Juuh, elikkäs. @emojeesus - Tumblr Blog

Olen sanani mittainen.

From Geraldine DeRuiter of The Everywherist

ngl I find both religious agnosticism and also (apropos of recent discourse on here) the same thing for ghosts intensely confusing. Because like.

Surely 'is there an afterlife and what is it like/what determines someone's place in it' is literally the single most important question there is? You must have some working theory here, just to decide how to live your life?

st-just

Like if any particular religion's hell/hells were real then anything to avoid lifetimes/millennia/an eternity of horrible torture would be my overriding constant life-consuming preoccupation, and whatever energy I had left should rightfully be dedicated to helping other people do the same.

Thankfully they're all fake bullshit! So bullet dodged there. But 'ehh whose to say?' just seems a very strange stance to have on this.

emojeesus

The way I see it: who's to sau, BECAUSE. If me living my life according to my moral compass lands me in a bad place, at least I will be in good company, no? If God (or whoever) doesn't want me, I do not want him. If He thinks He can boss me around on my (for all intents and purooses) one run on earth, GUESS AGAIN!

I guess you could say my brand of agnosticism is very much the result modern western individualism. God might be my maker but I owe Him nothing, I did not ask to be made.

So it all comes down to my inability to respect authority just for the sake of it. If I doom my eternal soul to not be in His grace, then His grace is not what I want.

Also helps that I got a really secular-christian upbringing in a sect that thinks of the eternal damnation just meaning eternally being apart from God as opposed to literal torment of fiery Hell. Apart from a God who doesn't love and understand me for who I am is good in my books.

facelessoldgargoyle

I’m pretty confused by this response. Agnosticism refers to whether you claim that god is real or not, not whether you respect god. Your stance sounds like you believe god is real but you don’t respect him. Even though you capitalize He and Him.

emojeesus

Tbh the capitalization is maunly a habit I got into when I learned to write and never got out of. I don't know if it makes sense, but it is more a question of grammar than respect to me.

The faithful will question whether I believe on the basis that it doesn't affect my life in practice. I don't really pray and I don't attend church very often at all. I take the Lords name in vain multiple times a day. If God is so great, why would He care? I cite the Bible where I feel it gives good wisdom and am perfectly happy disregarding what goes against my morals (which is, like, most of it tbf) for it is a fallible book written by fallible men in a vastly different time and culture than mine. I do not presume they, out of all times and cultures ever, had the answers to evetything.

So, what it comes down to whar God is to me, He is hope, he is an idea I use to keep hoping that good prevails in this world. There are many other ideas one can hold in that place. The next world is secondary. So... some days I believe, some days I don't. When I do, I will readily admit my God has maybe a passing similarity to the various christian churches' recognised dogma and thus He propably doesn't exist in any form I care to respect.

Respect is conditional. I respect my ideal version of God, but whether that is what He is or if He even exists, I do not know.

So no, not a hard theist by any measure in my opinion.

emojeesus

So, TLDR: to me, agnosticism is when the question of afterlife is not, in fact funtamental or important. The most important things are here and now.

#religion #jesus fandom #bible fandom #agnosticism

st-just

ngl I find both religious agnosticism and also (apropos of recent discourse on here) the same thing for ghosts intensely confusing. Because like.

Surely 'is there an afterlife and what is it like/what determines someone's place in it' is literally the single most important question there is? You must have some working theory here, just to decide how to live your life?

st-just

Like if any particular religion's hell/hells were real then anything to avoid lifetimes/millennia/an eternity of horrible torture would be my overriding constant life-consuming preoccupation, and whatever energy I had left should rightfully be dedicated to helping other people do the same.

Thankfully they're all fake bullshit! So bullet dodged there. But 'ehh whose to say?' just seems a very strange stance to have on this.

emojeesus

The way I see it: who's to sau, BECAUSE. If me living my life according to my moral compass lands me in a bad place, at least I will be in good company, no? If God (or whoever) doesn't want me, I do not want him. If He thinks He can boss me around on my (for all intents and purooses) one run on earth, GUESS AGAIN!

I guess you could say my brand of agnosticism is very much the result modern western individualism. God might be my maker but I owe Him nothing, I did not ask to be made.

So it all comes down to my inability to respect authority just for the sake of it. If I doom my eternal soul to not be in His grace, then His grace is not what I want.

Also helps that I got a really secular-christian upbringing in a sect that thinks of the eternal damnation just meaning eternally being apart from God as opposed to literal torment of fiery Hell. Apart from a God who doesn't love and understand me for who I am is good in my books.

facelessoldgargoyle

I’m pretty confused by this response. Agnosticism refers to whether you claim that god is real or not, not whether you respect god. Your stance sounds like you believe god is real but you don’t respect him. Even though you capitalize He and Him.

emojeesus

Tbh the capitalization is maunly a habit I got into when I learned to write and never got out of. I don't know if it makes sense, but it is more a question of grammar than respect to me.

The faithful will question whether I believe on the basis that it doesn't affect my life in practice. I don't really pray and I don't attend church very often at all. I take the Lords name in vain multiple times a day. If God is so great, why would He care? I cite the Bible where I feel it gives good wisdom and am perfectly happy disregarding what goes against my morals (which is, like, most of it tbf) for it is a fallible book written by fallible men in a vastly different time and culture than mine. I do not presume they, out of all times and cultures ever, had the answers to evetything.

So, what it comes down to whar God is to me, He is hope, he is an idea I use to keep hoping that good prevails in this world. There are many other ideas one can hold in that place. The next world is secondary. So... some days I believe, some days I don't. When I do, I will readily admit my God has maybe a passing similarity to the various christian churches' recognised dogma and thus He propably doesn't exist in any form I care to respect.

Respect is conditional. I respect my ideal version of God, but whether that is what He is or if He even exists, I do not know.

So no, not a hard theist by any measure in my opinion.

st-just

ngl I find both religious agnosticism and also (apropos of recent discourse on here) the same thing for ghosts intensely confusing. Because like.

Surely 'is there an afterlife and what is it like/what determines someone's place in it' is literally the single most important question there is? You must have some working theory here, just to decide how to live your life?

st-just

Like if any particular religion's hell/hells were real then anything to avoid lifetimes/millennia/an eternity of horrible torture would be my overriding constant life-consuming preoccupation, and whatever energy I had left should rightfully be dedicated to helping other people do the same.

Thankfully they're all fake bullshit! So bullet dodged there. But 'ehh whose to say?' just seems a very strange stance to have on this.

emojeesus

The way I see it: who's to sau, BECAUSE. If me living my life according to my moral compass lands me in a bad place, at least I will be in good company, no? If God (or whoever) doesn't want me, I do not want him. If He thinks He can boss me around on my (for all intents and purooses) one run on earth, GUESS AGAIN!

I guess you could say my brand of agnosticism is very much the result modern western individualism. God might be my maker but I owe Him nothing, I did not ask to be made.

So it all comes down to my inability to respect authority just for the sake of it. If I doom my eternal soul to not be in His grace, then His grace is not what I want.

Also helps that I got a really secular-christian upbringing in a sect that thinks of the eternal damnation just meaning eternally being apart from God as opposed to literal torment of fiery Hell. Apart from a God who doesn't love and understand me for who I am is good in my books.

tall

Has science gone too far

general-george-washington

It just occurred to me that people do not know about what some people make chicken coops out of and it’s a Shame

absolxguardian

Please, enlighten us

general-george-washington

So the thing with chickens are, they are adaptable and frankly, do not care.

you

can

use

just

about

anything

Here are some more that I like:

@kedreeva

@windvexer

@elodieunderglass ?

Endless creativity! Thank you!

combatwombat27

@joy-and-whimsy-official

joy-and-whimsy-official

Joy and whimsy detected! These chicken coops are joyful and whimsical!

justsomeguycore

horror movie showing a child’s drawing of the monster or ghost or whatever but instead of a little kid and crayons they’re like a preteen and it’s manga style

kujakumai

You, a fool, when characters state different or contradictory things about backstory events or how the world works: This is a plot hole!

Me, wise, enlightened: Not so, neophyte. Have you considered all the exhaustive possibilities in which one of these characters simply has no idea what they are talking about, or better yet, is a fucking liar?

andwewerebothgirls

confirmance

*Mutual reblogs something you posted*

Me: They still like me. Thank God.

kazoosandfannypacks

reblog this post to let the mutual you reblogged this from know that you still like them

eddieintheocean

Introductions to academic papers will be like "everyone knows that the sea is cold (citation), as well as salty (5 different citations). Things live in there (citation) and the environment is important to that (2 citations)"

disorganisedautodidact

these tags gave me thesis writing flashbacks

saltedweather

the thing about writing history. Is that you get used to this. And sometimes, some of us get too comfortable and so we're writing shit like

"Murder is bad. In the time period discussed, people sometimes committed murders (2 citations). And most people agreed that murder was bad, but it was widely known that murders still happened."

And your advisor goes, "Did most people agree, though? Was it widely known?"

And you go (sigh.). Okay. And do twelve hours of going back through your readings. And rewrite.

"Murder is bad (4 citations). In this time, people sometimes committed murders (6 citations). People did not all agree that it was bad (2 citations). There was disagreement about exactly how bad (3 citations)."

And you look at your draft. And you go. But. But we all — I mean, the archival sources from the time are in fact QUITE CLEAR about how widely known it was! Like–! I've read hundreds of letters and a third of them mention murder! I've talked to so many historians of this time and place and we ALL talk about the murder thing!

And you look at the twelve goddamned hours of searching you did. And you write several increadingly desperate emails to colleagues. And after another few days, you come to the agonizing realization that, in fact, there are no citations of published work establishing that people knew murders occurred despite them being bad and against the law. And then you spend another week looking up those archival sources. And you rewrite again.

"Murder is bad (6 citations). In this time, people sometimes committed murders (6 citations). People did not all agree that it was bad (2 citations). There was disagreement about exactly how bad (3 citations). While no conclusive study has been done, from communications in this time, we can say that at least a significant number of people knew that murders still occurred (18 citations)."

bucketofdeltav

I currently have exactly this problem.

"Everyone knows that [reaction A] works like this and [reaction B] works like that". Very common way to start a paper or thesis in this field. Everybody knows this, we can carry on with the more interesting stuff about [reaction C].

Huh. These 73 citations all cite each other in a ouroboros and the only original source in the lot is a popular science book which is indeed worth citing, but it's a memoir, which I have read repeatedly, and the author of the memoir just threw this out there as another example of "things everyone just knew in those days".

...I am now doing a PhD on "Hang on just one second, we have no concrete evidence for how [reaction A] or [reaction B] work and even whether they're different at all."

can-i-make-image-descriptions

[Image ID: Tumblr tag reading: #and you just know someone spent like 12 hours trying to find those goddamn citations /End ID]

doing-90mph-in-central-london

if he was still alive I know in my heart that Terry Pratchett would have done a bit about Igors and Igorinas doing gender confirmation surgery by now. going into a lab full of bubbling vials and picking out a penis from a tank the way you pick a lobster. that one, please. you gotta be careful though because they'll really try to upsell you into getting two or three installed. people going to the clinic as pairs and just having parts swapped out for a discounted rate. maybe you actually just trade brains, that's even easier. Igorth have already been doing that thurgery for thenturieth.

heallbeecat

#one day an igor forgets the lock the cage and a pack of penises escapes into ankh-morpork#the watch spends the next three weeks rounding them up

how DARE you leave this in the tags (affectionate)

pycnanthemum

Everyone knew it was best not to look too closely at Igor's jars.

Vimes was beginning to wish he had looked more closely at the most recent additions before Igor came lurching up the stairs to inform him:

"They have ethcaped, thir."

"Escaped. What has escaped, Igor."

"Thome of my.. appendageth, thir."

"Appendages."

"Yeth, thir. Of the... intimate variety."

"Of the intimate..." Vimes trailed off as the dawning horror overwhelmed his vocal cords.

He rallied. "Igor. HOW have they escaped? They are not known for their... perambulatory abilities."

"Really, thir? I've alwayth found them to have a mind of their own at timeth."

Vimes was staying calm. Yes. That was it. He was staying very calm. Definitely NOT thinking AT ALL about how Vetinari and... Good lord, The Times, would react to marauding pack of penises. Would it be a pack? Or would they go off on their own?

"I wath exthperimenting with cuthtom grown oneth, you know. For thothe who cannot grow their own."

"Err... what? Of course you were. I mean. Very good."

jewishpangolin

Pictured: An Igor harvesting appendages

carpe-mamilia

#[a loud crash is heard from the lab] #[another igor runs past with a giant butterfly net. stopping briefly at the door to shriek 'THE VULVATHS''] (via @the-wave-finally-broke)

the-tao-of-fandom

It turns out to be a brilliant feat of advertisement, as the people too shy or uncertain to go visit Igor rightaway effectively get a chance to discretely window-shop in public.

elodieunderglass

An unfortunate side effect being that a small girl, denied of her rightful need to be a Horse Girl by the limitations of being a native Ankh-Morpork child[1], would have adopted one of the larger Appendages of the pack and named it Free Willy. Her insistence that she could understand her pet through a bond of mutual sympathy was both touching and troubling, as was her announcement that Free Willy did not want to be attached to a governing body and forced into service, saddled with clothing, or made to perform tricks for audiences. With no Igor having the heart [2] to take it from her, the child was allowed to keep Free Willy, who lived for five healthy years in her family’s pigeon loft and eventually passed away from natural causes after a battle with another fighting cock. The child went on to write a well-acclaimed children’s book, The Willy that Would Be Free, which was, necessarily, a pop-up book.

[1] where an ordinary working class child CAN form a magical bond with a horse, in the form of a pie, labeled as beef.

[2] ha

prettysurethisworks

Look, it got longer.

elodieunderglass

So did Free Willy.

bostoneris

breelandwalker

Sir Terry Pratchett was not remotely in the vicinity of Fucking-Around, and had never even heard of that ridiculous thing some of his esteemed colleagues referred to as “Chill.” (1)

(1) In point of fact, he had heard of it, on numerous occasions, most often when a friend or well-meaning-but-politely-horrified acquaintance advised him to locate some, but he always studiously ignored this in favor of a much more productive righteous fury, which he kept hot enough to boil the kettle for his afternoon tea. If the world was not going to work as it should, then damn it all, he would create one in which people had some blasted sense for a change. And he did. Spite, as it turns out, makes for an excellent motivator.