Three Goblin Art
#extradirty
we're not kids anymore.
Game of Thrones Daily
KIROKAZE
YOU ARE THE REASON
RMH
Peter Solarz
❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
Stranger Things
oozey mess
No title available
One Nice Bug Per Day
roma★
ojovivo
祝日 / Permanent Vacation
No title available
tumblr dot com
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
⁂
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from Argentina
seen from France
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Spain
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Chile
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Uzbekistan
seen from Uzbekistan
seen from Chile
@lightisreal
literally every jedi: we are encouraged to love, just not to be possessive of people. we are encouraged to be in touch with our emotions, just not to let them control us
manipulative villain who hates the jedi: the jedi are cold and unfeeling and don’t want anyone to love or have feelings ever
the fandom: hmm… who to believe about jedi teachings?
okay. look.
Another reason I'm leaving tumblr is because I've found it hard to engage gracefully with posts from other Christians that have seemed theologically lacking. And the biggest offender, by far, is the topic of gender identity and body dysmorphia/gender dysphoria. I finally actually know what I've been wanting to say this whole time. So I'm going to speak my peace now.
This post is directed towards fellow Christians. If you're not a Christian and you dislike what I have to say about the topic, I'm not terribly surprised about that.
If you are a Christian, and you're experiencing a severe disconnect between who you feel you are and what your body indicates to you, I need you to know firstly that I have a dim understanding of this. I have more experience with this on the Eating Disorder side of things than the Gender Identity side, though I've experienced a smattering of that too throughout my life. I suspect the two are not as different as we tend to think.
The very obvious thing is that none of us are inhabiting a body God intended us to live in forever. That's why the body feels wrong to us. Yet, I've never seen anyone use this fact to acknowledge eating disorders or gender dysphoria, in all my years online. If you feel like your body isn't right...congratulations! You are probably more in tune with the absolute truth than people who never feel any discomfort in their physical bodies.
Romans 8:21 categorizes all created things as temporary, and in bondage to corruption. 8:20-21, ESV: "For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God." Your body is part of that category; it is "subjected to futility." You will not spend the rest of your conscious lifetime in this body. Take comfort in that! You're not stuck the way you are!
You are a new creation, but parts of you are still in progress. Most notably, the physical part. Philippians 1:6 makes it plain that we are not complete yet; "And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ."
If your body feels wrong for you...all I can tell you is that someday it won't. Christian, you are possibly being lied to about what kind of body will make you feel whole; 2 Corinthians 5:2 points our focus back towards the new body we should really be looking forward to: "We grow weary in our present bodies, and we long to put on our heavenly bodies like new clothing."
Someday it will feel perfect, better than anything you could achieve on earth through any of your own efforts, because Jesus Christ has already made you a new one. You will assume it when our brief sojourn on this planet is over. You don't have to work for that. It's just like salvation, because it's part of salvation: you don't do it yourself. Jesus Christ has already got you covered.
Listen. I know this sounds hand-wavy. Listen, I know it must seem easy for me to speak about this. But I mean it with my whole heart; you can be at peace without changing your body physically. That peace was won for you by Jesus Christ. It comes with every other kind of peace the Holy Spirit has to offer you, in your surrender and cooperation with Him. I'm not saying you'll never feel dysphoria again, but I'm saying, here is the antidote: it is (unsurprisingly) the grace of God.
All of us will bear some form of suffering until our current life on earth is over, because of the fall. But this place is not permanent. Psalms 39:5 reminds us that these bodies are temporary; "Behold, you have made my days a few handbreadths, and my lifetime is as nothing before you. Surely all mankind stands as a mere breath!" Keeping this in mind makes it so much easier to live as a sacrifice to God. Our bodies are not our own. We know this. We were bought with a price.
I will end this post with one final point. It has never been a sin, and never will be a sin, merely to feel that your body is wrong for you. However, I'm not saying you should try to change it yourself! I don't think that's in line with God's plan for us. I think the new body God will give you is better than any new kind of body you can create through physical means on earth. I don't believe the ethics of HRT/transitioning/ozempic for weightloss/purely cosmetic plastic surgery etc are in line with Christian theology at all. (I'm not limiting this line of reasoning to the trans community. It applies to anyone who's preoccupied with making this current, super temporary, not-even-your-own body "perfect" before it's time.)
But I'm done now, you've suffered me enough. I don't want to burn bridges with brothers and sisters who will feel differently from me on this. But I don't want to see nuance get left by the wayside, and I don't want to see us looking anywhere except eternity for the sureness of our hopes.
"you're not man enough, not feminine enough"
so gender is something we can fail?
that means gender is not genetic and absolute and unchangeable
but something we can build and perform, and fail at (the standards they set) but also redefine?
if i can fail at being a woman, does that mean i'm not a woman? so does that make me another gender?
No!!!
You are not a failed man. You are not a failed woman. You cannot fail at being a man or a woman.
I wrote before that this idea is what is driving people to this ideology and the 65K notes on this post is telling me that I was right. It's very sad that people believe this.
rambles on the memorial day that to day is for many
Every year I'm reminded that I have really weird 9/11 feelings. Like unique I guess for an American.
Is it terrible that 3000 seems so small next to the numbers in Ukraine and Syria? Tragedy is tragedy, I get it, but I can't help but feel confused that people are still saying 3000 in the most devastated manner 20+ years later. Like yeah, that's a lot and it sucked. So why does a part of me rebel? Why do I feel the need to point to wars elsewhere? It's like I somehow can't separate 9/11 from the global condition. Maybe it's bc my dad was a soldier and 9/11 was instrumental to waking me up to the rest of the world and to the uncanny sense of security that we have in this country. Maybe it's because in the past, people who claimed to love America and cried on this day also pushed out people seekign refuge from worse things. Maybe because the very people who claimed to support those refugees are also the very reason women in Afghanistan can no longer get an education and the work of the last 20 years was reversed by a single politician with a campaign promise. And Americans cry because America devastatingly wasn't safe one time. Maybe it's because 9.11 defined who I am in a way very different than anyone else. For some reason.
Been doing a lot of thinking about pseudo-Christian religions today... ultimately these moments and their legitimacy as denominations tends to center around whether or not they believe that Jesus is God and has come in the flesh.
1 John 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God; and such is the spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already it is in the world.
If your movement does not believe that Jesus is God in the flesh... you are part of a pseudo-christian religion
Why does "Come in the flesh" = "God in the flesh"?????
Also why would John's words trump those Jesus himself?
Would ask this on anon bc I respect you so much but this is such an interesting argument, and I've marked all the gospels with references to Jesus himself saying he is God's Son specifically...and it's a lot more than this version of the trinity is ever referenced.
Yes, this verse refers to the humanity of Jesus, that's what is meant by "in the flesh".
There were heresies in John's time saying that Jesus was a spirit or apparition of some kind. This gnostic heresy obviously is counter to the theological necessity that Jesus was both fully God and fully man.
It's the words "has come" that point to the background against which John writes this, because John is constantly writing about Jesus's divinity. Jesus being God is assumed in the verse. What else could it mean to call him Lord?
So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “Lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
1 Corinthians 8:4-6 NIV
Why would he say "has come in the flesh" unless he was previously in something other than the flesh? Jesus existed prior to his embodiment and this is very clear from John's other book, the gospel of John, where he says that Jesus was coeternal with God and was involved in the creation of the universe.
So when I say "God in the flesh", I'm pulling the word "God" from the context in which the verse is set.
Jesus is God's Son and He is God. As a matter of fact, the Jews understood this well enough that the Pharisees said about his claim to be the Son of God, that he was "making himself equal with God", and they tried to stone him for blasphemy.
Now I know that sometimes in the New Testament the term "God" is used to refer specifically to the Father, which I understand could introduce confusion perhaps with modern eyes, but with a proper understanding of the Trinity it makes perfect sense and that is the only way that it makes sense.
Exactly, it refers to those heresies, which to me sound more like some argument people have made about the intangibility of the trinity.
But I don't see anything unequal about The Father and Son being separate and both divine in a unique way. "Equal with God" as a right of Christ being God's son. Even in the scripture you quoted, John differentiates between when he is talking about "Lord" and "God", making them separate. Why would he use different words? (which is an interesting thing in itself because from what I understand of the Old Testament, in Hebrew different words were used as well and also raises questions on what the word "God" even means, name, power, state, or title etc.)
John could be saying that they both built the universe together in unity, and "Come in the flesh" still applies, but I forget that may be another theological difference because some people don't believe spirits existed before birth...so I could see people's confusion there.
But again, Jesus on Earth is consistently referring to the Father as a separate individual very very clearly as it seems to me.
Anyway, I just believe it is not the only way it makes sense. There are other ways to interpret this without denying the divinity and eternal nature of both Father and Son.
So you're saying there are (at least) two gods? Because... the Bible says there's only one God. If Jesus and the Father are both divine but don't share the same divine nature, being part of the same Godhead, then there are 2 gods.
Plus, Jesus cannot be a created being, of any type spirit or other, because "without Him nothing was made that was made", therefore if He were a creation he would be a thing that was made and therefore would have to have pre-existed himself to create himself. Which makes no sense.
Back to the meaning of "God" there is one God as in "God the father" or one "Godhead" of the unity of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost. (again...is it an individual, name, a title, etc) Why would we need a trinity at all if they were all literally one rather one in power and purpose? (There are loads of this metaphorical one being used throughout the scriptures). And so, what definition of God are you using?
I wasn't saying he was created, but that he existed and could be "made flesh."
And I'm going to keep mentioning Jesus's own words...I made a whole document of them, which I looked and includes 1 John 4, but verses 9-15. The words throughout the New Testament are that God "sent" his "son."
Also there is so often an "and" which wouldn't be necessary if they were truly literally one. (1 Tim 2:5, John 17:3, Acts 7:55). There are far fewer scriptures that for certain combine them, besides those in the Old Testament (which however is before Christ's coming and also a book that, while to Christians blatantly testifies of Christ but to a certain other religion expressly is against any form of trinity, which is an interesting perspective to keep in interpretation.)
But those are just my thoughts. You can ignore. I know in whom my faith lies and by whom I am saved.
"Godhead" as in the unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.
What I sense in your replies is that you may fear falling into modalism, which is the heretical (when laid out) idea that God is one person who presents himself to us in different titles/modes. However, Trinitarian thought expressly disavows modalism.
The Son = God The Father = God The Holy Spirit = God
The Son =/= The Father The Father =/= The Holy Spirit The Holy Spirit =/= The Son
This is at least better than I was worried some people think, but I still don't understand why they have to be both if they aren't each other. This seems to contradict what you were saying earlier. So I guess to clarify, I think most "pseudo-Christian" religions you referred to refer to God the Father as just "God" most of the time and so what they mean to say is "Jesus is not the Father."
Thus, I also think still the big question is what do you mean by "God." The definition of God would help me understand the oneness perhaps? If God is a title is could still be one and follow the scriptures exactly.
I disagree that this same-but-not is the most logical solution to the words of the scripture, let alone the only logical solution.
A much more logical solution to me is a different trinitarian oneness as described in the intercessory prayer
"21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." (John 17)
If Christ prays that they be one EVEN as he and the Father are one, but it's clear that the apostles are not God....well...
What did Christ mean then? Why is this instance different that the other times Christ said he and the Father were one?
Been doing a lot of thinking about pseudo-Christian religions today... ultimately these moments and their legitimacy as denominations tends to center around whether or not they believe that Jesus is God and has come in the flesh.
1 John 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God; and such is the spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already it is in the world.
If your movement does not believe that Jesus is God in the flesh... you are part of a pseudo-christian religion
Why does "Come in the flesh" = "God in the flesh"?????
Also why would John's words trump those Jesus himself?
Would ask this on anon bc I respect you so much but this is such an interesting argument, and I've marked all the gospels with references to Jesus himself saying he is God's Son specifically...and it's a lot more than this version of the trinity is ever referenced.
Yes, this verse refers to the humanity of Jesus, that's what is meant by "in the flesh".
There were heresies in John's time saying that Jesus was a spirit or apparition of some kind. This gnostic heresy obviously is counter to the theological necessity that Jesus was both fully God and fully man.
It's the words "has come" that point to the background against which John writes this, because John is constantly writing about Jesus's divinity. Jesus being God is assumed in the verse. What else could it mean to call him Lord?
So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “Lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
1 Corinthians 8:4-6 NIV
Why would he say "has come in the flesh" unless he was previously in something other than the flesh? Jesus existed prior to his embodiment and this is very clear from John's other book, the gospel of John, where he says that Jesus was coeternal with God and was involved in the creation of the universe.
So when I say "God in the flesh", I'm pulling the word "God" from the context in which the verse is set.
Jesus is God's Son and He is God. As a matter of fact, the Jews understood this well enough that the Pharisees said about his claim to be the Son of God, that he was "making himself equal with God", and they tried to stone him for blasphemy.
Now I know that sometimes in the New Testament the term "God" is used to refer specifically to the Father, which I understand could introduce confusion perhaps with modern eyes, but with a proper understanding of the Trinity it makes perfect sense and that is the only way that it makes sense.
Exactly, it refers to those heresies, which to me sound more like some argument people have made about the intangibility of the trinity.
But I don't see anything unequal about The Father and Son being separate and both divine in a unique way. "Equal with God" as a right of Christ being God's son. Even in the scripture you quoted, John differentiates between when he is talking about "Lord" and "God", making them separate. Why would he use different words? (which is an interesting thing in itself because from what I understand of the Old Testament, in Hebrew different words were used as well and also raises questions on what the word "God" even means, name, power, state, or title etc.)
John could be saying that they both built the universe together in unity, and "Come in the flesh" still applies, but I forget that may be another theological difference because some people don't believe spirits existed before birth...so I could see people's confusion there.
But again, Jesus on Earth is consistently referring to the Father as a separate individual very very clearly as it seems to me.
Anyway, I just believe it is not the only way it makes sense. There are other ways to interpret this without denying the divinity and eternal nature of both Father and Son.
So you're saying there are (at least) two gods? Because... the Bible says there's only one God. If Jesus and the Father are both divine but don't share the same divine nature, being part of the same Godhead, then there are 2 gods.
Plus, Jesus cannot be a created being, of any type spirit or other, because "without Him nothing was made that was made", therefore if He were a creation he would be a thing that was made and therefore would have to have pre-existed himself to create himself. Which makes no sense.
Back to the meaning of "God" there is one God as in "God the father" or one "Godhead" of the unity of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost. (again...is it an individual, name, a title, etc) Why would we need a trinity at all if they were all literally one rather one in power and purpose? (There are loads of this metaphorical one being used throughout the scriptures). And so, what definition of God are you using?
I wasn't saying he was created, but that he existed and could be "made flesh."
And I'm going to keep mentioning Jesus's own words...I made a whole document of them, which I looked and includes 1 John 4, but verses 9-15. The words throughout the New Testament are that God "sent" his "son."
Also there is so often an "and" which wouldn't be necessary if they were truly literally one. (1 Tim 2:5, John 17:3, Acts 7:55). There are far fewer scriptures that for certain combine them, besides those in the Old Testament (which however is before Christ's coming and also a book that, while to Christians blatantly testifies of Christ but to a certain other religion expressly is against any form of trinity, which is an interesting perspective to keep in interpretation.)
But those are just my thoughts. You can ignore. I know in whom my faith lies and by whom I am saved.
Been doing a lot of thinking about pseudo-Christian religions today... ultimately these moments and their legitimacy as denominations tends to center around whether or not they believe that Jesus is God and has come in the flesh.
1 John 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God; and such is the spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already it is in the world.
If your movement does not believe that Jesus is God in the flesh... you are part of a pseudo-christian religion
Why does "Come in the flesh" = "God in the flesh"?????
Also why would John's words trump those Jesus himself?
Would ask this on anon bc I respect you so much but this is such an interesting argument, and I've marked all the gospels with references to Jesus himself saying he is God's Son specifically...and it's a lot more than this version of the trinity is ever referenced.
Yes, this verse refers to the humanity of Jesus, that's what is meant by "in the flesh".
There were heresies in John's time saying that Jesus was a spirit or apparition of some kind. This gnostic heresy obviously is counter to the theological necessity that Jesus was both fully God and fully man.
It's the words "has come" that point to the background against which John writes this, because John is constantly writing about Jesus's divinity. Jesus being God is assumed in the verse. What else could it mean to call him Lord?
So then, about eating food sacrificed to idols: We know that “An idol is nothing at all in the world” and that “There is no God but one.” For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many “gods” and many “Lords”), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
1 Corinthians 8:4-6 NIV
Why would he say "has come in the flesh" unless he was previously in something other than the flesh? Jesus existed prior to his embodiment and this is very clear from John's other book, the gospel of John, where he says that Jesus was coeternal with God and was involved in the creation of the universe.
So when I say "God in the flesh", I'm pulling the word "God" from the context in which the verse is set.
Jesus is God's Son and He is God. As a matter of fact, the Jews understood this well enough that the Pharisees said about his claim to be the Son of God, that he was "making himself equal with God", and they tried to stone him for blasphemy.
Now I know that sometimes in the New Testament the term "God" is used to refer specifically to the Father, which I understand could introduce confusion perhaps with modern eyes, but with a proper understanding of the Trinity it makes perfect sense and that is the only way that it makes sense.
Exactly, it refers to those heresies, which to me sound more like some argument people have made about the intangibility of the trinity.
But I don't see anything unequal about The Father and Son being separate and both divine in a unique way. "Equal with God" as a right of Christ being God's son. Even in the scripture you quoted, John differentiates between when he is talking about "Lord" and "God", making them separate. Why would he use different words? (which is an interesting thing in itself because from what I understand of the Old Testament, in Hebrew different words were used as well and also raises questions on what the word "God" even means, name, power, state, or title etc.)
John could be saying that they both built the universe together in unity, and "Come in the flesh" still applies, but I forget that may be another theological difference because some people don't believe spirits existed before birth...so I could see people's confusion there.
But again, Jesus on Earth is consistently referring to the Father as a separate individual very very clearly as it seems to me.
Anyway, I just believe it is not the only way it makes sense. There are other ways to interpret this without denying the divinity and eternal nature of both Father and Son.
Being a Christian in fandom spaces is just continuously rolling your eyes after seeing a community that has consistently hated on you being praised for how 'accepting and welcoming' they are.
How dare you leave this in the tags
It's DIRECTLY proportional. The more they kick out Christians, the more 'welcoming' the fandom is and you know why.
Been doing a lot of thinking about pseudo-Christian religions today... ultimately these moments and their legitimacy as denominations tends to center around whether or not they believe that Jesus is God and has come in the flesh.
1 John 4:3
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God; and such is the spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come, and even now already it is in the world.
If your movement does not believe that Jesus is God in the flesh... you are part of a pseudo-christian religion
Why does "Come in the flesh" = "God in the flesh"?????
Also why would John's words trump those Jesus himself?
Would ask this on anon bc I respect you so much but this is such an interesting argument, and I've marked all the gospels with references to Jesus himself saying he is God's Son specifically...and it's a lot more than this version of the trinity is ever referenced.
Not enough of an irrational zealot to become an anarchist
Not willing to give up my Christianity and morals to spend my entire life bleeding myself dry hoping to fit in with the Left
Not willing to put away my individual critical thinking skills and embrace nationalist/authoritarian doctrines to become a pure reactionary Rightist
Individual policy positions too strong to be a centrist
Problematic to everyone
The phrase "Believe in" has 2 roughly meanings:
1. To affirm or deny the existence of something, eg. "I believe in aliens"
2. To affirm or deny the morality of something, eg. "I dont believe in letting people go hungry"
In conclusion I am really tired of internet smart alecks acting like I deny the existence of neopronouns
We need more sane parents.
Right-wing ppl of tumblr, what is your response when someone asks for your pronouns?
"ew"
"i would literally rather die than answer this question"
"You have effectively lowered the whole iq of the room"
Laugh
A secret 5th thing
"Would you still be Prolife if-"
Yes. The answer is yes.
When people demean a whole categoryof people because their ancestors did some horrible thing to another category of people, I never know how to respond. A part a of me does commiserate, because no one deserves to face horrible injustices. However another part of me wants to remind the speaker of the atrocities committed by the victims people's ancestors. Human nature has been rather consistant about this pattern for mellenia - one group of people abusing another after another, hate and revenge.
The thing is, I don't care what you plan to do about the atrocities of the past. We can't change the past. I care what you are doing right now to stop the cycle.
This plan for getting out of a President Trump or President Hillary Clinton in 2016 only really needs seven states to actually execute.
