almost home
YOU ARE THE REASON
todays bird

pixel skylines
i don't do bad sauce passes
Monterey Bay Aquarium
noise dept.

if i look back, i am lost

@theartofmadeline
Sweet Seals For You, Always
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
Jules of Nature
Acquired Stardust

Product Placement

No title available

blake kathryn
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Canada

seen from Türkiye

seen from Vietnam
seen from Canada

seen from Australia
seen from Saudi Arabia

seen from China

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Australia

seen from Germany
seen from Germany

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Australia
seen from Germany

seen from United States

seen from United States
@llevronbelac
i’ve warmed up significantly towards the concept of small talk ever since i learned that its sole purpose is to make friendly noises.
as long as you smile and nod, people are satisfied. it’s just to show that you are nice and there with good intentions. we’re small in a big world and have to rely on other people to be decent to us. so we do our little human dance to each other to say, “i’m not here to hurt you. here’s something we have in common, like the weather or sports or itchy sweaters, so we both know we’re on the same team. we both agree on a basic fact, like that it is rainy or that being itchy is uncomfortable, and this proves we can get along. i’m being light-hearted and non-threatening right now.”
small talk isn’t to get to know a person. it’s just a greeting to affirm you’re buddies in the universe.
i am motivated by wanting the other person to know i am friendly, so i have gotten pretty decent at small talk when i used to hate it.
Hot take, all adaptations of the story of the passion of Christ should have him recite all of Psalm 22, not just the first line (my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me), since the entire Psalm is what would have been understood to be communicated by his listeners, but it is NOT understood by modern/non-Jewish/non-ancient audiences without being told.
Iirc it was already a miracle for Jesus to be speaking at all at that point, so rather than being unlikely, him delivering an entire 31-verse Psalm would help emphasize that as well
Psalm 22 weaves astonishing prophecy into the crucifixion itself, which most people are just plain unaware of.
And it's just SO EMOTIONAL. I don't remember if any of the gospel accounts record Jesus weeping at any point during the crucifixion, but I don't see how he wouldn't have been. He wept in the garden after all, just in anticipation of it. But when I read Psalm 22, I picture the speaker weeping. If Jesus wasn't crying, it would make every other person there do so, at least.
Anyway it's a clearly relevant and important part of the crucifixion and the fact that we leave it so miserably truncated, when that's not what was intended, reduces the quality of any adaptation that leaves it out.
like, yes, there are features of the way he says it that would be lost: the Roman soldiers not understanding him, for example, and the social intricacies that cause people to use euphemisms or censor their words or say something kind-of-similar to what they mean as a way of obscuring their meaning or being polite, even though their actual meaning is still perfectly understood. I think that might be a little bit of a factor here: the declarations in Psalm 22 are a bit... intimate. Very heavy, absolutely vulnerable at heart. Saying just the first line to IMPLY everything else makes perfect sense.
But I think the relevance of the Psalm outweighs all of this. When they go read it in their Bibles they can put these little bits and pieces together, as opposed to NOT KNOWING that one of the pieces is in Psalms.
If I was a wasp, I'd sting you. If I was a venomous snake, I'd bite you. If I was a lion, I'd maul you. If I was a swamp, I'd poison you. If I was a mountain, I'd fall and crush you. If I was the ocean, I'd drown you. If I was a cat, I'd never let you touch me. If I was a dog, I'd run away. If I was a horse, I'd never let you break me. If I was a farm, I wouldn't grow for you. If I was a fire, I'd burn out without warming you. If I was a home, I would fall apart around you.
If I was harmless and small, and easy to hold, you would love me. If I was a worm you could put me in the soft earth and I would be helpless in your care. Of course you could love me, but could you love me if I stung you, bit you, pulled against you, hid and didn't understand you but wasn't harmless or helpless at all?
Could you love something for what it is, when that means you can't touch it or show kindness, maybe even never be near it, and it might never, ever love you back? Is it okay to exist and not belong to anyone, to not be useful to anyone, to be dangerous or poisonous or a failure but a part of the world all the same?
I know this is a metaphor, but if you take it kind of literally, there is an answer to this.
We build wildlife preserves. Often explicitly for the protection of animals and ecosystems that can and have killed humans.
Whenever a whale gets stranded on a beach, CROWDS show up ad risk getting bludgeoned to death trying to get it back into the water.
Every Zoo has a reptile house full of venomous snakes and a team of humans dedicated to giving them the best quality of life possible.
There are volunteer beekeepers who will travel for miles and miles and hours and hours to relocate an entire hive.
There are people who rehabilitate dangerous dogs and horses
There are people who restore structurally unsound houses
There are people who study the way that fire burns so it can rejoin the ecosystem and not be smothered on sight.
Every day, millions of people get up and devote themselves to things that can and will kill them by their nature. Things they can't touch or show kindness to. Things they can't go near. Things that are wholly incapable of loving them back.
And they do it because they love them.
Everything dangerous, everything poisonous, everything 'useless'- absolutely everything has someone, often many thousands of people, who loves them exactly as they are, without expectation that their affection will be returned.
It is alright for anything, even you, to not belong to anyone, to not be useful, to be frightening and dangerous and not adhere to any standard of success. It's all alright. You are loved. You are loved. You are loved.
“If you filled your hands with sand and threw them into the sea, would the water dry up? No, neither could our sins defeat God's immeasurable mercy."
St. Issac the Syrian
Ecce Homo ("Behold the Man") by Antonio Ciseri
patricia lockwood has officially completed 6 years of her full 1000 year sentence
patricia lockwood has officially completed 7 years of her full 1000 year sentence
“Bat swinging at wasp nest” post but I cannot be nice about astrology people. No you did not find the one good or cute or quirky way to believe the quality of someone’s character is biologically pre-determined. Just because you found a way to not base it on race or ethnicity or gender does not make judging someone’s character on an innate and uncontrolled attribute suddenly teehee fine.
I’m even more baffled by the people going “it’s just fun!” “It’s just a hobby!!” Sure if it was something harmless. It’s not. We are quite literally talking about how you intend to judge, treat, view, respect, and interact with someone entirely differently based on an inherent trait. How are you not aghast? How are you not embarrassed? Why are you so insistent on needing to operate on a hierarchy of pre-determined character judgement?
I've even heard of parents treating their children differently because of astrology, which is absolutely terrible
Now the Greeks declare that all our affairs are controlled by the rising and setting and collision of these stars, viz., the sun and moon: for it is with these matters that astrology has to do. But we hold that we get from them signs of rain and drought, cold and heat, moisture and dryness, and of the various winds, and so forth, but no sign whatever as to our actions. For we have been created with free wills by our Creator and are masters over our own actions. Indeed, if all our actions depend on the courses of the stars, all we do is done of necessity: and necessity precludes either virtue or vice. But if we possess neither virtue nor vice, we do not deserve praise or punishment, and God, too, will turn out to be unjust, since He gives good things to some and afflicts others. Nay, He will no longer continue to guide or provide for His own creatures, if all things are carried and swept along in the grip of necessity. And the faculty of reason will be superfluous to us: for if we are not masters of any of our actions, deliberation is quite superfluous. Reason, indeed, is granted to us solely that we might take counsel, and hence all reason implies freedom of will.
St. John of Damascus, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 2 Chapter 7
“Progressive Christianity” doesn’t exist. I want you to know that. Christianity doesn’t “progress with the times” because God is perfect. You can’t progress perfection. That’s just heresy.
I actually agree with you, but not in a way that I think you would like, anon
I wonder what Anon thinks "conservative Christianity" is conserving, exactly, when most of the things that make it distinctive are less than 200 years old.
(Trick question, of course; conservative Christians don't constantly have their sincerity questioned because of their political stances.)
This is a thing you notice when you do folklore research - once something has been going on for longer than anyone can remember, people assume it's always been that way. For example, you see people talking about the pagan origins of kissing under the mistletoe, which we know isn't true because kissing under the mistletoe only began in the 17th century.
More generally, I refuse to use the label because, while I have positions that could be considered theologically progressive, they aren't modern. I didn't decide that non-Christians aren't categorically damned because of modernity, but because of (among others) St. Theophan the Recluse. I didn't decide that failing to help the poor was as grave a sin as sexual immorality because of liberalism, but because of St. John Chrysostom. I didn't decide that religion without charity is an abomination because of secularism, but because of the Prophets.
Charity is not a distinctive of progressive Christianity. I just need educated on this I'm sure, but show me which early church fathers advocated for wedding homosexual couples, people living as the opposite sex to their birth sex, and women killing their children while in the womb?
Thinking about God’s glory, and how I’ve heard people say God’s goal is his glory, and how I wanted to disagree with that because it makes God seem like an uncaring egomaniac, and that he is an uncaring egomaniac is definitely wrong, but then I remembered what God is. God is love right? If everything is orchestrated for the glory of God it is orchestrated for the purpose of showing love’s power. Of making people see and experience the heights depths riches of love and go wow! Wow. What a thing is love. And love involves two people. Love is care for the other’s best. God shows people how cool that is, how stunning and moving and powerful and praiseworthy, over and over again, and his glory is ours too. It’s hardwired into us!! We love love!! We see someone act powerfully in love and go wild!! And in that sense or suffering can be allowed for God’s glory, because suffering is an opportunity for love to express itself more powerfully than we had known it was before! And its power is effective for the others best, for the other’s ultimate and unlimited happiness. And that is glory.
Small piece of Kentucky lore: There is a Versailles, Kentucky and it is pronounced ver-SALES. Unlike the Versailles in France, which is pronounced normal. It's not that we don't know how to pronounce Versailles, France, it's just that Kentucky Versailles is a different one and it's pronounced ver-SALES.
This is one of the easiest ways to clock someone who isn't from here
There’s also a Monticello that’s pronounced mont-uh-Sell-oh unlike Jefferson’s estate in Virginia. Kentuckians are tricksy.
I was about to say "no wtf we don't" but then I said it to myself and realized we do. Mont-uh-SELL-oh.
Relatedly, when I was in college in Georgia, a friend called me on the phone so he could put me on speaker and show his girlfriend while I said "Louisville." (It's LOO-uh-vull, or even LOO-vull if you're short on time)
Wisconsin has a town named Rio which is pronounced "rye-oh" which we use for the same purpose
“Bat swinging at wasp nest” post but I cannot be nice about astrology people. No you did not find the one good or cute or quirky way to believe the quality of someone’s character is biologically pre-determined. Just because you found a way to not base it on race or ethnicity or gender does not make judging someone’s character on an innate and uncontrolled attribute suddenly teehee fine.
I’m even more baffled by the people going “it’s just fun!” “It’s just a hobby!!” Sure if it was something harmless. It’s not. We are quite literally talking about how you intend to judge, treat, view, respect, and interact with someone entirely differently based on an inherent trait. How are you not aghast? How are you not embarrassed? Why are you so insistent on needing to operate on a hierarchy of pre-determined character judgement?
I've even heard of parents treating their children differently because of astrology, which is absolutely terrible
Now the Greeks declare that all our affairs are controlled by the rising and setting and collision of these stars, viz., the sun and moon: for it is with these matters that astrology has to do. But we hold that we get from them signs of rain and drought, cold and heat, moisture and dryness, and of the various winds, and so forth, but no sign whatever as to our actions. For we have been created with free wills by our Creator and are masters over our own actions. Indeed, if all our actions depend on the courses of the stars, all we do is done of necessity: and necessity precludes either virtue or vice. But if we possess neither virtue nor vice, we do not deserve praise or punishment, and God, too, will turn out to be unjust, since He gives good things to some and afflicts others. Nay, He will no longer continue to guide or provide for His own creatures, if all things are carried and swept along in the grip of necessity. And the faculty of reason will be superfluous to us: for if we are not masters of any of our actions, deliberation is quite superfluous. Reason, indeed, is granted to us solely that we might take counsel, and hence all reason implies freedom of will.
St. John of Damascus, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 2 Chapter 7
My poor friends have had to deal with an hour of messages of me both starting and putting down different heresies
The gang now knows far too much about Sabellianism and why I hate it while also hearing me say things about the Nicene Creed that would make both Nicholas and Arius slap the ever-loving shit out of me
I just want to apologize to @heresylog for needing to log me ☹️ I dunno, I just feel like the argument over the filioque doesn't make sense because the phrase before it is the bigger issue for me—is the Spirit not consubstatial and coeternal as well? Why is it "proceeding" from anyone, regardless of whom?
as usual, the filioque issue was not the main cause for the schism. it was just convenient to say it was that instead of politics.
soon-to-be-orthodox and i wholeheartedly agree
Incredibly informative lecture on the Trinity (according to Orthodox and Nicea).
Does anyone have the "death hath no dominion, my god has rattled hell" poem
Yeh.
Epitaph
They caught me singing at my funeral and dancing to my dirge,
They caught me heckling my eulogy and joy-riding my hearse.
They caught me spray-painting my tombstone and teasing the mortician,
They caught me at all sorts of mischief, in grand Christian tradition.
They scolded me, I put my face into my hands to hide
The smiles and the laughing that I couldn’t keep inside.
They didn’t want to hear the joke that I had learned so well,
That death has no dominion: my God has rattled hell.
Failing to understand God’s judgment means that you also neglect to recognize your desperate need for a Savior—and what you have been saved
Kirk Cameron, a well-known actor and Christian podcaster, recently drew criticism for announcing that he no longer believes Hell to be “eternal torment.”
In a podcast on December 3rd, Cameron rejected the idea that Hell is an “eternal barbecue for sinners,” calling it an invention of the early church. Instead, he now insists that rejecting the Gospel merely results in a soul being “destroyed” and ceasing to exist.
Cameron’s claims about Hell, however, don’t align with Scripture, which describes this judgment of God as “everlasting...
The judgment of God IS everlasting! When you die the second death ("perish" in John 3:16), you very much stay dead forever. Eternally, even. You don't get resurrected or anything. That's both Biblical and logical.
However...
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should NOT PERISH, but have eternal life.
You have two options: eternal life or perishing ("annihilationism").
Eternal torment is still eternal and you're definitely still alive. You're not supposed to get that without faith in Christ.
I don't think annihilationism downplays the Gospel message at all - in fact I think it strengthens it. Unbelievers seem to understand inherently that eternal torment is not justice.
If God had declared it to be just and he was doing it, I would of course submit to his decision on the matter, but he has not. The second death, perishing in the lake of fire, and "destroying both body and soul" are all clearly explained in the Bible.
If you have verses to the contrary, I'll be glad to hear them, but for now I will continue to declare that God is justice and eternal torment is not, and you don't have to believe in eternal torment to be a Christian.
Life is objectively good. It would not be objectively good if you had a, say, 50/50 chance of spending eternity in hell. Eternity is a long time. Eventually it would cancel out ANY and ALL good that came from life on earth. It not loving or just or kind to bring a child into this world with that kind of risk hanging in the balance.
There are people who cannot believe a God who would condemn anyone to eternal torment is just, loving, or good. These are people who are missing out on salvation because of something God DOESN'T DO.
I’ll never forget the story my dad told about the time our church was contacted by a man who was in need of some money for food, so the pastor took my dad to meet this guy at a cafe to talk about what was going on in his life, and some specific ways they could help, both materially and spiritually. The guy rebuffed every attempt to establish any kind of relationship or to hear the gospel, and made it very clear that he just wanted the money. When the pastor eventually gave him a gift card for a grocery store, he got upset that it wasn’t cash.
Another story is of my former pastor who had a man walk into church after the service and ask for money for food. The pastor said he’d take him to lunch at the MacDonalds down the block, and they could talk about what was going on in this guy’s life, and how the pastor and church could help. The pastor got a phone call at the door, so he handed the guy a twenty dollar bill and told him he could go order. After his phone call, he went into the restaurant and the man was nowhere to be seen. He’s taken his whole $20 and skedaddled.
Another story of a pastor who invited a man who had come to the church asking for money for food to his house for dinner. Later that night, the man broke into the pastor’s house, stole a bunch of stuff, and stole his car.
Rest assured pastors are used to people dealing with them in bad faith. These men remain some of the most generous people I know. They give to all who ask them. But a pastor’s willingness or unwillingness to give his church’s money and resources to someone he doesn’t know, who will not even attempt to engage in the community that is a church, especially someone who won’t even show up in person, is not an accurate barometer to gauge the generosity of a church or individual or Christians in general. The pastor’s job is also to protect his flock from wolves, like scammers who prey on the generosity of kindhearted people.
Is this in response to the woman asking for food for her baby? It was written during the time and it seems like it.
I think your father (not you though. You’re saying your father told you about this man. You never met him to have him tell you in person 🤔) just had an experience with a pastor who was doing his job and dealt with shitty people instead of understanding how the system is broken, especially if this is in response to backlash the church is receiving after that woman went viral.
We who are not on TikTok did not see the whole system showing its hand.
She never asked for money she asked for food. None of the churches that didn’t offer immediate help never asked to meet up to discuss what’s going on and how they can help. They just said no we cannot help.
Many of these churches were mega churches where the pastor has a sports car and you get communion in a lil snack pack. Others were fairly financially well off. They no said to even discussing how help can be done. The only ones to say yes were churches that had no money to give away anyways.
It was even worse when a woman in the UK try doing the exact same call. No one was surprised because this issue is systemic and has been an issue since the start of Christianity as a ruling power.
I’m sorry to your one singular pastor (while you never met by the way) who dealt with humans where literally starving who thought they could go to the church to receive assistance and only got treated as a new number to the “flock”. The way your are so subtle putting how these people are the bad guys and your fathers pastor is the good guy tells me enough about your Christianity.
Anyways!
Donate food and money to your local food bank everyone ♥️ money goes farther then food because they get deals and they are always looking for baby supplies and toiletry supplies!
Hello boys and girls! This post has been a ton of fun for me, and now it's time to recap!
What I and like-minded people in the notes ARE saying ✅
Churches of all sizes are regularly approached by 1) people in legitimate need, and 2) scammers.
These two kinds of people often appear identical. Scammers are pretty good at what they do.
Scammers may or may not be in need, but that need does not give them the right to lie, cheat, and steal. Honesty is a virtue,
The church has a responsibility to help those in need. Drug addicts count as needy, and deserve to be fed and cared for as well. They do not have a right to have their drug addiction funded by others, however.
Scammers take money and resources that should be going to those who truly need it. This is not good.
Anyone who comes to a church for help should be treated as a person with a complex life who is approaching in good faith and deserves to be met with dignity, friendship, and aid, not as a problem to be gotten rid of as soon as possible, nor should it be automatically assumed that they are a lying drug addict. No one's problems go as deep as their need for immediate food/shelter/clothing.
Churches are families, they are relational, and no one should be surprised or offended when a Christian attempts to form at least a casual relationship with someone who enters their doors. We are not government programs who receive our impetus from the secular world, but families and centres of worship. Get used to it. If this offends you, then prepare to be offended because a whole religion ain't changing their fundamental nature to make you feel better.
This forming of a casual relationship does NOT equal treating them as one of the flock, or forcing them to join the church. If you think that, then you don't know how what is actually involved in joining a church and becoming one of the flock. It’s making a new friend.
Churches have differing levels of ability to spread resources. Some are megachurches, but most churches are small, and their bank account is filled by member's donations.
Churches have many financial responsibilities. They must pay for and maintain their building if they want to continue to have a presence in their community (house churches are a thing too). They must, according to the Bible, pay their pastor (1 Tim. 5:18). They have a responsibility to care for the needs of their own first, as well as those outside the church, as they have the opportunity (Gal. 6:10). They give to local and international charities/organizations/missions that can reach farther than they can.
Christians are called to radical, even "foolish" generosity, and individuals can and should practice this, including pastors and leaders. This should not be something that we leave to the ones in charge, we are all called to it.
The radical generosity that Christians are called to can and often does involve voluntarily being taken advantage of, with cheerfulness even (Matt. 5:38-42).
Christians are also called to stewardship, to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves (Matt. 10:16), and to wisely and widely invest what has been given to us for the good of God's kingdom (Matt. 24). These things must be balanced.
Churches, and I don't mean institutions, but people, are regularly victimized by scams, large and small. Pastors and leaders have a responsibility to protect their flock from this.
Many charities, religious and non-religious, employ vetting processes to avoid this.
For lots of churches, this vetting process is short, simple, and should be painless: one conversation, one meal, some cursory questions about a person's life and what they're going through. That's often all it takes. For each person who has been revealed to be a liar, there are more that are in legitimate need, and the church can and will find ways to help them.
The reason that churches can do any amount of charitable work is because, at least in my country (not America, ask an American about American charity law), we have charity status. If we want to retain charitable status, we CANNOT give money to an individual who is not a member, attendee, partner, staff member, eg. someone who has no connection to us, in our function as a charity. We MUST, according to law, never give out cash to an individual (grocery store gift cards that can only be used to buy groceries are acceptable), and we MUST use some kind of vetting process, and it is almost always easier for everyone involved to be directed to a charitable organization better equipped to care for a person's specific needs.
How do you find out what a person's specific needs are? By talking with them and finding out. This conversation does not need to take place over a meal, but generally if someone comes to you saying that they're hungry, it is considered a nice thing to feed them.
Inviting someone to lunch is not forcibly converting them. Why would you think these two are the same thing.
These charity laws are the rules for churches, not for individuals. If an individual (Christian or otherwise) wants to give cash et al to a person in need, there is nothing stopping them! Even the pastor can do this with his own money, but not with money that does not belong to him, but to his church.
I repeat, it is disingenuous to measure the generosity of a church or Christians in general based on whether or not the pastor or church office will hand out money to just anyone.
By all means, donate to your local food bank and similar charities!! Every little bit helps someone!! Merry Christmas everyone ❤️ remember what Jesus said about the least of these brothers and sisters!!
I wonder what Eve thought of Christ when he descended into the depths during the time he was dead. When she saw Him. The Son of the new Eve. Come to pull you out of hell into heaven.
Adam and Eve being pulled up right there :)
And underneath Christ triumphant on the cross are the shattered chains which held them catpive.
Adam and Eve's feast day is Christmas Eve.
WHAT??? I'm going to cry, that makes me so happy
From @jurassic-breadetarian
The Paschal Sermon of Saint John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople