En el año 2016 escribí un texto para una exposición del artista ceramista Xohan Viqueria, que puedes leer aquí. Xohan vive cerca de mi casa y su estudio se sitúa en medio de una alquería en plena huerta valenciana. Durante un tiempo, tuve mucha relación con él, y visité varias veces su estudio; incluso viajé con él a Galicia para conocer sus raíces o compartimos un taller de formación en la Bienal de Cerámica de Aveiro, en Portugal.

Todo ello me recuerda que debo hacer una pronta visita a mi viejo amigo ceramista para que me cuente algunas novedades. Hoy comparto algunas fotos que hice con mi Leica R4 y una película Kodak TriX 400 de su estudio, que reflejan muy bien su forma de trabajar y circunscriben el espacio de trabajo de un artista de nivel. Las fotos son del año 2016.

#fotos

On Day 14, I improved the error handling and fixed some bugs that bothered me for some time but were not necessary to fix directly. One of them was storing the user session between rebuilds. Every time I rebuilt the app, I needed to make a new login, which is inconvenient when developing. :D

👋

---

72 of #100DaysToOffload
#log #AdventOfProgress
Thoughts?

se consideraba bastante razonable al menos cuando se comparaba pero no se veía a sí mismo sino al que imaginaba

I just watched the first three with E, and it hurts to see her through the screen and not be able to hug her. I miss her so much, I’ve thought a lot about marrying her and I can’t wait until all the things are done so I can genuinely do it.

On a December morning in 2024, Rivian Automotive's stock climbed to a near six-month high. The catalyst wasn't a production milestone, a quarterly earnings beat, or even a major partnership announcement. Instead, investors were placing bets on something far less tangible: a livestream event scheduled for 11 December called “Autonomy & AI Day.” The promise of glimpses into Rivian's self-driving future was enough to push shares up 35% for the year, even as the company continued bleeding cash and struggling to achieve positive unit economics.

Welcome to the peculiar world of autonomy tech days, where PowerPoint presentations about sensor stacks and demo videos of cars navigating parking lots can move billions of dollars in market capitalisation before a single commercial product ships. It's a phenomenon that raises uncomfortable questions for investors trying to separate genuine technological progress from elaborate theatre. How reliably do these carefully choreographed demonstrations translate into sustained valuation increases? What metrics actually predict long-term stock performance versus short-lived spikes? And for the risk-averse investor watching from the sidelines, how do you differentiate between hype-driven volatility and durable value creation?

The answers, it turns out, are more nuanced than the binary narratives that dominate financial media in the immediate aftermath of these events.

The Anatomy of a Tech Day Rally

The pattern has become almost ritualistic. A company with ambitions in autonomous driving announces a special event months in advance. Analysts issue preview notes speculating on potential announcements. Retail investors pile into options contracts. The stock begins its pre-event climb, propelled by anticipation rather than fundamentals. Then comes the livestream itself: slick production values, confident executives, carefully edited demonstration videos, and forward-looking statements couched in just enough legal disclaimers to avoid securities fraud whilst maintaining the aura of inevitability.

Tesla pioneered this playbook with its AI Day events in 2021 and 2022. Branded explicitly as recruiting opportunities to attract top talent, these presentations nevertheless served as investor relations exercises wrapped in technical detail. At the 2021 event, Tesla introduced its Dojo exascale supercomputer and teased the Tesla Bot, a humanoid robot project that had little to do with the company's core automotive business but everything to do with maintaining its narrative as an artificial intelligence company rather than a mere car manufacturer.

The market's response to these events reveals a more complex picture than simple enthusiasm or disappointment. Whilst Tesla shares experienced significant volatility around AI Day announcements, the longer-term trajectory proved more closely correlated with broader factors like Federal Reserve policy, Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter, and actual production numbers for vehicles. The events themselves created short-term trading opportunities but rarely served as inflection points for sustained valuation changes.

Rivian's upcoming Autonomy & AI Day follows a similar script, with one crucial difference: the company lacks Tesla's established track record of bringing ambitious projects to market. Analysts at D.A. Davidson noted that Rivian's approach centres on “personal-automobile autonomy” designed to enhance the driving experience rather than replace the driver entirely. This practical positioning might represent prudent product strategy, but it also lacks the transformative narrative that drives speculative fervour. The company's stock rallied nonetheless, suggesting that in the absence of near-term catalysts, investors will grasp at whatever narrative presents itself.

The Sixty-Billion-Dollar Reality Check

Not all autonomy demonstrations enjoy warm receptions. Tesla's October 2024 “We, Robot” event, which unveiled the Cybercab robotaxi concept, offers a cautionary tale about the limits of spectacle. Despite choreographed demonstrations of autonomous Model 3 and Model Y vehicles and promises of sub-$30,000 robotaxis entering production by 2026 or 2027, investors responded with scepticism. The company's market capitalisation dropped by $60 billion in the immediate aftermath, as analysts noted the absence of specifics around commercial viability, regulatory pathways, and realistic timelines.

The Guardian's headline captured the sentiment: “Tesla's value drops $60bn after investors fail to hail self-driving 'Cybercab.'” The rejection wasn't a repudiation of Tesla's autonomous ambitions per se, but rather a recognition that vague promises about production “by 2026 or 2027” without clear intermediate milestones represented insufficient substance to justify the company's existing valuation premium, let alone an increase.

This reaction reveals something important about how markets evaluate autonomy demonstrations: specificity matters profoundly. Investors increasingly demand concrete details about production timelines, unit economics, regulatory approvals, partnership agreements, and commercialisation pathways. The days when a slick video of a car navigating a controlled environment could sustain a valuation bump appear to be waning.

General Motors learned this lesson the expensive way. After investing more than $9 billion into its Cruise autonomous vehicle subsidiary over several years, GM announced in December 2024 that it was shutting down the robotaxi development work entirely. The decision came after a series of setbacks, including a high-profile incident in San Francisco where a Cruise vehicle dragged a pedestrian, leading to the suspension of its operating permit. Microsoft, which had invested $2 billion in Cruise in 2021 at a $30 billion valuation, wrote down $800 million of that investment, a 40% loss.

GM's official statement cited “the considerable time and resources that would be needed to scale the business, along with an increasingly competitive robotaxi market.” Translation: the path from demonstration to commercialisation proved far more difficult and expensive than initial projections suggested, and the market window was closing as competitors like Waymo pulled ahead.

The Cruise shutdown sent ripples through the autonomy sector. If a major automotive manufacturer with deep pockets and decades of engineering expertise couldn't make the economics work, what did that say about smaller players with even more limited resources? GM shares declined approximately 4.5% in after-hours trading when Cruise CEO Dan Ammann departed the company earlier in the development process, a relatively modest reaction that suggested investors had already discounted much of Cruise's supposed value from GM's overall market capitalisation.

The Waymo Exception

Whilst most autonomy players struggle to convert demonstrations into commercial reality, Alphabet's Waymo division represents the rare exception: a company that has progressed from controlled tests to genuine commercial operations at meaningful scale. As of early 2024, Waymo reported completing 200,000 rides per week, doubling its volume in just six months. The company operates commercially in multiple US cities, generating actual revenue from paying customers rather than relying solely on test programmes and regulatory exemptions.

This operational track record should, in theory, command significant valuation premiums. Yet Alphabet's stock price shows minimal correlation with Waymo announcements. Analysts widely acknowledge that Alphabet and GM stock valuations don't fully reflect any upside from their autonomous vehicle projects. Waymo remains “largely unproven” in the eyes of investors relative to Tesla, despite operating an actual commercial service whilst Tesla's Full Self-Driving system remains in supervised beta testing.

The disconnect reveals a fundamental tension in how markets evaluate autonomy projects. Waymo's methodical approach, characterised by extensive testing, conservative geographical expansion, and realistic timeline communication, generates less speculative excitement than Tesla's aggressive claims and demonstration events. Risk-seeking investors gravitate towards the higher-beta narrative, even when the underlying fundamentals suggest the opposite relationship between risk and return.

Alphabet announced an additional $5 billion investment in Waymo in mid-2024, with CEO Sundar Pichai's comments on the company's Q2 earnings call signalling to the market that Alphabet remains “all-in” on Waymo. Yet this massive capital commitment barely moved Alphabet's share price. For investors seeking exposure to autonomous vehicle economics, Waymo represents the closest thing to a proven business model currently available at scale. The market's indifference suggests that either investors don't understand the significance, don't believe in the long-term economics of robotaxi services, or consider Waymo too small relative to Alphabet's total business to materially impact the stock.

Measuring What Matters

If autonomy tech days rarely translate into sustained valuation increases, what metrics should investors actually monitor? The research on autonomous vehicle investments points to several key indicators that correlate more strongly with long-term performance than the spectacle of demonstration events.

Disengagement rates measure how frequently human intervention is required during autonomous operation. Lower disengagement rates indicate more mature technology. California's Department of Motor Vehicles publishes annual disengagement reports for companies testing autonomous vehicles in the state, providing standardised data for comparison. Waymo's disengagement rates have improved dramatically over successive years, reflecting genuine technological progress rather than marketing narratives.

Fleet utilisation metrics reveal operational efficiency. Average daily operating hours per vehicle, vehicle turnaround time for maintenance and charging, and dead-head miles (non-revenue travel) all indicate how effectively a company converts its autonomous fleet into productive assets. These numbers rarely appear in tech day presentations but show up in regulatory filings and occasional analyst deep dives.

Unit economics remain the ultimate arbiter of commercial viability. Goldman Sachs Research estimates that depreciation costs per mile for autonomous vehicles could drop from approximately 35 cents in 2025 to 15 cents by 2040, whilst insurance costs decline from 50 cents per mile to about 23 cents over the same timeframe. For autonomous trucks, the cost per mile could fall from $6.15 in 2025 to $1.89 in 2030. Companies that can demonstrate progress towards these cost curves through actual operational data (rather than projected models) merit closer attention.

Partnership formations serve as external validation of technological capabilities. When Volkswagen committed $5.8 billion to a joint venture with Rivian, it signalled confidence in Rivian's underlying software architecture beyond what any tech day presentation could communicate. Similarly, Rivian's securing of up to $6.6 billion in loans from the US Department of Energy for its Georgia factory provided tangible evidence of institutional support.

Intellectual property holdings offer another quantifiable metric. Companies possessing robust patent portfolios in key autonomous technologies typically command premium valuations, as these patents represent potential licensing revenue streams and defensive moats against competitors. Analysing patent filings provides insight into where companies are actually focusing their development efforts versus where they focus their marketing messaging.

Regulatory approvals and milestones matter far more than most investors recognise. Singapore's Land Transport Authority granting WeRide and Grab approval for autonomous vehicle testing in the Punggol district represents genuine progress. Similarly, Tesla's receipt of approvals to test unsupervised Full Self-Driving in California and Texas carries more weight than demonstration videos. Tracking regulatory filings and approvals offers a reality check on commercial timelines that companies present in investor presentations.

The Behavioural Finance Dimension

Understanding market reactions to autonomy tech days requires grappling with well-documented patterns in behavioural finance. Investors demonstrate systematic biases in how they process information about emerging technologies, leading to predictable overreactions and underreactions.

The representative heuristic causes investors to perceive patterns in random sequences. When a company announces progress in autonomous testing, followed by a successful demonstration, followed by optimistic forward guidance, investors extrapolate a trend and assume continued progress. This excessive pattern recognition pushes prices higher than fundamentals justify, creating the classic overreaction effect documented in behavioural finance research.

Conversely, conservatism bias predicts that once investors form an impression about a company's capabilities (or lack thereof), they prove slow to update their views in the face of new evidence. This explains why Waymo's operational achievements receive muted market responses. Investors formed an impression that autonomous vehicles remain perpetually “five years away” from commercialisation, and genuine progress from Waymo doesn't immediately overcome this ingrained scepticism.

Research on information shocks and market reactions reveals that short-term overreaction concentrates in shorter time scales, driven by spikes in investor attention and sentiment. Media coverage amplifies these effects, with individual investors prone to buying attention-grabbing stocks that appear in the news. Autonomy tech days generate precisely this kind of concentrated media attention, creating ideal conditions for short-term price distortions.

The tension between short-term and long-term investor behaviour compounds these effects. An increase in short-horizon investors correlates with cuts to long-term investment and increased focus on short-term earnings. This leads to temporary boosts in equity valuations that reverse over time. Companies facing pressure from short-term investors may feel compelled to stage impressive tech days to maintain momentum, even when such events distract from the patient capital allocation required to actually commercialise autonomous systems.

Academic research on extreme news and overreaction finds that investors often overreact to extreme events, with the magnitude of overreaction increasing with the extremity of the news. A tech day promising revolutionary advances in autonomy registers as an extreme positive signal, triggering outsized reactions. As reality inevitably proves more mundane than the initial announcement suggested, prices gradually revert towards fundamentals.

The Gartner Hype Cycle Framework

The Gartner Hype Cycle provides a useful conceptual model for understanding where different autonomous vehicle programmes sit in their development trajectory. Introduced in 1995, the framework maps technology maturity through five phases: Innovation Trigger, Peak of Inflated Expectations, Trough of Disillusionment, Slope of Enlightenment, and Plateau of Productivity.

Most autonomy tech days occur during the transition from Innovation Trigger to Peak of Inflated Expectations. The events themselves serve as the trigger for heightened expectations, with stock prices reflecting optimism about potential rather than demonstrated performance. Early proof-of-concept demonstrations and media coverage generate significant publicity, even when no commercially viable products exist.

The challenge, as Gartner notes, arises from the mismatch between human nature and the nature of innovation: “Human nature drives people's heightened expectations, whilst the nature of innovation drives how quickly something new develops genuine value. The problem is, these two factors move at such different tempos that they're nearly always out of sync.”

Tesla's Full Self-Driving programme illustrates this temporal mismatch perfectly. The company has been promising autonomous capabilities “next year” since 2016, with each intervening year bringing improved demonstrations but no fundamental shift in the system's capabilities. Investors at successive AI Days witnessed impressive technical presentations, yet the path from 99% autonomous to 99.999% autonomous (the difference between a supervised assistance system and a truly autonomous vehicle) has proven far longer than early demonstrations implied.

GM's Cruise followed a similar trajectory, reaching the Peak of Inflated Expectations with its $30 billion valuation before tumbling into the Trough of Disillusionment and ultimately exiting the market entirely. Microsoft's $800 million write-down represents the financial cost of misjudging where Cruise actually sat on the hype cycle curve.

Waymo appears to have transitioned to the Slope of Enlightenment, systematically improving its technology whilst expanding operations at a measured pace. Yet this very maturity makes the company less exciting to speculators seeking dramatic price movements. The Plateau of Productivity, where technology finally delivers on its original promise, generates minimal stock volatility because expectations have long since calibrated to reality.

Critics of the Gartner framework note that analyses of hype cycles since 2000 show few technologies actually travel through an identifiable cycle, and most important technologies adopted since 2000 weren't identified early in their adoption cycles. Perhaps only a fifth of breakthrough technologies experience the full rollercoaster trajectory. Many technologies simply diffuse gradually without dramatic swings in perception.

This criticism suggests that the very existence of autonomy tech days might indicate that investors should exercise caution. Truly transformative technologies often achieve commercial success without requiring elaborate staged demonstrations to maintain investor enthusiasm.

Building an Investor Framework

For risk-averse investors seeking exposure to autonomous vehicle economics whilst avoiding hype-driven volatility, several strategies emerge from the evidence:

Prioritise operational metrics over demonstrations. Companies providing regular updates on fleet size, utilisation rates, revenue per vehicle, and unit economics offer more reliable indicators of progress than those relying on annual tech days to maintain investor interest. Waymo's quarterly operational updates provide far more signal than Tesla's sporadic demonstration events.

Discount timeline projections systematically. The adoption timeline for autonomous vehicles has slipped by two to three years on average across all autonomy levels compared to previous surveys. When a company projects commercial deployment “by 2026,” assume 2028 or 2029 represents a more realistic estimate. This systematic discounting corrects for the optimism bias inherent in management projections.

Evaluate regulatory progress independently. Don't rely on company claims about regulatory approvals being “imminent” or “straightforward.” Instead, monitor actual filings with transportation authorities, track public comment periods, and follow regulatory developments in key jurisdictions. McKinsey research identifies lack of clear and consistent regulatory frameworks as a key restraining factor in the autonomous vehicle market. Companies that acknowledge regulatory complexity rather than dismissing it demonstrate more credible planning.

Assess partnership substance versus PR value. Not all partnerships carry equal weight. A development agreement to explore potential collaboration differs fundamentally from a multi-billion-dollar joint venture with committed capital and defined milestones. Rivian's $5.8 billion partnership with Volkswagen includes specific deliverables and equity investments, making it far more substantive than vague “strategic partnerships” that many companies announce.

Calculate required growth to justify valuations. Tesla's market capitalisation of more than $1.4 trillion implies a price-to-earnings ratio around 294, pricing in rapid growth, margin recovery, and successful autonomous deployment. Work backwards from current valuations to understand what assumptions must prove correct for the investment to generate returns. Often this exercise reveals that demonstrations and tech days, however impressive, don't move the company materially closer to the growth required to justify the stock price.

Diversify across the value chain. Rather than concentrating bets on automotive manufacturers pursuing autonomy, consider exposure to component suppliers, sensor manufacturers, high-definition mapping providers, and infrastructure developers. These businesses benefit from autonomous vehicle adoption regardless of which specific OEM succeeds, reducing single-company risk whilst maintaining sector exposure.

Monitor insider trading and institutional ownership. When executives at companies hosting autonomy tech days sell shares shortly after events, pay attention. Similarly, track whether sophisticated institutional investors increase or decrease positions following demonstrations. These informed players have access to more detailed information than retail investors receive during livestreams.

Recognise the tax on short-term thinking. Tax structures in most jurisdictions penalise short-term capital gains relative to long-term holdings. This isn't merely a revenue policy; it reflects recognition that speculative short-term trading often destroys value for individual investors whilst generating profits for market makers and high-frequency trading firms. The lower tax rates on long-term capital gains effectively subsidise patient capital allocation, the very approach most likely to benefit from eventual autonomous vehicle commercialisation.

The Commercialisation Timeline Reality

Market projections for autonomous vehicle adoption paint an optimistic picture that merits scepticism. The global autonomous vehicle market was valued at approximately $1,500 billion in 2022, with projections suggesting growth to $13,632 billion by 2030, representing a compound annual growth rate exceeding 32%. The robotaxi market alone, worth $1.95 billion in 2024, supposedly will reach $188.91 billion by 2034.

These exponential growth projections rarely materialise as forecast. More conservative analyses suggest that by 2030, approximately 35,000 autonomous vehicles will operate commercially across the United States, generating $7 billion in annual revenue and capturing roughly 8% of the rideshare market. Level 4 autonomous vehicles are expected to represent 2.5% of global new car sales by 2030, with Level 3 systems reaching 10% penetration.

For autonomous trucking, projections suggest approximately 25,000 units in operation by 2030, representing less than 1% of the commercial trucking fleet, with a market for freight hauled by autonomous trucks reaching $18 billion that year. These numbers, whilst still representing substantial markets, fall far short of the transformative revolution often implied in tech day presentations.

McKinsey research indicates that to reach Level 4 and higher autonomy, companies require cumulative investment exceeding $5 billion until first commercial launch, with estimates increasing 30% to 100% compared to 2021 projections. This capital intensity creates natural consolidation pressures, explaining why smaller players struggle to compete and why companies like GM ultimately exit despite years of investment.

Goldman Sachs Research notes that “the key focus for investors is now on the pace at which autonomous vehicles will grow and how big the market will become, rather than if the technology works.” This shift from binary “will it work?” questions to more nuanced “how quickly and at what scale?” represents maturation in investor sophistication. Tech days that fail to address pace and scale questions with specific operational data increasingly face sceptical receptions.

The Rivian Test Case

Rivian's upcoming Autonomy & AI Day on 11 December 2024 offers a real-time opportunity to evaluate these frameworks. The company's stock printed a 52-week high of $17.25 ahead of the event, representing a 35% increase for 2025 despite continued struggles with profitability and production efficiency.

Analysts at D.A. Davidson set relatively modest expectations, emphasising that Rivian's autonomy strategy focuses on enhancing the driving experience rather than pursuing robotaxis. The company's existing driver-assist features have attracted customers who value the “fun-to-drive” nature of its vehicles, with autonomy positioned as augmenting rather than replacing this experience. The event is expected to showcase progress on the Rivian Autonomy Platform, including deeper discussion of sensor and perception stack architecture.

CEO RJ Scaringe has highlighted that LiDAR costs have fallen dramatically, making the sensor suite “beneficial” for higher-level autonomy at acceptable cost points. This focus on unit economics rather than pure technological capability suggests a more mature approach than pure demonstration spectacle.

Yet Rivian faces significant near-term challenges that autonomy demonstrations cannot address. The company must achieve profitability on its R2 SUV, expected to begin customer deliveries in the first half of 2026. Manufacturing validation builds are scheduled for the end of 2025, with sourcing approximately 95% complete. Executives express confidence in meeting their goal of cutting R2 costs in half relative to first-generation vehicles whilst achieving positive unit economics by the end of 2026.

The $5.8 billion Volkswagen joint venture provides crucial financial runway, alongside up to $6.6 billion in Department of Energy loans for Rivian's Georgia factory. These capital commitments reflect institutional confidence in Rivian's underlying technology and business model, validation that carries more weight than any tech day demonstration.

For investors, Rivian's event presents a clear test: will the company provide specific metrics on autonomy development, including testing miles, disengagement rates, and realistic commercialisation timelines? Or will the presentation rely on impressive demonstrations and forward-looking statements without quantifiable milestones? The market's reaction will reveal whether investor sophistication has increased sufficiently to demand substance over spectacle.

Analysts maintain a “Hold” rating on Rivian stock with a 12-month price target of $14.79, below the stock's pre-event highs. This suggests that professional investors expect limited sustained upside from the Autonomy & AI Day itself, viewing the event more as an update on existing development programmes than a catalyst for revaluation.

The Broader Implications

The pattern of autonomy tech days generating short-term volatility without sustained valuation increases carries implications beyond individual stock picking. It reveals something important about how markets process information about frontier technologies, and how companies manage investor expectations whilst pursuing long-development-cycle innovations.

Companies face a genuine dilemma: pursuing autonomous capabilities requires sustained investment over many years, with uncertain commercialisation timelines and regulatory pathways. Yet public market investors demand regular updates and evidence of progress, creating pressure to demonstrate momentum even when genuine technological development occurs gradually and non-linearly.

Tech days represent one solution to this tension, offering periodic opportunities to showcase progress and maintain investor enthusiasm without the accountability of quarterly revenue recognition. When successful, these events buy management teams time and patience to continue development work. When unsuccessful, they accelerate loss of confidence and can trigger funding crises.

For investors, the challenge lies in distinguishing between companies using tech days to bridge genuine development milestones and those employing elaborate demonstrations to obscure lack of substantive progress. The framework outlined above provides tools for making these distinctions, but requires more diligence than simply watching a livestream and reading the subsequent analyst notes.

The maturation of the autonomous vehicle sector means that demonstration spectacle alone no longer suffices. Investors increasingly demand operational metrics, unit economics, regulatory progress, and realistic timelines. Companies that provide this substance may find their stock prices less volatile but more durably supported. Those continuing to rely on hype cycles may discover, as GM did with Cruise, that billions of dollars in investment cannot substitute for commercial viability.

Waymo's methodical approach, despite generating minimal stock volatility for Alphabet, may ultimately prove the winning strategy: underpromise, overdeliver, and let operational results speak louder than demonstration events. For risk-averse investors, this suggests focusing on companies that resist the temptation to overhype near-term prospects whilst steadily executing against measurable milestones.

The autonomous vehicle revolution will eventually arrive, transforming transportation economics and urban planning in profound ways. But revolutions, it turns out, rarely announce themselves with slick livestream events and enthusiastic analyst previews. They tend to emerge gradually, almost imperceptibly, built on thousands of operational improvements and regulatory approvals that never make headlines. By the time the transformation becomes obvious, the opportunity to capitalise on it at ground-floor valuations has long since passed.

For now, autonomy tech days serve as theatre rather than substance, generating sound and fury that signify little about long-term investment prospects. Sophisticated investors treat them accordingly: watch the show if it entertains, but make decisions based on operational metrics, unit economics, regulatory progress, and conservative timeline projections. The companies that succeed in commercialising autonomous vehicles will do so through patient capital allocation and relentless execution, not through masterful PowerPoint presentations and perfectly edited demonstration videos.

When Rivian takes the digital stage on 11 December, investors would do well to listen carefully for what isn't said: specific testing miles logged, disengagement rates compared to competitors, regulatory approval timelines with actual dates, revenue projections with defined assumptions, and capital requirements quantified with scenario analyses. The absence of these specifics, however impressive the sensors and algorithms being demonstrated, tells you everything you need to know about whether the event represents genuine progress or merely another chapter in the ongoing autonomy hype cycle.

---

References & Sources

• Rivian (RIVN) teases game-changing autonomy ahead of AI Day | InvestorsobserverRivian (RIVN) teases game-changing autonomy ahead of AI Day
• Rivian Stock Hits Nearly 6-Month High Ahead Of AI Day
• Tesla Valuation Debate Intensifies as Fundamentals Slow and AI Hype Builds | Investing.com
• Morgan Stanley Pounds the Table on 2 Self-Driving Stocks (That Aren't Tesla)
• US Autonomous Vehicle Sales To Hit 230K By 2034 After Progress Resumes At Alphabet's Waymo, GM's Cruise | Benzinga
• GM Pulls The Plug On Cruise | The Road to Autonomy
• Alphabet Continues to Invest in Waymo | The Road to Autonomy
• The autonomous vehicle industry moving forward | McKinsey
• Mastering Autonomous Vehicle Investments in 2025 | TSG Invest
• Performance metrics and evaluation | Autonomous Vehicle Systems Class Notes | Fiveable
• Autonomous Vehicle Market Size, Share, Trends | Report 2030 | Fortune Business Insights
• 2 Big Revelations From Tesla's AI Day Event | The Motley Fool
• Tesla AI Day | Electrek
• Innovative events: product launches, innovation and firm performance | ScienceDirect
• A “5T” framework to evaluate startups | Hustle Fund
• How We Evaluate Companies: Our 8 T Framework | byFounders
• Gartner hype cycle | Wikipedia
• Gartner Hype Cycle Research Methodology | Gartner
• What is the Gartner Hype Cycle? | TechTarget Definition
• Autonomous Vehicle Market Is Forecast to Grow and Boost Ridesharing Presence | Goldman Sachs
• Rivian (RIVN) Q2 2025 report: Limited R1 production doesn't slow deliveries, R2 remains on track | Electrek
• EV Notes: Rivian Grows More Confident in R2's Unit Economics | IndustryWeek
• Overreaction and Underreaction | Behavioural Finance
• Understanding Investor Sentiment | Chicago Booth Review
• Behavioural finance | Wikipedia
• Information shocks and short-term market overreaction: The role of investor attention | ScienceDirect
• Short-Term Investors, Long-Term Investments, and Firm Value: Evidence from Russell 2000 Index Inclusions | Management Science

---

Tim Green UK-based Systems Theorist & Independent Technology Writer

Tim explores the intersections of artificial intelligence, decentralised cognition, and posthuman ethics. His work, published at smarterarticles.co.uk, challenges dominant narratives of technological progress while proposing interdisciplinary frameworks for collective intelligence and digital stewardship.

His writing has been featured on Ground News and shared by independent researchers across both academic and technological communities.

ORCID: 0009-0002-0156-9795 Email: tim@smarterarticles.co.uk

even now , i think —less and understand [ ].

dove-happy in the reflection tree together we can make it, star crowded swing

[#2025dec the 13th, #fragment]

In Summary: * Today I followed three college games. The first was a basketball game, Arkansas Razorbacks vs Texas Tech Red Raiders. The second was a football game, the Army / Navy game. And the third is another basketball game, Indiana vs Kentucky, currently at halftime. I plan to listen to this game to the end, but I may finish it from bed. The head is getting heavy and I sense sleep sneaking up on me. After I put this blog post online, I'll start shutting things down around this joint..

Prayers, etc.: * My daily prayers

Health Metrics: * bw= 221.57 lbs. * bp= 139/85 (60)

Exercise: * kegel pelvic floor exercise, half squats, calf raises, wall push-ups

Diet: * 07:30 – 1 ½ MacDonalds double cheeseburger sandwiches, macnuggets * 09:45 – 1 cheese sandwich * 14:15 – home made meat and vegetable soup * 16:40 – snacking on saltine crackers and peanut butter

Activities, Chores, etc.: * 07:00 – bank accounts activity monitored * 07:45 – read, pray, follow news reports from various sources * 11:25 – tuned into NCAA men's basketball, Arkansas Razorbacks vs Texas Tech Red Raiders, midway through the 1st half, the Red Raiders lead 24 to 18. * 13:20 – and the Razorbacks win, final score: Arkansas 93 – Texas Tech 86 * 13:30 – now watching the CBS College Football Today Show previewing this afternoon's Army/Navy Game, planning to stay on this channel to watch the game. * 15:35 – at halftime, I've turned off the TV and will follow the rest of the game listening to the radio call from the Army Black Knights football network. Score at the half, Army 13 – Navy 7. * 17:20 – Navy wins the Army / Navy game with a final score of 17 to 16. And I'm tuning in The Flagship Station for IU Sports ahead of tonight's game, Kentucky Wildcats vs Indiana Hoosiers. Opening tip is scheduled for 18:30 Central Time. * 19:50 – At halftime the Hoosiers lead Kentucky 39 to 32.

Chess: * 13:00 – moved in all pending CC games

Now it’s late but I haven’t slept good

I am awake

Haunted, some might say, by the thousands of recurring thoughts which shoot through my brain like…

Like some type of moons or even electrons just following their predetermined trajectories

When I close my eyes, they grow louder

Even though there is no air up there for the sound to travel in.

It’s just a phase.

I am an electron and a moon or even a planet just following my own trajectory too

When I get closer to the sun

I will almost appear to be shining

On Day 13, I’ve focused on a tagging system. While making entries, the user can now add tags to the entries. These tags are also now part of the search and filter functionality I implemented yesterday.

The app is coming to a state where the MVP is nearly done. Next, I will focus a bit more on polishing and also improve the error handling.

👋

---

71 of #100DaysToOffload
#log #AdventOfProgress
Thoughts?

There are chapters in Scripture that feel like quiet rooms rather than loud sanctuaries, chapters where the voice of God does not thunder but reasons, listens, and gently rearranges the furniture of our assumptions. First Corinthians chapter seven is one of those rooms. It is not flashy. It is not dramatic. It does not lend itself easily to slogans or memes. And yet, if you stay in the room long enough, it begins to reshape how you understand love, marriage, singleness, devotion, freedom, sacrifice, and what it really means to live faithfully in the ordinary conditions of life.

This chapter was written into a moment of confusion, pressure, and moral noise. The Corinthian church was surrounded by sexual chaos on one side and spiritual extremism on the other. Some believers were drowning in indulgence, while others were reacting by swinging to the opposite extreme, believing that spirituality required denial of the body, abstinence within marriage, or even abandonment of marital commitments altogether. Paul steps into this confusion not as a detached theologian, but as a shepherd who understands human complexity. He does not issue blanket commands. He does not flatten nuance. Instead, he speaks carefully, distinguishing between command and counsel, between divine instruction and apostolic wisdom, between what is universally binding and what is situationally wise.

That distinction alone is revolutionary for many believers. Too often, faith is presented as a rigid system where every verse carries the same weight and every instruction applies identically to every person in every circumstance. First Corinthians seven refuses that approach. It acknowledges that faithfulness looks different depending on calling, season, responsibility, and capacity. Paul is deeply concerned with holiness, but he is equally concerned with freedom. He wants believers to live lives that are undistracted in their devotion to the Lord, but he understands that devotion does not always take the same form.

At the heart of this chapter is a question that feels timeless: How do we live faithfully as embodied people in a complicated world? Paul does not spiritualize us out of our humanity. He takes marriage seriously. He takes desire seriously. He takes loneliness seriously. He takes responsibility seriously. And at the same time, he refuses to let any of these things become ultimate. Marriage is not salvation. Singleness is not sanctification. Sexual restraint is not holiness by itself, and sexual expression within marriage is not spiritual failure. Everything is reframed around one central aim: living in a way that honors God without crushing the soul.

Paul begins by addressing marriage directly, not because marriage is superior, but because it is a reality many believers are already living in. He affirms sexual intimacy within marriage as good and mutual, not as a concession to weakness but as a legitimate expression of love and unity. In a culture where power dynamics often favored men, Paul’s insistence on mutuality is striking. He speaks of shared authority over one another’s bodies, language that dismantles dominance and elevates partnership. Marriage, in this vision, is not ownership but stewardship. It is not entitlement but responsibility. It is not about getting one’s needs met at the expense of the other, but about mutual care that guards against isolation, temptation, and resentment.

At the same time, Paul is careful not to turn marriage into a spiritual idol. He does not present it as a cure-all for desire, loneliness, or moral struggle. He acknowledges that sexual self-control varies from person to person, calling it a gift rather than a moral achievement. This is crucial. By framing self-control as a gift, Paul removes both pride and shame from the conversation. Those who marry are not morally inferior. Those who remain single are not spiritually superior. Each path is valid, but neither path is universal.

This alone dismantles a great deal of religious harm. Many people have been wounded by teachings that imply marriage is the mark of maturity or that singleness is a problem to be solved. Others have been crushed by expectations that spiritual devotion requires suppressing desire or denying companionship. First Corinthians seven refuses both narratives. It insists that faithfulness is not measured by marital status but by obedience within one’s actual circumstances.

Paul’s discussion of singleness is often misunderstood, especially when lifted out of context. He expresses a personal preference for singleness, not because he despises marriage, but because of the unique freedom it can offer for undivided focus on the Lord. But even here, Paul is careful. He does not command singleness. He does not universalize his own calling. He recognizes that what is freeing for one person may be unbearable for another. The same condition can be a gift or a burden depending on how one is wired.

This is a profoundly compassionate theology. It acknowledges difference without ranking value. It allows space for people to discern their calling without forcing conformity. It respects the complexity of human desire without surrendering to chaos. And it roots all of this in the belief that God is not honored by uniformity but by faithfulness.

One of the most emotionally charged sections of the chapter deals with marriage between believers and unbelievers. Here again, Paul refuses simplistic answers. He does not tell believers to abandon their marriages in the name of spiritual purity. He honors the covenant. He recognizes the sanctifying influence of faithful presence. At the same time, he does not trap believers in relationships marked by abandonment or coercion. If an unbelieving spouse chooses to leave, Paul releases the believer from bondage, not as a failure of faith but as an acknowledgment of reality.

This balance is deeply humane. It recognizes that peace matters. It recognizes that faith cannot be forced. It recognizes that staying at all costs is not always holy. Paul’s concern is not appearances but wholeness. He is less interested in preserving structures than in preserving people.

Perhaps one of the most radical themes running through this chapter is the idea that calling does not require escape. Paul repeatedly encourages believers to remain in the condition they were in when they were called, unless there is a compelling reason to change. This is not resignation. It is liberation. It means that faith is not postponed until circumstances improve. You do not need a different life to live faithfully. You do not need a different status to matter to God. You do not need to become someone else to be obedient.

This truth confronts a deeply ingrained assumption that spiritual growth always requires drastic external change. We imagine that if we were married, single, free, wealthy, educated, healed, or admired, then we could finally serve God properly. Paul dismantles this fantasy. He insists that God meets us where we are and calls us to faithfulness there. This does not mean circumstances never change. It means change is not a prerequisite for devotion.

In a world obsessed with optimization, reinvention, and constant self-upgrading, this message is deeply countercultural. It tells the exhausted soul that faithfulness is not found in escape but in presence. It tells the restless heart that holiness is not always dramatic. It is often quiet, steady, and deeply ordinary.

As the chapter unfolds, Paul introduces a sense of urgency shaped by his understanding of the times. He speaks of the present form of the world passing away, not to induce panic but to clarify priorities. This perspective reframes everything. Marriage, grief, joy, possessions, and daily concerns are all held lightly, not because they do not matter, but because they are not ultimate. The danger Paul sees is not involvement but entanglement. Not love, but distraction. Not responsibility, but forgetfulness of what truly endures.

This does not produce withdrawal from the world. It produces clarity within it. You can marry, but do not let marriage eclipse your devotion. You can mourn, but do not lose hope. You can rejoice, but do not anchor your identity in fleeting circumstances. You can possess things, but do not be possessed by them. Faithfulness, in this vision, is not about rejection of life but about proper orientation within it.

First Corinthians seven is often read as a chapter about marriage and singleness, but at a deeper level, it is a chapter about freedom. Freedom from cultural pressure. Freedom from religious performance. Freedom from false guilt. Freedom from comparison. Freedom from the lie that God is more pleased with one life path than another. Paul is not trying to control believers. He is trying to unburden them.

He says this explicitly near the end of the chapter when he clarifies that his guidance is offered for the believers’ benefit, not to restrict them, but to promote good order and secure undivided devotion to the Lord. That phrase matters. Undivided devotion does not mean a divided life is sinful. It means that whatever life you are living, God desires your heart, not your exhaustion. Your faithfulness, not your fragmentation.

This chapter invites us to examine not just our relationships but our motivations. Are we pursuing marriage because we believe it will complete us, validate us, or save us from loneliness? Are we clinging to singleness because it feels safer, more controllable, or less vulnerable? Are we staying in situations God has released us from out of fear, or leaving situations God has called us to remain in out of impatience? Paul does not answer these questions for us. He creates space for us to ask them honestly.

And that may be the most important gift of First Corinthians seven. It does not give us a script. It gives us discernment. It does not force uniformity. It invites wisdom. It does not reduce faith to rules. It roots faith in relationship, responsibility, and freedom shaped by love.

This chapter reminds us that God is not trying to manage our lives from a distance. He is forming our hearts from within our actual circumstances. Marriage can be holy. Singleness can be holy. Staying can be holy. Letting go can be holy. The question is not which condition you occupy, but whether you are present to God within it.

And if that truth is allowed to settle, it changes everything.

What Paul ultimately offers in this chapter is not a rulebook for relationships, but a framework for faithfulness that honors both God and the human heart. He refuses to treat people as categories. He refuses to flatten lives into formulas. Instead, he keeps returning to the same quiet center: live in a way that is honest before God, faithful to your commitments, and free from unnecessary spiritual anxiety.

That anxiety is something Paul seems keenly aware of. He knows how quickly faith can become burdened when believers begin to believe that God’s approval hinges on making the “right” life choices rather than living rightly within the life they already have. Much religious harm begins here, when discernment turns into fear and wisdom is replaced by obsession. First Corinthians seven is an antidote to that sickness. Paul repeatedly reassures his readers that they are not failing God simply by being where they are.

This is especially clear in the way he handles questions of virginity and marriage. Paul recognizes that some believers were anxious about whether remaining unmarried was spiritually preferable, while others worried that marriage itself might be a compromise. Rather than feeding that anxiety, he diffuses it. He makes it clear that marriage is good, singleness is good, and neither state determines one’s standing before God. What matters is faithfulness, not status.

In a culture that often spiritualizes extremes, this moderation is deeply counterintuitive. We are drawn to absolutes because they feel clean and decisive. Paul resists that impulse. He understands that real life is lived in tension, not slogans. Faithfulness often requires navigating competing goods rather than choosing between good and evil. Marriage can bring joy and burden. Singleness can bring freedom and loneliness. Paul refuses to lie about any of this. His honesty honors the lived experience of believers rather than invalidating it.

One of the quiet but powerful themes of this chapter is Paul’s respect for conscience. He repeatedly emphasizes that believers should act in accordance with what they can do in faith, without compulsion or shame. This is not moral relativism. It is moral maturity. Paul trusts the Spirit of God to work within individuals, guiding them toward faithfulness in ways that account for their capacity, circumstances, and calling.

That trust is something the modern church often struggles to extend. Too often, people are handed one-size-fits-all answers to deeply personal questions. Should I marry? Should I stay single? Should I leave this relationship? Should I stay? Paul does not provide universal answers because he understands that God does not call everyone the same way. Instead, he offers principles that require prayer, self-awareness, and honesty.

Another overlooked aspect of this chapter is how deeply relational Paul’s theology is. Even when discussing personal calling, he is always aware of how our choices affect others. Marriage is not just about individual fulfillment but mutual responsibility. Separation is not just about personal peace but relational consequences. Even singleness, which Paul values for its freedom, is framed in terms of how it allows for greater service to others and devotion to God.

This relational focus guards against both selfishness and self-erasure. Paul does not encourage people to sacrifice themselves unnecessarily, nor does he encourage them to pursue freedom at the expense of others. Instead, he calls believers to weigh their choices carefully, considering both personal faithfulness and communal impact. This is a demanding ethic, but it is also a deeply humane one.

Paul’s repeated emphasis on peace is especially striking. In cases of marital tension, separation, or abandonment, he consistently prioritizes peace rather than control. This does not mean avoiding difficulty or responsibility, but it does mean recognizing that coercion, manipulation, and fear have no place in relationships shaped by the gospel. Faithfulness is not enforced through pressure. It is sustained through love and truth.

The chapter also subtly dismantles the idea that spiritual growth requires dramatic change. Paul’s instruction to remain in one’s calling does not glorify stagnation, but it does affirm that God is already at work in the life you are living. This is a word many people desperately need. We are constantly tempted to believe that transformation is always elsewhere, that meaning lies just beyond our current circumstances. Paul insists otherwise. God’s call meets us where we are.

This does not mean we never change. It means change is not a prerequisite for obedience. A person can grow deeply in faith without altering their marital status, career, or social position. Holiness is not found in escaping life but in engaging it faithfully. This truth cuts against both worldly ambition and religious perfectionism.

Paul’s eschatological perspective, his awareness that the present form of the world is passing away, is not meant to devalue life but to relativize it. He wants believers to live fully without clinging desperately. This is a delicate balance. To love without idolizing. To commit without becoming trapped. To enjoy without being consumed. First Corinthians seven offers a vision of mature faith that can hold joy and loss, commitment and freedom, desire and restraint, all at once.

In many ways, this chapter is about learning how to hold life lightly without holding it cheaply. Marriage matters, but it is not ultimate. Singleness matters, but it is not salvific. Relationships matter, but they do not replace God. When these distinctions are lost, faith becomes distorted. Either relationships are idolized, or spirituality becomes detached from embodied life. Paul refuses both errors.

What makes this chapter so enduring is its refusal to shame. There is no sense that certain believers are more spiritual because of their life choices. Paul speaks with humility, frequently clarifying when he is offering personal judgment rather than divine command. This transparency is rare and instructive. It models a way of teaching that respects both authority and freedom, conviction and compassion.

This approach invites believers into discernment rather than compliance. It assumes maturity rather than infantilizing faith. Paul trusts his readers to listen, reflect, and choose wisely. That trust is itself an expression of love.

First Corinthians seven also challenges the church to reconsider how it talks about desire. Desire is not treated as an enemy to be crushed, nor as a master to be obeyed. It is acknowledged as a real and powerful force that must be integrated wisely into a life of faith. Marriage is one context for that integration. Singleness is another. Neither path eliminates desire. Both require self-awareness and discipline.

By framing self-control as a gift rather than a test, Paul removes moral hierarchy from the conversation. Some people have the capacity to live contentedly single. Others do not. This is not a failure or a virtue. It is a reality. Recognizing this reality allows believers to make honest choices without shame.

The chapter also exposes the danger of spiritual comparison. When believers begin measuring themselves against one another based on marital status, sexual history, or life circumstances, the gospel is quietly replaced with performance. Paul’s insistence that each person has their own gift from God undermines this comparison. Faithfulness is not competitive. It is personal.

Perhaps the most liberating message of this chapter is that God is not waiting for you to become someone else before He calls you faithful. You do not need a different relationship status, a different past, or a different set of desires. You need honesty, humility, and a willingness to live faithfully where you are. That is where devotion begins.

This chapter invites believers to stop treating life as a problem to solve and start treating it as a calling to live. Marriage is not a solution. Singleness is not a solution. They are contexts in which faith is lived. When this truth is embraced, a great deal of spiritual pressure falls away.

First Corinthians seven is not an easy chapter, but it is a gentle one. It does not shout. It does not threaten. It reasons. It invites. It reassures. It offers a vision of faith that is strong enough to handle complexity and tender enough to honor human weakness.

In a world that constantly demands certainty, this chapter teaches wisdom. In a culture that rewards extremes, it teaches balance. In religious environments that thrive on pressure, it teaches freedom. And in lives weighed down by comparison and fear, it teaches peace.

Paul’s final concern is not that believers make the “right” choices according to some external standard, but that they live in a way that allows them to belong wholly to the Lord without unnecessary distraction or guilt. That belonging is not fragile. It is not easily lost. It is sustained by grace, not performance.

When First Corinthians seven is read slowly and honestly, it becomes clear that Paul is not trying to control lives. He is trying to free them. He wants believers to stop striving for spiritual legitimacy through life changes and start trusting that God is already present in the life they are living.

That is a message worth hearing again and again, especially in a world that tells us we are always one decision away from finally being enough.

Watch Douglas Vandergraph’s inspiring faith-based videos on YouTube:

Support the ministry by buying Douglas a coffee:

Your friend, Douglas Vandergraph

#faith #christianlife #biblestudy #newtestament #1corinthians #spiritualgrowth #christianfaith #devotion #calling #grace

Last year I rolled 70 magical weapons as part of the RPG Blog Carnival: Wondrous Weapons and Damning Dweomers. Since then several people asked me for a print-friendly PDF versions.

Here they are:

• Ten Magik Weapons for Original Dungeons & Dragons
• Ten Wondrous Weapons for Original Dungeons & Dragons
• Twenty Magical Swords for Swords & Wizardry
• Thirty Unique Magical Weapons for Labyrinth Lord

Enjoy!

Illustration by Grey Gnome Games.

#Resource #OSR #ODnD #SW #Arduin #LL

There are moments in Scripture where Paul stops sounding like a theologian and starts sounding like a father who has reached the end of his patience—not because he is angry, but because he knows what is at stake. First Corinthians chapter six is one of those moments. This is not abstract theology. This is not a distant doctrinal debate. This is Paul standing in front of a fractured church, looking at people who have tasted grace and then forgotten who they are, and saying, in effect, “Do you have any idea what you are carrying?”

This chapter is uncomfortable because it refuses to let faith stay theoretical. It drags belief into bedrooms, courtrooms, appetites, bodies, and daily decisions. It refuses to allow Christianity to remain a Sunday activity. First Corinthians 6 presses the question that many would rather avoid: if grace has truly taken root, why does your life still look like it belongs to the old world?

Paul opens with something that seems mundane but is deeply revealing. Lawsuits. Believers dragging one another before secular courts. At first glance, this feels like an administrative issue. Church conflict management. But Paul’s response tells us this is not about procedure—it is about identity. He is stunned. “How is it,” he asks, “that you dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints?”

That word “dare” matters. Paul is not merely disappointed; he is incredulous. The issue is not that disputes exist. Conflict happens wherever humans gather. The issue is that believers, people who claim to live under a different kingdom, are defaulting to the same systems, instincts, and power structures as everyone else.

Paul pushes the argument further, and this is where it becomes shocking. He says the saints will judge the world. He says they will judge angels. That is not metaphorical fluff. Paul is anchoring present behavior in future destiny. His logic is piercing: if God has entrusted you with that kind of future authority, why are you incapable of handling minor disputes among yourselves now?

This is not arrogance. This is responsibility. Paul is saying that the church’s inability to resolve conflict internally is not a failure of skill—it is a failure of imagination. They have forgotten who they are becoming.

And then Paul says something that sounds almost scandalous to modern ears: “Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?” In a culture obsessed with rights, justice, and self-vindication, this sounds weak. But Paul is not dismissing justice; he is re-framing value. He is saying that preserving the witness of the gospel is worth more than winning an argument. That unity in Christ matters more than personal victory.

This is where the chapter begins to turn inward. Because Paul is not just addressing public behavior; he is addressing private entitlement. The problem is not that they are being wronged. The problem is that they are wronging each other—and doing so while wearing the name of Christ.

Then comes the line that rattles people, the line that has been weaponized, misunderstood, and ripped out of context for generations: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?”

This is where many readers panic. This is where sermons often turn into fear campaigns. But that is not Paul’s intent. He is not saying that salvation is earned through moral perfection. He is saying that transformation is not optional. The kingdom of God is not a label you slap onto an unchanged life. It is a reality that reshapes everything it touches.

Paul lists behaviors that characterized the Corinthians’ former lives. Sexual immorality. Idolatry. Adultery. Exploitation. Greed. Drunkenness. Abuse. And then he drops one of the most hope-filled sentences in the entire New Testament: “And such were some of you.”

Were. Past tense. Not “are.” Not “will always be.” Were.

This is not condemnation. This is celebration. Paul is not reminding them of their sins to shame them; he is reminding them of their transformation to wake them up. You are not that anymore. You cannot live like you never left Egypt when God has already split the sea.

And then Paul anchors it all in identity. “But you were washed. You were sanctified. You were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

Notice what Paul does not say. He does not say, “You cleaned yourself up.” He does not say, “You earned a second chance.” He does not say, “You fixed your behavior.” He says, “You were washed.” Passive voice. God acted. Grace moved first. Transformation began not with effort, but with encounter.

This is where First Corinthians 6 becomes deeply personal. Because Paul is not issuing a rulebook; he is issuing a reminder. You belong to God now. Your life is no longer your own raw material to shape however you please.

Then comes the phrase that has launched a thousand justifications: “All things are lawful for me.” Paul is quoting them. This is Corinthian theology gone wrong. Freedom twisted into permission. Grace misunderstood as license.

Paul’s response is sharp and surgical. “But not all things are helpful.” “But I will not be dominated by anything.”

Freedom, in Paul’s view, is not the absence of restraint. It is the presence of mastery. If something controls you, it owns you—no matter how loudly you shout about liberty.

Then Paul moves to the body. And this is where the chapter reaches its most confronting depth. Corinth was a city saturated with sexual permissiveness. Prostitution was woven into religious practice. Bodies were commodities. Pleasure was detached from meaning. Sound familiar?

Paul refuses to spiritualize faith away from physical reality. He does not say, “Your soul matters; your body doesn’t.” He says the opposite. “The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.”

That line is revolutionary. God is not merely interested in your prayers. He is invested in your flesh. The incarnation proves that bodies matter. Resurrection confirms it.

Paul reminds them that God raised the Lord and will raise us also by His power. That means what you do with your body echoes into eternity. Your physical life is not disposable packaging—it is sacred ground.

Then Paul drops a truth that should stop every believer cold: “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?”

Not symbols. Not metaphors. Members.

This means there is no such thing as a purely private sin. There is no act that affects only you. When you belong to Christ, your choices ripple through His body.

Paul’s argument reaches a climax when he says, “Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never!”

This is not prudishness. This is covenant language. Sexual union, Paul explains, creates a one-flesh reality. It binds. It joins. It fuses. That is why it is powerful. That is why it is dangerous. That is why it is sacred.

But Paul does not stop with sexual ethics. He goes deeper. He says, “He who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with Him.”

Read that slowly. One spirit. Union with Christ is not metaphorical. It is participatory. You are not merely forgiven; you are fused.

And this leads Paul to the command that is often misunderstood: “Flee sexual immorality.”

He does not say, “Resist it.” He does not say, “Negotiate with it.” He does not say, “Test your strength.” He says, “Run.”

Why? Because sexual sin is unique. Paul says every other sin is outside the body, but sexual sin is against one’s own body. It fractures the self. It erodes intimacy. It damages the vessel God intends to fill.

And then comes the line that changes everything: “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God?”

A temple is not a casual space. It is sacred. It is intentional. It is consecrated. Paul is telling ordinary believers—former idol worshipers, former addicts, former abusers—that God has chosen to dwell in them.

Not visit. Dwell.

And then the final blow to the illusion of autonomy: “You are not your own, for you were bought with a price.”

This is not oppression. This is rescue. Ownership in the kingdom of God is not exploitation—it is redemption. You were purchased out of slavery, not into it.

Paul ends the chapter with a sentence that summarizes the entire argument: “So glorify God in your body.”

Not just your thoughts. Not just your worship songs. Your body. Your habits. Your choices. Your relationships. Your self-control. Your boundaries. Your courage to live differently.

First Corinthians 6 is not about moralism. It is about magnitude. Paul is saying, “Do you realize how much God has invested in you?”

If you did, you would stop settling for what diminishes you.

If you did, you would stop using grace as an excuse and start living as evidence.

If you did, you would realize that holiness is not about restriction—it is about alignment.

And if you did, your life would stop asking, “What can I get away with?” and start asking, “What honors the One who lives in me?”

This is not a chapter meant to crush you. It is meant to call you higher.

And we are only halfway through what it has to say.

…What Paul is doing in this chapter, if we slow down enough to see it, is rebuilding the believer’s self-understanding from the ground up. He is dismantling the small, fragile identity the Corinthians have been living from and replacing it with something weighty, durable, and holy. The tragedy is not that they have sinned. The tragedy is that they have forgotten who they are while claiming the name of Christ.

This is why First Corinthians 6 does not read like a list of rules. It reads like a wake-up call. Paul is not saying, “Try harder.” He is saying, “Remember deeper.” Remember what happened to you. Remember what was done for you. Remember who now lives within you. Because behavior always follows belief, and shallow living always reveals shallow remembering.

The Corinthians believed they were free, but they had quietly redefined freedom as the absence of limits instead of the presence of purpose. Paul corrects this not by tightening restrictions but by expanding vision. He keeps pointing forward. You will judge the world. You will judge angels. Your body will be raised. Your spirit is joined to the Lord. Your flesh is a temple. You were bought at a price. Every sentence stretches the horizon of what their lives mean.

This is one of Paul’s most consistent strategies. When believers drift, he does not first threaten them with punishment; he reminds them of destiny. He does not say, “Act better or else.” He says, “You are becoming something—why are you living beneath it?” Holiness, in Paul’s theology, is not fear-based compliance. It is future-anchored alignment.

This is why the misuse of First Corinthians 6 has done so much damage. When this chapter is preached as a club instead of a calling, it loses its power. When it is reduced to sexual policing instead of identity formation, it shrinks. Paul is not obsessed with controlling bodies; he is obsessed with protecting union. Union with Christ. Union within the community. Union between belief and behavior.

Notice how carefully Paul frames the issue of sexual sin. He does not argue primarily from shame, disgust, or social reputation. He argues from belonging. “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?” That is not an external rule; that is an internal reality. Paul is saying that sexual immorality is not just “wrong” in a moral sense—it is incoherent. It does not fit who you are anymore.

And that word “fit” matters. Because the deepest frustration many believers feel is not that God asks too much of them, but that their lives feel misaligned. Disconnected. Fragmented. Pulled apart by competing loyalties. Paul’s answer is not repression; it is integration. Your spirit and your body were never meant to live separate lives. Grace does not erase embodiment—it sanctifies it.

This is why Paul refuses the Corinthian slogan, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food,” when it is applied to sex. That argument treats the body as a machine and desire as a function. Paul refuses that reduction. The body is not a disposable appetite engine. It is a relational instrument. What you do with it teaches your soul what it is worth.

That is why Paul says sexual sin is against one’s own body. He is not minimizing other sins; he is recognizing the unique way sexual choices form and deform identity. Sexual union creates memory, attachment, expectation, and meaning. It trains the heart. It scripts the nervous system. It teaches us what intimacy is allowed to cost. Paul is not being old-fashioned; he is being profoundly perceptive.

And this is where grace must be spoken clearly, especially for those who read this chapter with wounds instead of curiosity. Paul is not writing to people who have “kept themselves clean.” He is writing to people who have lived deeply broken sexual lives. “Such were some of you.” That sentence is not theoretical. It includes stories. Faces. Regrets. Trauma. Shame. Exploitation. Paul is not erasing their past; he is refusing to let it define their future.

Being washed does not mean you were never dirty. Being sanctified does not mean you were never fractured. Being justified does not mean you were never guilty. It means God stepped into the mess and claimed it as His own. It means the deepest truths about you are not located in what you did, but in what He did for you.

This is why Paul’s final statement—“You are not your own”—is not dehumanizing. It is stabilizing. The modern world treats self-ownership as ultimate freedom, but self-ownership is also unbearable pressure. If you belong only to yourself, you must create yourself, defend yourself, justify yourself, and save yourself. Paul offers something better. You belong to the One who knows what you were made for.

“You were bought with a price.” Paul does not cheapen that phrase by over-explaining it. He lets its gravity speak. The cross was not symbolic. It was costly. And that cost assigns value. You do not purchase what you consider worthless. You redeem what you refuse to lose.

And so Paul ends not with a threat, but with a direction: “Therefore glorify God in your body.” Not because God is insecure. Not because He needs control. But because glory is what happens when something finally functions as it was designed to.

A violin glorifies its maker when it resonates correctly. A lens glorifies its maker when it brings things into focus. A life glorifies God when belief and embodiment finally agree.

First Corinthians 6 is not asking you to become someone else. It is calling you back to yourself—the self God has already begun to restore. It is asking whether your daily choices align with the future you have been promised. Whether your habits reflect your hope. Whether your body tells the same story your mouth does.

This chapter leaves no room for casual Christianity, but it leaves enormous room for grace-fueled transformation. It does not say, “Be perfect.” It says, “Be who you are becoming.” It does not say, “Never fail.” It says, “Stop forgetting what you carry.”

Because when you remember that God has chosen to dwell within you, some doors quietly close on their own. Some temptations lose their voice. Some compromises start to feel too small. Not because you are afraid—but because you are awake.

And that is what Paul wants for the Corinthians. Not fear. Not shame. Awakening.

An awakening to the sacred weight of who they are.

An awakening to the truth that grace does not lower the bar of life—it lifts the soul high enough to reach it.

And an awakening to the reality that the God who saved them did not do so halfway. He claimed their future, their community, their spirit, and their bodies.

Nothing about that is small.

Nothing about that is casual.

And nothing about that leaves you unchanged.

Your friend, Douglas Vandergraph

Watch Douglas Vandergraph’s inspiring faith-based videos on YouTube

Support the ministry by buying Douglas a coffee

grand ciel gris sans saveur

du creux du vallon à la crête des collines

un même vent venu du versant agite les branches et gonfle nos cœurs

---

Photo © Gilles Le Corre « Autour du lac » (source)

Courtesy of Gilles Le Corre & ADAGP

---

#doooongRead

A Boy Like This

Who would know The hidden places, the concealed plots hiding in his hair? Who would know This boy restores beauty, slipping into the tongue. This boy, as he said, will remain at the core of the missile. And who would know The mysterious inhale, exhale—this boy, Entering through the nose. He was born in a half-awake dream, A sensitive boy who likes to enter the carriage through the head, Meeting a pearl-like, enchanting cradle. And who would know A boy like this, Lurking at the ocean's mouth, wrapping around the stomach and ears. To a boy like this, To a boy like this, Give a thief like this, Who secretly scrapes away his germs.

Latest addition to our Alamy portfolio: Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA) at Center for American Progress, 11 Dec. 2025

Our photo collection of lawmakers from both parties, with business and media leaders offered exclusively at the Alamy photo agency has a number of new and important additions since the start of Dec. 2025:

• Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ), at Center for American Progress
• Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) at Punchbowl News
• Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) at Axios: Prospects for permitting reform
• Sen. John Hickenlooper (D-CO) at Axios: Prospects for permitting reform
• Rep. Julie Fedorchak (R-ND) at Axios: Prospects for permitting reform
• Brendan Bechtel, chairman and CEO of Bechtel Crop., at Axios: Prospects for permitting reform
• Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-GA), shown here, at Center for American Progress

All of the portrait and interview photos are available as high-resolution images, exclusively from the Alamy agency in the D.C. Notables gallery and the full TechNewsLit portfolio.

Copyright © Technology News and Literature. All rights reserved.

The Apple Watch is an amazing device. I have been using the Ultra 2 with cellular for the past two years, and it’s incredible what it can do. With this tiny little thing, you stay fully connected, access much of your data, and tap into the world’s knowledge (as long as you can make yourself understandable to Siri). I almost never take advantage of these features because you usually have your iPhone nearby as well. So in the spirit of this, I plan to give up my Apple Watch and start using my old Citizen Eco-Drive again (if I can get the battery to work). Let’s see how it goes.