⋆

Inactive ⋆moved to @starling-spacecadet so this remains as my personal archive⋆

[a-lavender-sprout]

I'm starting a new blog!! I just want a fresh start and a new (hopefully active) era.

@wormautopsy @avdoingstuff <- tagging mutuals if you wanna follow. I'm @starling-spacecadet

[metalinjector95]

Here’s me thinking that no matter what Anne, Sasha and Marcy are canonically soulmates.

No matter what Universe they will always find each other.

Platonic or Romantic these three are connected to one another by fate itself.

[mountainrusing]

it’s sad terfs don’t know that no one is defined by biological sex. not even terfs themselves are. don’t let sexist society take your genitals and make them define who you are. don’t let misogynistic society make being a woman equate to having a biological vagina. don’t do that to yourself. don’t do that to anyone else.

[kareman-dohaan]

Do you remember the old game “Digging Jim”?🎮

Yes I was playing it

I don't know her

Voting ended onMay 29, 2025

We Palestinians have a principle and an idea in our lives that we share, and we believe that it exists in the West.🇫🇲🇪🇺🇵🇸🇺🇲🇺🇳

The most honorable among you is the one who feeds the hungry, protects the orphan, and stands against injustice.”And yet today, the world that taught us these values turns away

📉 A recent World Food Programme report warns: Over 25,000 children in Gaza could die from hunger if aid doesn’t reach us soon.

Yes ، twenty-five thousand. Just imagine them… crying, starving, forgotten.

👩‍👦 I am Kareman, a mother of a little boy named Hamoud. We haven’t eaten properly in days. He cries from hunger, and I cry from helplessness.😭There’s no milk, no bread, no safety ، only fear and emptiness.

Please, from the depth of your heart Help us survive. Not because we ask, but because no human should suffer like this.

Donate here🌸:

GoFundMe: Click here

PayPal: Click here

Chuffed: Click here

My campaing vetted by/ @90-ghost here @gaza-evacuation-funds here

[proseandpsalms]

God doesn't need you to fight for Him btw. He needs you to fight for the marginalised and oppressed.

[jinxssacramental]

setting time aside for God (specific prayer time, bible studies, going to church, etc) is important, yes. it's important to have time where you can completely focus on Him and your relationship with Him.

but a criminally understated way of connecting with God is incorporating Him into your daily life. Not separating Him from it, but including Him in every part.

I might not be able to set aside specific time for prayer on a given day, but I can list things I'm grateful to Him for on the walk to the corner shop. I might not be able to sit and read my Bible that day for whatever reason— I could be in pain, distracted, or just plain busy— but I can say a favorite verse or a quick prayer while doing the dishes.

God is everywhere, and that includes not just being part of your life, but integral to every part of it :)

[gayleviticus]

i have thought this for a while but only just been able to articulate that the thing i appreciate about structured rote prayer (e.g. liturgy, morning/evening prayer, jesus prayer, rosary) or meditative prayer not so much based around conscious formation of words (e.g. lectio divina) is that an approach to prayer that is entirely extemperaneous mental conversation with God often becomes (for me) indistinguishable from endless mental rumination just with a religious flavour.

i still find off-the-cuff mental prayer good and helpful and feel like in a lot of ways it is the core of praying - but having other more 'objective' methods of prayer helps me avoid feeling like praying means unhealthily fixating on your problems in your mind but also God is there

[iustuspeccator]

If you want to engage in Side A/Side B conversations (I don't), I highly recommend reading this article on the origin. It comes from an extremely specific online community. I find it frankly a little silly that this terminology still exists and has shifted to where it is today.

I have something harsh and controversial to say, which is that there is no Side A/Side B, in the end. There is affirmation and non-affirmation. It's wonderful to have a call from God to celibacy, there is a rich tradition of this in the church. But it is wrong to claim that God calls all gay and bisexual people to celibacy, and that road leads to harm. The fruits of affirming theology are abundant life and healing and therefore I will only accept affirmation.

It's fine to be Side B, it's fine to be celibate, I don't care. But I will never accept Side B as a form of affirmation. And unfortunately, Side B will never be enough rejection of queerness for conservative traditions to accept it. A middle road between affirmation and rejection leads to nowhere. If I have Side B followers, I respect your choices, I'm not pressuring you to Side A, but I won't mince words on this. If you are called to celibacy, that's holy. But I'm not. I grew up in a Side B household and it was deeply, deeply damaging.

[star-anise]

So what I’ve learned from the past couple months of being really loud about being a bi woman on Tumblr is: A lot of young/new LGBT+ people on this site do not understand that some of the stuff they’re saying comes across to other LGBT+ people as offensive, aggressive, or threatening. And when they actually find out the history and context, a lot of them go, “Oh my god, I’m so sorry, I never meant to say that.”

Like, “queer is a slur”: I get the impression that people saying this are like… oh, how I might react if I heard someone refer to all gay men as “f*gs”. Like, “Oh wow, that’s a super loaded word with a bunch of negative freight behind it, are you really sure you want to put that word on people who are still very raw and would be alarmed, upset, or offended if they heard you call them it, no matter what you intended?”

So they’re really surprised when self-described queers respond with a LOT of hostility to what feels like a well-intentioned reminder that some people might not like it. 

That’s because there’s a history of “political lesbians”, like Sheila Jeffreys, who believe that no matter their sexual orientation, women should cut off all social contact with men, who are fundamentally evil, and only date the “correct” sex, which is other women. Political lesbians claim that relationships between women, especially ones that don’t contain lust, are fundamentally pure, good, and  unproblematic. They therefore regard most of the LGBT community with deep suspicion, because its members are either way too into sex, into the wrong kind of sex, into sex with men, are men themselves, or somehow challenge the very definitions of sex and gender. 

When “queer theory” arrived in the 1980s and 1990s as an organized attempt by many diverse LGBT+ people in academia to sit down and talk about the social oppressions they face, political lesbians like Jeffreys attacked it harshly, publishing articles like “The Queer Disappearance of Lesbians”, arguing that because queer theory said it was okay to be a man or stop being a man or want to have sex with a man, it was fundamentally evil and destructive. And this attitude has echoed through the years; many LGBT+ people have experience being harshly criticized by radical feminists because being anything but a cis “gold star lesbian” (another phrase that gives me war flashbacks) was considered patriarchal, oppressive, and basically evil.

And when those arguments happened, “queer” was a good umbrella to shelter under, even when people didn’t know the intricacies of academic queer theory; people who identified as “queer” were more likely to be accepting and understanding, and “queer” was often the only label or community bisexual and nonbinary people didn’t get chased out of. If someone didn’t disagree that people got to call themselves queer, but didn’t want to be called queer themselves, they could just say “I don’t like being called queer” and that was that. Being “queer” was to being LGBT as being a “feminist” was to being a woman; it was opt-in.

But this history isn’t evident when these interactions happen. We don’t sit down and say, “Okay, so forty years ago there was this woman named Sheila, and…” Instead we queers go POP! like pufferfish, instantly on the defensive, a red haze descending over our vision, and bellow, “DO NOT TELL ME WHAT WORDS I CANNOT USE,” because we cannot find a way to say, “This word is so vital and precious to me, I wouldn’t be alive in the same way if I lost it.” And then the people who just pointed out that this word has a history, JEEZ, way to overreact, go away very confused and off-put, because they were just trying to say.

But I’ve found that once this is explained, a lot of people go, “Oh wow, okay, I did NOT mean to insinuate that, I didn’t realize that I was also saying something with a lot of painful freight to it.”

And that? That gives me hope for the future.

[star-anise]

Similarily: “Dyke/butch/femme are lesbian words, bisexual/pansexual women shouldn’t use them.”

When I speak to them, lesbians who say this seem to be under the impression that bisexuals must have our own history and culture and words that are all perfectly nice, so why can’t we just use those without poaching someone else’s?

And often, they’re really shocked when I tell them: We don’t. We can’t. I’d love to; it’s not possible.

“Lesbian” used to be a word that simply meant a woman who loved other women. And until feminism, very, very few women had the economic freedom to choose to live entirely away from men. Lesbian bars that began in the 1930s didn’t interrogate you about your history at the door; many of the women who went there seeking romantic or sexual relationships with other women were married to men at the time. When The Daughters of Bilitis formed in 1955 to work for the civil and political wellbeing of lesbians, the majority of its members were closeted, married women, and for those women, leaving their husbands and committing to lesbian partners was a risky and arduous process the organization helped them with. Women were admitted whether or not they’d at one point truly loved or desired their husbands or other men–the important thing was that they loved women and wanted to explore that desire.

Lesbian groups turned against bisexual and pansexual women as a class in the 1970s and 80s, when radical feminists began to teach that to escape the Patriarchy’s evil influence, women needed to cut themselves off from men entirely. Having relationships with men was “sleeping with the enemy” and colluding with oppression. Many lesbian radical feminists viewed, and still view, bisexuality as a fundamentally disordered condition that makes bisexuals unstable, abusive, anti-feminist, and untrustworthy.

(This despite the fact that radical feminists and political lesbians are actually a small fraction of lesbians and wlw, and lesbians do tend, overall, to have positive attitudes towards bisexuals.)

That process of expelling bi women from lesbian groups with immense prejudice continues to this day and leaves scars on a lot of bi/pan people. A lot of bisexuals, myself included, have an experience of “double discrimination”; we are made to feel unwelcome or invisible both in straight society, and in LGBT spaces. And part of this is because attempts to build a bisexual/pansexual community identity have met with strong resistance from gays and lesbians, so we have far fewer books, resources, histories, icons, organizations, events, and resources than gays and lesbians do, despite numerically outnumbering them..

So every time I hear that phrase, it’s another painful reminder for me of all the experiences I’ve had being rejected by the lesbian community. But bisexual experiences don’t get talked about or signalboosted much,so a lot of young/new lesbians literally haven’t learned this aspect of LGBT+ history.

And once I’ve explained it, I’ve had a heartening number of lesbians go, “That’s not what I wanted to happen, so I’m going to stop saying that.”

[simonalkenmayer]

This is good information for people who carry on with the “queer is a slur” rhetoric and don’t comprehend the push back.

[theroguefeminist]

ive been saying for years that around 10 years ago on tumblr, it was only radfems who were pushing the queer as slur rhetoric, and everyone who was trans or bi or allies to them would push back - radfems openly admitted that the reason they disliked the term “queer” was because it lumped them in with trans people and bi women. over the years, the queer is a slur rhetoric spread in large part due to that influence, but radfems were more covert about their reasons - and now it’s a much more prevalent belief on tumblr - more so than on any queer space i’ve been in online or offline - memory online is very short-term unfortunately bc now i see a lot of ppl, some of them bi or trans themselves, who make this argument and vehemently deny this history but…yep

[ryttu3k]

Or asexuality, which has been a concept in discussions on sexuality since 1869. Initially grouped slightly to the left, as in the categories were ‘heterosexual’, ‘homosexual’, and ‘monosexual’ (which is used differently now, but then described what we would call asexuality). Later was quite happily folded in as a category of queerness by Magnus Hirschfeld and Emma Trosse in the 1890s, as an orientation that was not heterosexuality and thus part of the community.

Another good source here, also talking about aromanticism as well. Aspec people have been included in queer studies as long as queer studies have existed.

Also, just in my own experiences, the backlash against ‘queer’ is still really recent. When I was first working out my orientation at thirteen in 2000, there was absolutely zero issue with the term. I hung out on queer sites, looked for queer media, and was intrigued by queer studies. There were literally sections of bookstores in Glebe and Newtown labelled ‘Queer’. It was just… there, and so were we!

So it blows my mind when there are these fifteen-year-olds earnestly telling me - someone who’s called themself queer longer than they’ve been alive - that “que*r is a slur.” Unfortunately, I have got reactive/defensive for the same reasons OP has mentioned. I will absolutely work on biting down my initial defensiveness and trying to explain - in good faith - the history of the word, and how it’s been misappropriated and tarnished by exclusionists.

[brightlotusmoon]

[a-lavender-sprout]

Watching Chappell Roan on call her daddy. Did she just allude to having a full bush? What an icon.

[scobbe]

It’s taken me a long time to get it but the reason why Christianity works for me after decades of exploring other spiritualities is that Christianity, in its best places, says “Trust this Creation and the Creator behind it as the single priority in your life.” It can take a while to dig past all the Platonic popular reinterpretations but at the bottom of it you don’t have to transcend, you don’t have to separate yourself from this world and take on a “spiritual life” - you don’t have to escape the body or the earth or the trees because you are part of this Creation and all of Creation is being made new again. So you eat your hamburger and hug your friend and laugh while fishing and trust in this visitation by this God who became humanly embodied and did all those same things and promised everything is taken care of and that’s it, that’s literally it. This is the day the Lord has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it.

I’m so grateful I’ve found that.

[periwinkledragons-deactivated20]

You like your fanfic version of Jesus, not the real Jesus.

Actually I love Jesus Christ of Nazareth who was born of a virgin and loved the world so much he died for it's sins so that those who believe may not perish but have eternal life.

The son of man who summed up the law as "loving God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and loving your neighbor as yourself." Who preached that the meek and merciful are blessed. And who said;

"Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."

[sacredheart-stigmata]

I saw your post and I'm really interested in your perspective on salvation! As a Christian, I believe that "No one comes to the Father but through Me" means that we must consciously accept Jesus' redemption in order to see heaven. However, you mentioned your belief in opportunities for redemption *after* death; could you elaborate on that? Are there Biblical passages you feel point to this idea? I hadn't encountered it before, and I'm really curious!

Hello! This took far too long to write, so pls lmk what you think if you manage to make it to the end!

So, my view of the afterlife, heaven, and hell is a mish-mash of episcopal doctrine, catholic ideas of purgatory, and my budding interest in Christian universalism (or at least to my understanding of it). it's a fondu pot of stuff that mostly makes sense only to me, but something that sums it up pretty well (surprisingly, given his previous preaching) was the first two chapters of rob bell's book, love wins: a book about heaven, hell, and the fate of every person who ever lived. ill share my personal opinions, and quote some of his arguments.

First, while i wouldn't say i follow the episcopal doctrine to a T, i do believe a lot of it.

the episcopal catechism defines heaven/hell by saying: "By heaven, we mean eternal life in our enjoyment of God; by hell, we mean eternal death in our rejection of God." Episcopals believe that those who gain eternal salvation will receive some form of glorification that will never again know sorrow, pain or death, but don't believe in a 'physical place' for heaven or for hell, as we have no way of knowing about them outside the scriptures. i have my own opinions on what 'eternal death' means but the barest bones of my beliefs do follow this, though i find i care far more about making earth better here than worrying about heaven or hell. i think that is what christ came to do-- make the world better. yes, salvation was part of the plan, but why both with healings and preaching if that wasn't the most important part? As Rob Bell says:

"In Matthew 19 a rich man asks Jesus: “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” It’s “all about eternity,” right? Because that’s what the bumper sticker says. [...] People to walk up to strangers in public places and ask them, “When you die and God asks you why you should be let into heaven, what will you say?” [...] “If you were to die tonight, where would you go?” The rich man’s question, then, is the perfect opportunity for Jesus to give a clear, straightforward answer to the only question that ultimately matters for many. First, we can only assume, he’ll correct the man’s flawed understanding of how salvation works. He’ll show the man how eternal life isn't something he has to earn or work for; it's a free gift of grace. Then, he'll invite the man to confess, repent, trust, accept, and believe that Jesus has made a way for him to have a relationship with God. Like any good Christian would. Jesus, however, doesn't do any of that. [...] Jesus then tells him, “Go, sell your possessions, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven,” which causes the man to walk away sad, “because he had great wealth.” Did we miss something? The big words, the important words—“eternal life,” “treasure,” “heaven”—were all there in the conversation, but they weren’t used in the ways that many Christians use them. Shouldn’t Jesus have given a clear answer to the man’s obvious desire to know how to go to heaven when he dies? The answer, it turns out, is in the question. When the man asks about getting “eternal life,” he isn’t asking about how to go to heaven when he dies. This wasn’t a concern for the man or Jesus. This is why Jesus doesn’t tell people how to “go to heaven.” It wasn’t what Jesus came to do."

I believe in the end days, in heaven, but i also believe in making a heaven on earth first, and that making that heaven on earth is more important. It's in the lord's prayer, for goodness’s sake! christ lived like us, died like us, and was one of us. On earth as it is in heaven. As Rob says:

"Heaven" [...] is simply another way of saying "God" [...] What Jesus taught, what the prophets taught, [...] what Jesus lived in anticipation of, was the day when earth and heaven would be one. The day when God's will would be done on earth as it is now done in heaven. The day when earth and heaven will be the same place. This is the story of the Bible. This is the story Jesus lived and told. As it's written at the end of the bible in Revelations 21: "God's dwelling place is now among the people." Life in the age to come."

I belive we are called to make earth heaven and worry about that first. i believe heaven is god. that's all i worry about on that end!

As for hell:

while there is no episcopal purgatory, there is the firm belief that those who serve God in life will continue to grow in God's love even after reaching heaven. After death, we still have the ability to change, grow, and develop. if that's true for people in heaven, why not hell? each person has infinite time after death, and infinite time to grow, to repent, to understand and ask for reconciliation for their sins.

I prefer the name 'the pit' to hell. i like the image of hell being a pit: empty and dark, cold and alone, but the light is visible from above and you can climb out. When someone’s actions are so hurtful and so without remorse that they completely rejects god's grace and mercy, they are left alone and without the beauty of god's presence that is heaven. I honestly believe in hell, but I believe it is a choice. upon death, regardless of theology, jesus is waiting and ready, ready to embrace us and wash away our impurities and sinfulness-- those who have lived a life of cruelty and do not repent by the time they are at heaven's gate, are cast into the pit to wallow in their own actions. not bc they were gay or not christian or masturbated, or something equally stupid, but because of how they treated god and his creation. i think god will cast someone into the pit, but he also is more than ready at any moment to lift someone out and embrace them the moment they show true, genuine remorse and a true, genuine desire to repent and better themselves. they have an option to be saved, forever. death has no hold on them. death is not stronger than god's love.

i see the pit as the bottom of a ladder, this sort of purgatory that you climb out of. i dont think everyone goes to the pit or has to climb the ladder-- it is decided by how you treated god's creation, and if you are repentant. it's like a cosmic time out. the ladder out of the pit is a time of purification, but it is a time of purification for those who have chosen to be better after acknowledging they need it.

and you have eternity to figure this out. no time limit, no ticking clock. you take the time you need. the pit is self reflection away from god. it is justice for those you've hurt, not punishment by god. basically, heaven is open to all. purgatory, the ladder, is the transition from the pit to heaven, you just need to choose it. the pit isn't hellfire, just the absence of god.

Rob bell mentions how Ezekiel prophesizes that Sodom and Gomorrah (yes, that one) will rise again to their original glory. even in death, they have the option to return and be better, welcomed into god's holy light.

The prophet Ezekiel has a series of visions in which God shows him what's coming, including the promise that God will "restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters" and they will "return to what they were before" (chap. 16) Restore the fortunes of Sodom? The story isn't over for Sodom and Gomorrah? What appeared to be a final, forever, smoldering, smoking verdict regarding their destiny... wasn't? What appeared to be over, isn't. Ezekiel says that where there was destruction, there will be restoration. [...] there's still hope? And if there's still hope for Sodom and Gomorrah, what does that say about all of the other Sodoms and Gomorrahs? According to the prophets, God crushes, refines, tests, corrects, chastens, and rebukes-- but always with a purpose [...] there's always the assurance that it won't be this way forever.

as for scripture, i pull from the psalms, the prophets, and revelations (especially revelations) the most when i think about heaven and hell. i do not have my bible annotations with me rn, but i will try to add some when i have the time!

i hope this helped, and god bless!

[sacredheart-stigmata]

i cannot imagine how deeply stressful and miserable one must be to truly believe their loving God will punish them for all eternity-- longer than a human mind could even begin to grasp!-- because they didn't live their 73.5 years alive meeting each of His expectations and repenting perfectly when they fell short. Words cannot define or describe how small a human life is compared to eternity. you really, truly think God will decide your eternal fate on that miniscule number of years, and nothing else? That you die and immediately *poof* God has made His decision? Do you realize cruel, how unjust, how petty you make God sound? that isn't mercy, or love, and frankly it's a cosmic joke to call it either of those.

[plantboxes]

frawgs

[a-lavender-sprout]

Happy Disability pride month to US-American's who are going to struggle because of the stupid bill that passed. You're not forgotten.

(Also happy disability pride to all disabled people everywhere, because the world so often sucks)

[gothichorrorshow]

Happy disability pride month to visibly disabled people

Happy disability pride month to invisibly disabled people

Happy disability pride month to physically disabled people

Happy disability pride month to mentally disabled people

Happy disability pride month to those who’d rather be without their disability

Happy disability pride month to those who love being disabled

Happy disability pride month to those who can’t get accommodations

Happy disability pride month to those who aren’t believed when they say they’re disabled

Happy disability pride month to those who’s disability is undiagnosed/self diagnosed

Happy disability pride month to you! ♡