looking for some case law examples that could help.
Say you make an arrest on a subject and you go to take possession of any item for purposes of safekeeping. Let’s say the item isn’t a gun or anything that would pose substantial undue risk to the public. You go to get it and your arrestee says “No, I don’t need that, you don’t need to bring it. Leave it with my other stuff.”
Someone multiple pay grades above me is saying that we can legally say “nah, we’re taking it anyway,” still for quote unquote safekeeping.
In my mind, this is borderline theft because there’s no probable cause or any sort of evidentiary value that constitutes needing to confiscate the item and again, it being left with the arrestee’s other belongings does not pose risk to the public.
What say you?

Saturday 18 May 2024
Today in Philosophy of History
Further Elaborations on the Coming Coeval Age
My essay “The Coming Coeval Age” has appeared in Isonomia Quarterly for summer 2024. Last year I contributed an essay to the initial number of the journal. As with my recent paper in the Journal of Big History, “A Complexity Ladder for Big History,” this most recent essay isn’t narrowly about philosophy of history, but there are many philosophy of history themes in it.
The journal’s interest in the theme of isonomia was my point of departure for considering the institutional structure of civilization at the largest conceivable scales. What is isonomia? There is a passage in Book III of Herodotus known as the constitutional debate in which three speakers argue for the best form of government, with these three being monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy. Here is the first of three speakers in Herodotus advocating for isonomia:

“Otanes urged that they should resign the government into the hands of the whole body of the Persians, and his words were as follows: ‘To me it seems best that no single one of us should henceforth be ruler, for that is neither pleasant nor profitable. Ye saw the insolent temper of Cambyses, to what lengths it went, and ye have had experience also of the insolence of the Magian: and how should the rule of one alone be a well-ordered thing, seeing that the monarch may do what he desires without rendering any account of his acts? Even the best of all men, if he were placed in this disposition, would be caused by it to change from his wonted disposition: for insolence is engendered in him by the good things which he possesses, and envy is implanted in man from the beginning; and having these two things, he has all vice: for he does many deeds of reckless wrong, partly moved by insolence proceeding from satiety, and partly by envy. And yet a despot at least ought to have been free from envy, seeing that he has all manner of good things. He is however naturally in just the opposite temper towards his subjects; for he grudges to the nobles that they should survive and live, but delights in the basest of citizens, and he is more ready than any other man to receive calumnies. Then of all things he is the most inconsistent; for if you express admiration of him moderately, he is offended that no very great court is paid to him, whereas if you pay court to him extravagantly, he is offended with you for being a flatterer. And the most important matter of all is that which I am about to say:—he disturbs the customs handed down from our fathers, he is a ravisher of women, and he puts men to death without trial. On the other hand the rule of many has first a name attaching to it which is the fairest of all names, that is to say “Equality”; next, the multitude does none of those things which the monarch does: offices of state are exercised by lot, and the magistrates are compelled to render account of their action: and finally all matters of deliberation are referred to the public assembly. I therefore give as my opinion that we let monarchy go and increase the power of the multitude; for in the many is contained everything’.”

The three forms of government—monarchical, oligarchical, and democratic—are a perennial theme of Greek political thought that continues to echo through the history of Western civilization. Book III of Aristotle’s Politics goes into this in some detail.
After sending my essay off to Isonomia Quarterly I realized that one of the fundamental ambiguities about the idea of isonomia—and I would have included a footnote on this if I had thought of it sooner—is the ambiguity implicit in speaking in terms of the same law. What is it that is “the same” when we speak of the same law? “The same law” could mean that every particular law would apply to every particular person, or “the same law” could mean that the totality of the law, that is, the whole body of law, applies to the totality of the population. A body of law might involve different laws that apply differently to different persons, so that the second of the two senses does not entail the first of the two senses. If you read my essay you’ll find that I argue that the Greeks understood isonomia in the latter sense, so I won’t repeat that argument or the sources I cite for it here. But the fact that we might interpret a fundamental political idea in different ways poses the question of how these fundamental ideas outlined in antiquity apply to us today, if they do apply, and how they ought to apply now and in the future.
How will these traditional ideas be interpreted in future iterations of human society that might differ quite considerably from the world that we inhabit? How are we to understand isonomia within the context of a spacefaring civilization? For that matter, how are we to understand any classical Greek political theory in the context of future changes to society? For Westerners, this is our heritage, and how this tradition adapts or is adapted to changed conditions will give shape to the ongoing tradition of Western civilization.
In my essay I suggest that, on Earth to date, the expansion of political regimes has constituted what I call synchronic isonomia, when societies are distributed synchronically, that is to say, when they interact in the present across geographical distances. In a specifically legal context, this means the iteration of a body of law across a region of space. The possibility of what Frank White calls Large-Scale Space Migration would initially constitute synchronic expansion on a scale greater than that possible on Earth, but, if continued, it would eventually cross a threshold of diachronic isonomia, that is to say, when societies are distributed diachronically over time. In a specifically legal context, again, this means the iteration of a body of law, the same law, over a period of time. The strange, seemingly paradoxical aspect of this way of thinking is that the human scale of time could be distributed over a much larger cosmological scale of time while retaining its character as distinctively human history. I will try to explain how this could come about, but first I want to point out a peculiarity of terrestrial history that we haven’t seen as a peculiarity.
We are familiar with the idea that we see the universe form a peculiar point of view because we see it from the surface of a planet. Our planetary perspective has been the focus of the Copernican revolution, which has taught us that our apparently centrality in the universe is an artifact of our limited and parochial perspective. The Copernican revolution taught us to transcend our planetary perspective and to see the universe from a non-terrestrial perspective, but there is another aspect of the Copernican revolution that we haven’t yet explored, and that is seeing history from a non-terrestrial perspective. Part of this non-terrestrial perspective is simply to understand that, just as we are not in the center of space, we are also not in the center of time. But there’s more to it than this.
Einstein’s theory of relativity has made it possible for us to see time in a new way, and this can change the way we see history. In many of my episodes I have talked about the need to address the disconnect between philosophies of time and philosophies of history. History is constructed out of time, so a radical reconceptualization of time suggests a radical reconceptualization of history. The theory of relativity is such a radical reconceptualization of time, but many of the influences of relativity and gravity upon time are usually not noticed on a terrestrial scale, and all human history to date has occurred on terrestrial scale.
We can see the effects of relativity when we look out into the cosmos and use instruments to observe cosmological distances over which relatively is relevant, and to observe bodies so dense that they change the structure of spacetime. To date, our technologies have allowed us to measure the relativity of time under the influence of acceleration and gravitation, but we may, at some point in our history, develop technologies that allow us to interact with the universe at a scale at which relativity will change our history. When this eventuality comes to pass, we will eventually be forced to notice things about our history that hadn’t previously been problematic.
Our history to date has been the simplest possible history because it has all transpired on Earth. Earth is our sole inertial frame of reference for all historical events. There are relativistic effects within this inertial frame of reference, but they can only be detected by instruments of extreme precision because the influence of relativity lies below the threshold of human perception. For example, every planet drags its spacetime around with it as it rotates, which is known as frame-dragging. And even the relatively crude instruments of the nineteenth century could detect the perihelion precession of Mercury, which is an observable relativistic perturbation of the orbit of Mercury. This was first observed and noted to diverge from Newtonian predictions in 1859. These relativistic effects are, however, well below the threshold of impacting human history.
Technologies could change this. Relativistic space travel would be such a technology. This has been made famous by the so-called “twins paradox.” The twins paradox is invoked with greatest effect by the use of individuals to illustrate the difference between two clocks in different inertial frames of reference—usually a set of twins. This was called a paradox because it was initially thought to be impossible. We also saw this use of individuals to demonstrate the poignancy of time dilation in the film Interstellar. Here it is a father and daughter who are separated, with the father experiencing an accelerated inertial frame of reference, so that he returns, still a young man, to find his daughter dying as an old woman. This is great for drama, but this isn’t how any relativistic space settlement effort is going to play out, unless someone purposefully arranges something like this as a stunt.
Let us consider a simple example of what is more likely to occur. Suppose a settlement on another world established by several thousands of individuals, maybe tens or hundreds of thousands, like a small city, who travel to another planetary system, tens or hundreds or thousands of light years from Earth. The passengers on the starship in their accelerated inertial framework will experience time dilation, and they will preserve the cultural milieu of Earth has it was upon their launch. When they establish their settlement, there will be two human histories that bifurcate at the point in time when the interstellar settlement initiative was inaugurated.
However, the larger population on Earth will continue to drive cultural evolution at a far faster rate than in the settlement, while, in the settlement, human beings will be subjected to radically different selection pressures than prevailed on Earth, and they will also be a small community likely to retain the cultural milieu they possessed when they left Earth. We would then have two human histories, offset in time by the discontinuity of the relativistic travel time from Earth to the location of the settlement. For example, if the Earth and the settlement are a hundred light years apart, there would be a temporal discontinuity of a century. Life would go on at Earth, and a century later things would be different, but a century later the settlement would just be founded on the basis of Earth’s culture of a century before. This is a kind of historical complexity that we do not have today, but which could happen in the future.
Now imagine not one settlement, but a hundred or a thousand such settlements, each representing a temporal discontinuity from Earth’s history. A hundred settlements of ten thousand persons each would be an effort involving only a million persons, which is a very small proportion of the total human population; Earth wouldn’t even notice the absence of a million persons. Further, imagine travel among these settlements by relativistic spacecraft, and then the history of those who travel between settlements will be even more complex. In this context, depending upon the location of settlements relative to each other, and the date at which the settlement initiative was undertaken, an individual could effectively time travel into the past by traveling outward from Earth to a settlement that preserves the historical milieu at Earth at the time of its departure. You could not return to Earth without finding yourself accelerated into the future, but you could travel further outward to a settlement established from earlier in Earth’s history.
We get a similar, if slower result, if we substitute sub-relativistic spacecraft in conjunction with artificially induced torpor or hibernation—space arks, if you will. A slow boat to the stars would likewise preserve the culture of Earth from the time of its departure, with settlers being roused and resuming their lives once they reached the end of their journey, effectively cut off from a return to their familiar terrestrial milieu, but they would be able to visit other historical peer milieux if they take another slow boat further out into the cosmos.
The kind of distributed temporality that I am describing would achieve its greatest extent, and its greatest historical complexity, in the case of interstellar expansion. However, something similar could be realized on Earth at a smaller scale. Imagine a large scale hibernation project on Earth, such that about 10,000 persons are involved, enough so that there could be a rotating crew of a dozen or so that stays awake to tend the rest to make sure this continues to operate as intended. At some appointed time in the future, the whole community could be brought out of their hibernation and they would bring with them the culture of Earth from their date when they entered into hibernation, now displaced into the future. This would make it possible for temporally distributed communities to appear on Earth, without travel to other worlds or the use of relativistic technology. There are several science fiction stories with something like this as their approximate premise.
Whether through relativistic travel or human hibernation, historical communities could be preserved from all eras into some indefinite future, and in that indefinite future, these distinct historical communities would be synchronically present. This is what I call coevalism, when all ages of history are equally accessible. The idea of coevalism occurred to me many years ago, and not in connection with relativistic travel; I was thinking about the increasing fidelity of recording technologies. Written language is the most rudimentary form of recording technology, and is allows us the most rudimentary form of time travel, by being able to share the thoughts of those long dead. Since the industrial revolution, technologies have become much more sophisticated, with photographs, film, and sound recordings, with always-increasing fidelity to the original.
The rapid growth of computer technology and telecommunications in recent decades has made us aware that, if this arc of technological development continues, we will have nearly-perfect fidelity recordings. But in addition to recordings, we could generate states-of-affairs that never existed in fact, as in fantasy and science fiction, or we could generate the milieux of the past, both with a degree of fidelity equal to that of the present. Computers are already sufficiently sophisticated to generate simple films, and the reconstruction of past milieux can be done without computers as well.
In the original Westworld film on 1973, a past milieu was re-created using robots. Robotics hasn’t yet achieved this level of realism, but we could do this today with human actors, and we may yet do so someday with robots. In fact, we do this in a limited way. Theme parks re-create fantasy worlds populated with actors who make fantasy characters come to life. So coevalism can be realized at smaller scales than sparefaring civilizations, but it would be in a spacefaring civilizations with relativistic space travel in which the possibilities of coevalism would come to their fullest expression, and in which history would achieve its greatest complexity.
History is already extraordinarily complex, but I said earlier than our terrestrial history is the simplest history possible given the spacetime structure of the universe. It is when we begin distributing our civilization in cosmological time that historical complexity will cease to be a single linear continuum. The possibilities of spacefaring histories will be both facilitated and limited by our technology. These possibilities will also be facilitated and limited by the actual spacetime structure of the universe, which is a function of the distribution of matter in the universe. Just as terrestrial history has been shaped by oceans, mountain ranges, and rivers, cosmological history is shaped by stars, gravitation, and expansion, and human history that takes place within this cosmological context will be shaped by these forces. The point I want to make is that, while human history is complex, we are not necessarily limited by the complexity of the single inertial frame of reference of our homeworld.
When multiple inertial frames of reference are available to us, and travel between then is possible, the possible structures of history will dramatically expand, and with these possibilities human experience will dramatically expand, and I hope you can see how this can give a whole new meaning to the idea of speculative philosophy of history. In the conventional distinction between analytical philosophy of history and substantive philosophy of history, analytical philosophy of history is, according to Danto, “…philosophy applied to the special conceptual problems which arise out of the practice of history,” while substantive philosophy of history is a philosophical account of the historical process itself. This same distinction has also been called the distinction between critical and speculative philosophy of history by William Dray, and the distinction between formal and material philosophy of history by Maurice Mandelbaum. Here I emphasize speculative philosophy of history as that which reflects uon the actual historical process.
In addition to the speculative philosophy of history that considers the historical process, we can also imagine a speculative philosophy of history that concerns itself with the implications of speculative states-of-affairs upon history yet to come—historical processes not yet realized, but which may be realized someday. Many of the speculative states-of-affairs I can imagine involve human exploration and expansion into the cosmos. The speculative states-of-affairs we might encounter in the wider universe could involve scientific discoveries not yet made and technologies not yet constructed, the histories of life on other worlds and the histories of alien civilizations, as well as the histories that we will create for ourselves. It’s a big universe, and we might discover any number of unlikely or unprecedented existents.
In my episode on a complexity ladder for big history I argued that there may be distinctive emergents from historical knowledge, that is to say, the quantitative growth of historical knowledge may pass a threshold to become a qualitative change in historical understanding. What kind of emergents could these be? For example, an increase in the knowledge of our own history can change our understanding of ourselves. We are seeing this with the use of the genetic record to reconstruct the sequence by which human beings distributed themselves across Earth. In this way, epistemic emergents reshape our past and our understanding of ourselves.
In addition to these emergents from knowledge of our past, there may yet come emergents that arise from a temporally distributed civilization and the advent of coevalism. A temporally distributed civilization could also give rise to emergents in historical knowledge. The dawning realization of epistemic emergents yet to come in the future will shape our conception of what we can become (in contradistinction to increased knowledge of the past shaping what we are), reshaping our future, and we will need these epistemic emergents from a history of a greater order of complexity so as to understand the more complex world coming into being, and which our descendants will inhabit. Without these epistemic emergents we would not be able to understand the more complex world arising out of these novel technologies and the world they will bring into being. The future of philosophy of history has never been brighter, as we see that it will come to grappled with ever-larger and more complex problems.

Video Presentation

Youtube: https://youtu.be/fvmCoRrBiEs
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/C7IUqNAtSgQ/
Odysee: https://odysee.com/@Geopolicraticus:7/the-coming-coeval-age:d

Podcast Edition

Spotify: https://spotifyanchor-web.app.link/e/xkVzIKAcIJb
Amazon: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/a31b8276-53cd-4723-b6ad-a39c8faa4572/episodes/de1bbc0c-a72f-452b-a20d-40ccd56889e0/today-in-philosophy-of-history-the-coming-coeval-age
Iheartradio: https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-today-in-philosophy-of-his-146507578/episode/the-coming-coeval-age-177527570/
​

Disclaimer: This story does not belong to me. Grab some snacks and prepare yourself for this tale. I am a 32-year-old female, and my husband Carter is a 37-year-old male. We have been married for 10 years, but ever since our wedding, my husband’s mother has harbored animosity towards me. Let’s refer to her as “Karen,” fittingly so! Here is how the toxicity unfolded: On Thanksgiving, my husband and I visited his mother’s house. I was filled with excitement upon arrival, but as soon as Karen laid eyes on me, her smile vanished. It was our first meeting. Despite feeling nervous, I greeted her warmly; however, she responded by rolling her eyes and walking away. To contribute to the meal, I brought along a dish that she tasted only to immediately spit out in disgust. Her hurtful remark followed: “Is this what you call a dish?” Without saying a word in return, I simply walked away from the situation disheartened and taken aback by her behavior.
About 5 months later, my husband was at work while I stayed home with our kids and our dog, Roxy. I was in the midst of preparing food for the children when a loud knock interrupted me. Peering through the peephole, I discovered it was my mother-in-law (Karen) at the door. Wondering about her unexpected visit, I opened the door only to have her barge past me and start unpacking her belongings.
"Karen, are you here for a visit?" I inquired curiously.
"No, dear. I'm moving in!" she declared with a smug smile. As time passed, it became evident that having her around wasn't as pleasant as expected. She turned out to be messy and demanded that I clean up after her. Her behavior towards me and my children grew increasingly disrespectful; she even left clothes strewn across the floor instead of putting them away properly.
Upon returning from a trip with friends to find chaos at home, Karen greeted me mockingly with an evil look. Despite her provocations, I remained composed until one day when she crossed a line by physically pushing me aside while criticizing my efforts before snatching away the vacuum cleaner mid-cleaning session...
About 5 months later, my husband was at work while I stayed home with our kids and our dog, Roxy. As I was preparing food for the children, a loud knock on the door caught my attention. Peeking through the peephole, I saw that it was my mother-in-law (Karen) standing outside. Wondering about her unexpected visit, I opened the door only to have her push past me and start unpacking her belongings.
"Karen, are you here for a visit?" I asked curiously.
"No," she replied with a smug smile, "I am moving in!" Over the next two months, it became clear that having her around wasn't as harmonious as anticipated. She displayed messy habits and expected me to clean up after her. Her behavior towards me and especially my children grew increasingly disrespectful; she even left clothes scattered on the floor instead of putting them away properly.
Upon returning from a trip with friends to find chaos at home, Karen greeted me mockingly before escalating tensions by criticizing my efforts and accusing me of being a "bad mother" and potentially cheating on Carter during an argument over household chores. Things reached a breaking point when she physically attacked me during another confrontation where Carter intervened but ended up siding with his mother against me.
In an emotional moment following the altercation, Karen inexplicably began sobbing which led to further conflict between Carter and myself. Unable to tolerate any more mistreatment or violence in our home, I made the difficult decision to confront Karen directly and demand that she leave our house immediately. Following this incident, we cut off contact with Karen entirely.
After some time had passed without Karen's presence disrupting our family life anymore, life became peaceful again without her!

We are No Contact, but I did get a little triggered today and started mulling over the past problems with MIL. Feeling a bit fragile and overwhelmed now by all the feelings and memories.
Sometimes MIL targeted me but in the most passive aggressive ways. I knew she was problematic ever since my SO first told me he’s always had a strained relationship with his mother, that she had a bad habit of cheating on his dad due to her bitterness and jealousy, and that it only stopped once my SO stepped up as “provider” and compensated for his dad’s shortcomings. I noticed she always had a smile on her face and acted very friendly, yet her words were so bitter!! She’d sprinkle in jabs and judgements about all my various life choices, and overstep boundaries by nagging me about what I should be doing with my life. I think career-wise, she never had a proper career until now (her late 50s) and tried to compete with me and my SO (we’re both lawyers). And I think she’s a bit narcissistic, competing to regain access, attention and benefits from my SO, who was the provider (and fixer) for his family’s many issues.
But it gets worse, she has this delulu enmeshment with her daughter! My SO also has a strained relationship with his sister (rightfully so) because she is a chronic troublemaker, attention-seeker and actually quite abusive towards him (but would play victim after spewing abuse at him). MIL often twists things around so the sister is an ✨angel✨ and that me/my SO are the bad guys. MIL used to demand we PAY for his sister’s mishaps: her abortions, driving suspensions, court appearances, other medical/financial/legal problems she’s committed, etc. MIL will blame my SO whenever his sister doesn’t get what she wants (money or expensive goods) and whenever his sister has a tantrum, runs away on some drug/party bender, they guilt him into driving miles and miles to “save” her. He would put his foot down and be met with the wrath of MIL: insults, punishments like increasing his rent (before he moved out), gaslighting him that he’s being unfair to his sister who is “trying really hard to be nice to him” (apparently screaming death threats at him is considered “nice”) and even spreading LIES to extended family/friends (accusing us of being nasty and “abusive” for not helping the family or his poor sister. Christmas was painful for us because we’d be confronted with all these nasty, false allegations).
MIL has had the audacity to say things to me like: * “You can’t move to part-time lawyer for health reasons! That shows WEAKNESS, FAILURE and that you can’t handle it! Typical Millennial, doesn’t know what true hard work is.” * “You’re probably not earning enough money, how much are you earning? No, give me the exact amount of your salary. I bet it’s not good enough.” * “My son works for ME not you! What makes YOU so special?! Blood is thicker than water, he needs to know his priorities are his family.” * “My son bought you jewellery for Valentines?! He needs to be buying that for his poor sister too because her exes won’t do that for her this year.” * “My son is so lazy, why can’t he be more like my daughter- see? She cleaned my toilet for me, she’s such an angel.” (My SO used to be the only one in his lazy family that actually did chores). * She’s even accused me of having “stolen” her son from her and would further blame ME whenever he was struggling/uncomfortable at home- “[Son], you look miserable, I knew OP was such a demanding GF”. My SO never raises his voice, but apparently he bit back at her harshly this time, saying his own home is making him miserable. She’s still in denial about that.
When I think about the things she’s said, it just feels so insulting. I usually don’t care what others think, but it cuts deep for me when it’s family or the in laws, especially when her views are not true at all! :(
No Contact has been going well, my SO has been so wonderful in all of this and handled this on his own: he set boundaries, stopped bringing me over to visit, protected me, defended me, moved out, put his foot down and cut contact. We’ve created a happy and flourishing life together.
What also reassures me is that she’s treated other good people this way too (unfortunate for them, but proves that she’s the problem and not me). But I still don’t like the feeling of being misunderstood and wrongfully blamed. And I wonder how sustainable No Contact really is… whether I feel comfortable having in laws like this for the rest of my life…

Looking for top free Microsoft Word alternatives in 2024? Here’s a list of robust tools that can enhance your document creation and editing without breaking the bank. Each alternative offers unique features that cater to different needs, ensuring you find the perfect fit for your workflow.

1. Google Docs: Google Docs is a popular, cloud-based word processor that allows real-time collaboration and easy sharing. Its seamless integration with other Google Workspace tools makes it a powerful alternative for both individual users and teams. Plus, its automatic saving feature ensures you never lose your work.
2. LibreOffice Writer: LibreOffice Writer is a part of the LibreOffice suite, which is an open-source, feature-rich office suite. Writer supports a wide range of file formats, making it easy to work with documents created in different software. Its extensive formatting options and templates make document creation a breeze.
3. WPS Office Writer: WPS Office Writer is known for its user-friendly interface that closely resembles Microsoft Word, easing the transition for new users. It offers comprehensive formatting tools, a built-in PDF converter, and supports multiple file formats. Additionally, WPS Office provides cloud storage, allowing access to your documents from anywhere.
4. Zoho Writer: Zoho Writer is part of the Zoho Office Suite and offers a clean, intuitive interface. It supports offline editing, real-time collaboration, and integrates with other Zoho apps, making it ideal for businesses that already use Zoho products. Zoho Writer’s focus on privacy and security is a plus for users handling sensitive information.
5. ONLYOFFICE Docs: ONLYOFFICE Docs provides a powerful suite of tools for creating, editing, and collaborating on documents. It supports a wide range of file formats and offers extensive formatting options. Its compatibility with various cloud services ensures that you can easily integrate it into your existing workflow.

Read full article: https://www.evendigit.com/best-free-microsoft-word-alternatives/
Each of these alternatives offers unique benefits, making them excellent choices for anyone seeking a free, reliable solution for their word processing needs. Explore these tools to find the one that best suits your requirements and enhances your productivity in 2024.

Here's a glimpse into me:
Petite Powerhouse: Standing tall at 5'2", I embrace every inch of my fabulous fun-sized stature, proving dynamite comes in small packages.
Language Enthusiast & Mystery Solver: Whether diving into TV show mysteries or exploring new languages, I'm enchanted by the world of fountain pens and the art of writing.
Fresh Out of Law School: Armed with a shiny new law degree, I'm eager to dive into the legal world with strategic finesse and meticulous organization.
Administrative Whiz: Transitioning seamlessly from academia to the corporate world, I tackle paperwork with wit and humor, ready to conquer any challenge.
Fast-Track Achiever: In just over a month on the job, I've orchestrated major events and projects, proving my ability to hit the ground running.
Nap Champion: With a knack for snoozing, I often wonder if I have a cat's affinity for naps, ready to claim a gold medal in the Olympic event of napping.
If you've read this far 😃, let's keep it classy and fun! Single and looking for a connection—share a smile, and I'll send one right back!

David was always a complicated character, one full of contradictions; so it is not surprising to see two very different side’s of David in the final advice he gives to his son who is about to succeed him. We see spiritual advice to remain faithful to God, and we see political advice reminding Solomon to deal with his father’s enemies.

1 Kings 2:1-9 (CSB)

David’s Instructions to Solomon

2 When David’s time to die drew near, he commanded Solomon his son, saying, ² “I am about to go the way of all the earth. Be strong, and show yourself a man, ³ and keep the charge of the Lord your God, walking in his ways and keeping his statutes, his commandments, his rules, and his testimonies, as it is written in the Law of Moses, that you may prosper in all that you do and wherever you turn, ⁴ that the Lord may establish his word that he spoke concerning me, saying, ‘If your sons pay close attention to their way, to walk before me in faithfulness with all their heart and with all their soul, you shall not lack a man on the throne of Israel.’
⁵ “Moreover, you also know what Joab the son of Zeruiah did to me, how he dealt with the two commanders of the armies of Israel, Abner the son of Ner, and Amasa the son of Jether, whom he killed, avenging in time of peace for blood that had been shed in war, and putting the blood of war on the belt around his waist and on the sandals on his feet. ⁶ Act therefore according to your wisdom, but do not let his gray head go down to Sheol in peace. ⁷ But deal loyally with the sons of Barzillai the Gileadite, and let them be among those who eat at your table, for with such loyalty they met me when I fled from Absalom your brother. ⁸ And there is also with you Shimei the son of Gera, the Benjaminite from Bahurim, who cursed me with a grievous curse on the day when I went to Mahanaim. But when he came down to meet me at the Jordan, I swore to him by the Lord, saying, ‘I will not put you to death with the sword.’ ⁹ Now therefore do not hold him guiltless, for you are a wise man. You will know what you ought to do to him, and you shall bring his gray head down with blood to Sheol.”

Questions for Contemplation and Discussion

1. What command in the law of Moses is David referencing in vs. 3?
2. What promise is he referring to in vs 4? How is it ultimately fulfilled?
3. Why do you think the dying David is so concerned with justice being dealt to his enemies?
4. The story of Shimei (2 Sam 16:5 and following) is interesting in that David is quite understanding and forgiving in that chapter, but now approaching death David seems to want vengeance. What would have cause such a change of heart?
5. What else stands out in this passage to you?

Forgive me as this may be a bit convoluted. My wife and I are both American citizens who co-own a small professional services company (we do legal recruiting, essentially help lawyers move between different law firms). For the past few years, we have given more and more thought to moving to British Columbia (Vancouver, specifically) and are starting to take the idea a bit more seriously.
In order to take the idea as seriously as possible, we are discussing our specific timeline and how to get there. Using the FSWP, I did an online assessment and came to 77 points, so it sounds like we would have a good shot at being able to go down that pathway, if I'm understanding correctly. Assuming we can get to BC that way, my questions are:
1) How we would continue to operate our US business from Canada. To be clear, our business is done entirely remotely over the phone/email/etc. so it physically doesn't matter where in the world we are. Question is would we be able to continue our American operation from Canada remotely? Or would we have to essentially shutter the American company and create a Canadian analogue?
2) Currently, our business model entails placing attorneys with law firms, who then pay us a fee when they hire said attorney. These law firms treat us as 1099 Independent Contractors. If we were able to keep the company in its current American form, does anyone know how these law firm clients of ours would treat us tax status-wise? In other words, would they continue to view us as the same ol 1099 Independent Contractors who just happen to live in Canada? Or alternatively, would they have to treat us in some more complicated way (e.g. go through the trouble of having to rely on Canadian tax forms, etc. something which they may loath to do and therefore not want to work with us as a result)?
3) Similar question as #2 but with the variation that we have a Canadian company instead (while still working for these US law firms as our customers, who treat us as Independent Contractors). In this Canadian company example, would the US law firms have to treat us differently or go through the trouble of figuring out Canadian tax issues? Or can they, e.g., treat us as US citizens who they pay and let us figure out all the details in our end (i.e. they don't even bother sending a 1099 to the IRS, but rather let us in our Canadian company glory figure it all out on our own)?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8JKPS21XiU
If the judiciary and its judges give decisions on any issue on the basis of something like the Election Commission will have to be trusted as it was one of basis for decision on EVM issue and on the basis of which whatever the Election Commission is doing is said to be right and the Election Commission does any mistake was not accepted by the court and it was declared that there is no mistake in anything by Election Commission and not even the need to discuss the things pointing to wrong in EVM election and actions of Election Commission was considered to be discussed in any proper manner by the court and judges passing the decision
But then facts contrary to the basis of the decision starts coming to light such as the Election Commission failing in its commitment of fair elections, not doing anything on the statements and actions of BJP leaders, Election Commission officials acting like BJP agents, Election Commission's giving election data after 11 days in %, refusing to give complete data, not holding press conference, Election Commission saying that EVM has stopped booth capturing proving to be completely wrong whereas now anyone can do booth capturing and wrong voting and neither there is any need for muscle power nor need to steal the ballot paper and people are seen doing this on camera even though it was not there in the ballot paper and the ballot paper was more secure etc. when all this comes out and it is found that the basis on which the Election Commission was supposed to be believed and the basis on which the decision was given to not to discuss the shortcomings and wrongs of election commission is not correct, then does it not raise questions on the competence of the judges and judiciary who gave the decision ??? because the decision has to be given not from the personal point of view of the judiciary or the judges but on the correct basis based on proper right review of facts otherwise neither the judiciary nor the post of judge is relevant. Now even the court in Bengal itself has ruled that the Election Commission is a failure and the CJI needs to continuously force to extract information from the Election Commission and till now Election Commission has not provided the information which definitely shows that the Election Commission is irresponsible, unsuccessful, and hiding things and cannot be trusted. So the basis of decision that you have to trust election commission because election commission is that good has now already been proven wrong even by judiciary itself. The Election Commission has failed in taking up its responsibility and is hiding the data so no one can trust election commission so you have to trust election commission stands wrong thing to say The decision which has been given on the basis of wrong analysis is also wrong and should be reviewed and those who gave decisions on such basis should also be reviewed because the judiciary is for the law and not for individuals.
And the most important thing is that after seeing that the basis on which the decision was given by giving the benefit of doubt, it is turning out to be wrong and the receiver of benefit of doubt is proving to be completely contrary to the basis of the judgment and there is no truth in its words and promises based on which others were asked to believe that entity blindly. And all the things are being proved to be false and this is a matter of elections and security of the country, even after that if the judges and the judiciary who gave the decision do not take their own cognizance and review the decision, then is this not a question on the integrity and intentions of the judiciary? Doesn't the judiciary have the need and responsibility to try to correct what appears to have gone wrong because of their decision and is a matter of such vital importance to the security of the country ?

Hi, thanks for stopping by and reading this post!
My husband and I have married for 12 years and we have 5 years-old son. My husband parents divorced 6 years ago and his mother has been living by herself since.
We stayed at the beach last weekend for mother's Day weekend and she decided to come visit us again this weekend. We didn't have much time to unpack and tidy up the house after we came back from the trip since we both work. I had to go to work on Saturday afternoon for an event so I wasn't there when she came. My husband was vacuuming when she arrive. And this is the text message I got from my mother in law. I just want to hear bias opinion and what people would think about her texts.
My husband I are pretty happy sharing responsibilities, JFYI. Thanks ks for taking time to read this post!
MIL It's probably non of my business but I've always wondered why it's Justin's responsibility to be the "house cleaner" on Saturdays after a long demanding week at work. Seems lopsided to me. He needs some time at rest. Maybe it's time to re-evaluate priorities and how does what. Who's making the rules anyway!! Just saying. You might think about what message you are teaching M (my son) without words.
Me Well sounds like you assume only Justin does house cleaning. Just so you know we share responsibilities around the house. Sorry that the house was a mess when you came to visit on Saturday. We both went back to work after the beach trip and didn't have much time to unpack and tidy up the house. It's nice that Justin does clean the house often, but for the record it's about 50/50. M also help to clean!
FYI, I pack Milo's lunch everyday and work 8 hours and pick up Milo, and cook dinner, do dishes, give Milo a bath during the weekdays. I also go grocery shopping most of the time. Justin is good at cleaning around the sink and bathroom and doing laundry (doesn't hold clothes). And I really appreciate that we both take care of the house.
MIL I'm not assuming anything and your house was not a mess when I got there. Please don't put words in my mouth. I never implied anything of the sort. I'm just saying sometimes flexibility is needed. You are reading me wrong and defensive. Sorry you took it that way.
Me Justin is tired. I really think he should go to bed early instead of staying up late. He gets to sleep in until 7 even on weekdays while I wake up at 6. I'm not comparing myself and Justin, but I'm just saying because you seem to think that Justin is doing more house work and I don't. It's kinda rude😢
MIL I know what it's like tomoyo to be a mom. I did it too w/o much help. And I raised animals, landscaping 1:2 acres, vegetable garden. So please no need for you to be defensive. I'm not criticizing you just suggested maybe it time to reevaluate. Yes, you are comparing. But I'm not!
Me I was just explaining to you how we share responsibilities.
MIL No you were venting. Enough. I'm sorry I hit a tender spot in you. You have no clue how hard I worked and accomplished so there's no need for you to defend yourself to me. Good night.
Me Well I went to 2 stores to get lunch stuff and trellis for clematis on Saturday morning- that was my priorities. I would have cleaned the house if I didn't have to go to work in the afternoon.
MIL Wow!!!!
Me I do know you worked hard.
MIL Still venting... No you haven't a clue! Night
Me Good night. But you should re-read what you wrote.
End.
What do you think? I feel like she is gaslighting me. Urg.

Hello Community!
My Mother in Law is BPD and BiPolar.
My husband (second eldest of her four adult children) has been trying to help his mother since he was 15. He does his best to stop her making impulsive reckless dangerous or financially damaging decisions and it has cost him a lot in terms of time, energy, money and sanity. I have supported her and him for years. While he and his mothers relationship has always been filled with conflict (because her problems are his fault and when he stands up for her long term well by challenging her short term whims she punishes him for it gravely. He’s always been damed if he does and damed if he doesn’t).
It has got really bad and sour since we barred her for the wedding unless she went back into therapy because she was really cruel and off the rails and was making up really horrible lies about me and calling everyone (I mean everyone) on her contacts and spreading them. It has got to the point that continuing to try help her is costing us a lot. She dug in deeper and we didn’t let her come to the wedding. Ever since, for the last five months she has been actively making our lives as difficult as possible. In her words, because we didn’t let her come to our wedding, she will ruin our lives and wants us face down in the dirt. She keeps offering him millions of dollars to divorce me (from his trust fund money she confiscated over us barring her from the wedding)
Before the wedding, she has always been incredibly lovely and supportive of us. We saw her regularly and while we would “be against her” when she was doing something reckless and to her own detriment, we were always looking out for her long term wellbeing.
This is all incredibly painful for my husband who already struggles with the trauma of her abuse growing up.
She has killed her children’s pets in the past and has been violent towards her children and partners. We have moved and all her children are in agreement we can’t let her find out our new address.
It’s got to the point that I am afraid of what she will resort to, because she really hates me now and really thinks I am torturing her (even though all I have done is cut her out). I think she genuinely believes her delusions. With her so out of touch with reality I am genuinely afraid.
I do not feel safe any more, I want a restraining order and my parents do too. My husband doesn’t want me to get one because he worries it will agitate her further, which I agree it might well do. But at least if there is a restraining order I can get the help of the police before it is too late.
I don’t feel safe at home or with my husband because I feel he is protecting her more than me.
I wanted to reach out to this group for help as no one understands bpd better than others with bpd.
Ideally, she would get help and treatment and they can have some form of relationship rather than complete cut off.