The Purple Place

Wherein I shall delight in whatsoever I find pleasing. ••• Christian Pro Life • Married Geek • Liberty Enthusiast •• Block the #politics tag if current events are too overwhelming for you, or if you don’t care for my opinions about them. I advise everyone to be aware of the things happening in the world, but don’t let it drive you to hatred or despair. Christ is our eternal hope and assurance, no matter what earthly concerns we face.

[10yrsyart]

Hey! Im sorry this ask is so deep haha, I've been a Christian my whole life and never before questioned it until recently.. all around me, all I read about science ect seems to be telling me there is no god and it's frightening! Do you happen to know any science that could be of comfort? I'm just so tired of being called crazy for my belief

hey there :) science isn't my field of expertise but i could give you some things to think about:

- the Earth is perfectly positioned in our solar system to carry life. if it were closer to the sun it would be too hot for us, and if it were farther away it'd be too freezing. it's the perfect temperature to keep water in a liquid form, which we need to survive. the Earth's stable rotation, the presence of the Moon and its distance, the protection Jupiter provides us, these are all unique specifically placed details. ( earth facts, jupiter facts )

- the human eye is a complex system of lenses and nerves that sees light, density, and depth. it adjusts to these constantly changing elements at a speed even our current cameras are unable to. not only does it work as a camera, but since its connected to the brain, it also works as an organic video camera recording and remembering what it's seen. it's an incredible work of design and "machinery" (and that's not even getting into the complexities of the brain.) ( eye vs. camera )

- there are patterns in nature. the human eye holds similarities to nebula, our lungs with their branching arms are similar to trees, our brains and their nerve links resemble galaxies in the observable universe, and there are many more example. these do not speak to me of random happenstance but intentional design.

- just a couple of instances in the Bible where scientific facts are stated centuries before the science about it was "discovered". and some more. there's also a ton of archeological evidence to support the Bible, but that's a whole other post.

- science can discover the elements and circumstances of many things and try to rebuild those circumstances. but scientists are still unable to give life to a person or animal. they can't give them the spark of life, or bestow on someone a conscience or personality. they can create AI and clone animals and slice together DNA, but only God can breathe life into something and make it real, giving it spirit and soul.

- the Big Bang Theory speaks of a specific moment in time when everything came to be; a beginning to the universe as we know it. some astronomers say we can see back to the beginning by viewing the farthest light as our time clock. ( link ) and that's really interesting, isn't it? because the Bible says the earth was "formless and void", and God commanded light to come into being and suddenly there was light (Genesis 1:1-3). the first thing that God created was light and that's the thing scientists use to see the beginning. this short TikTok sums this subject up pretty well, as well as my own feelings about it.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by @gospelspeakers

God's fingerprints are all over creation. no amount of "explaining away" is going to erase those fingerprints or His continued presence. i hope this encourages you! "The heavens proclaim the glory of God. The skies display His craftmanship. Day after day they continue to speak; night after night they make Him known. They speak without a sound or word; their voice is never hear. Yet their message is gone throughout the earth, and their words to all the world." (Psalm 19:1-4)

also as my expertise is art.. i know of no greater artist than Him.

[russingon]

the fact that at the council of elrond glorfindel is like “just throw the ring into the ocean” is so funny to me after reading the silmarillion just because it feels like the subtext is him being like “yeah let’s try maglor’s patented and tested method: Just Yeet The Accursed Fucking Thing Into The Water”

#in fairness they do do literally the other fëanorion approved method of magical item disposal #glorfindel: we could do like maglor and throw it in the ocean? #elrond: no we’re doing like maedhros and jumping into a volcano via @lesbianlanval

*at the council of Elrond*

Elrond: Alright, everyone listen up. We elves have 4 methods of dealing with Accursed Fucking Objects™, as demonstrated by my four parents. 

Number 1, the Elwing Method or Mom Method. This is to hide the accursed fucking thing away and keep it safe and close. This is highly not reccommended if the object can take over its user like the ring can, and Sauron will be searching for it, so this method is out of the question. 

Number 2, the Earendil Method or the Dad #1 Method. This is, send the accursed fucking thing across the sea or to some higher power. According to Mithrandir, the Valar will not take it and Tom Bombadil wants nothing to do with it, so this is also out of the question. 

Number 3 is the Maglor Method, or Dad #2 Method. This is to yeet the accursed fucking thing into the ocean. In this case, it is not a good idea as Ulmo will be very upset and we will still have to contend with Sauron. 

The last method is the Maedhros Method or the Dad #3 Method. This method is to yeet yourself into a volcano while holding the accursed fucking thing, and also the method we will be using. You will not have to yeet yourself into the volcano, only the ring, don’t worry, Frodo.

[art-of-a-diffrent-color]

Those…those really are the four methods aren’t they?

[armenelols]

@procrastinationonvacation how dare you hide this in the tags

[duelpersonality]

Listen, Boromir knows 1 (one) ancient elven story and damn it, he’s going to ride that horse until it dies.

[soulren]

“Ghosts are real” I can see how you could believe that

“Ghosts aren’t real” it’s very fair and rational that you believe that

“Ghosts aren’t real anymore” I’m about to hear a poem or very sad story

“Ghosts aren’t real yet” the fuck are you going to do

[timesreading]

[physicsgoblin]

Prayers for my older sister R, if you would be so kind. She just got back from a test that leaves her with a 30% chance of having thyroid cancer. The doctors need to do more testing. She is married with three very young children and has already had a lot if health issues.

[luminouslumity]

[rubixpsyche]

at all points I was ready for him to start eating the stands

[sparklyaxolotlstudent]

This was disturbingly normal for him

[unsolids-your-snake]

[vitamaeternum]

@my-mom-does-not-have-it-going-on

[mirrorofliterature]

shmi skywalker loved her son and writing her otherwise is a fundamental misunderstanding of her character

yes, she is more than a mother, but it is an important facet of her character, and insisting that strong female characters cannot be mothers is not very feminist, either

[anidala-for-ever]

Ok, let's go again. Shmi was a slave woman who loved her son and tried her best to teach him to be a good person and protect him. She wasn't an enlightened philosopher and she didn't love him in an unattached way that allowed her to let Anakin go. She was a slave with very limited options and no realistic scenario would have allowed her to both keep her son by her side and keep him safe. She and Anakin also hadn't been told they would not be allowed to see each other again, as proven by his question about it and her answer. So, she did her best to present a strong look towards her child and comfort him when it was time for Anakin to leave so their separation would be easier on the nine year old that had to leave everything he's ever known and entrust his wellbeing to strangers. She also wanted to see her son again, as shown by her words that she is complete by seeing him ( which doesn't mean she died content or on her own terms) and the stories she told her family. Her choice was similar to choices mothers living in poverty or violence stricken places have to make in the real world when someone offers to save the children but not them or something.

[the-far-bright-center]

The AotC novelization makes it 100% clear that Shmi believes Anakin will come back to her some day. At the Lars homestead, Shmi regularly stands outside at night looking at the stars in the Tatooine sky, thinking about Ani and hoping one day to catch sight of his ship arriving. She talks about him all the time, to the point that Owen feels like he already ‘knows’ Anakin because Shmi told him that many stories about him. When Shmi is being tortured to death by the Tuskens, the thought of seeing Anakin again is the only thing keeping her going.

Whenever Shmi thinks about Anakin being a Jedi, she has a fairly romanticised view of how she hopes his life is. She imagines him in very heroic, noble scenarios, fighting against tyranny, standing up for those in need. She hopes it’s true, because she has to believe it was worth it. Shmi has no idea about the current state of the Republic or the Jedi Order. And she has NO idea that Anakin was initially rejected and is currently still struggling.

So the fact that some people want to claim Shmi of all people is somehow ‘representative’ of being a ‘selfless Jedi’ of the *old* Order is actually quite sickening.

Shmi is selfless, that's for sure. But it’s not because she’s some kind of embodiment of cold, impersonal detachment. In fact, it’s the polar opposite — she is motivated by the personal attachments of her family ties. Because she is a mother who unconditionally loves her son. Shmi is not without pain, worry, or regret with regards to Anakin's absence. A part of Shmi’s heart is always missing while he is gone.

If Shmi has something in common with any Jedi, it’s not with the ones most emblematic of the Prequels-era Jedi Order. Rather, it’s with her own son, whom she taught to be compassionate and to help others above all! And it’s with her grandson, Luke, who declares himself to be ‘a Jedi like my father before me’. In other words, a true Jedi who is moved to save others via the bonds of personal attachments… aka love and family.

The lesson here isn’t that Anakin should have been more like the old Order’s ideal of a Jedi. He tried that, and it ultimately lead to his apocalyptic fall into darkness. No, the ‘lesson’, if you will, is that the Jedi Order needed to be more like Shmi Skywalker, the only person who was responsible for the truly good person that Anakin was.

It was Shmi who trained the Chosen One, and it was her teachings that finally rose back up to the surface of his tortured soul and allowed him to shatter the chains of darkness and finally return to the Light.

[wisegirlandseaweedbrainforever]

The pharisees: hey Jesus is divorce okay? 😈

Jesus: I shouldn't have had to give you divorce, but y'all just kept abusing, holding grudges against and killing your wives over the stupidest things!!!!

The whole world from then on: Jesus said no matter how bad the marriage is you shouldn't leave your abusive husband/wife.

Jesus:

[milkygastrobones]

[thisbibliomaniac]

That's really cool that you've never been in a church that told your friend that if she divorced the man who refused to keep a job, could not care for their special needs children, had a raging porn addiction, and committed adultery so frequently that he was with other women while she was giving birth to those children, that if she divorced him, she would be removed from membership and fired from her job at the church (the only income she had since he wouldn't work). I have.

Just because this problem doesn't exist in your world doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[myfairkatiecat]

something something “I’m a person and my name is Anakin” showing his name is a central way he retains identity while a child slave vs “that name no longer has any meaning to me” in almost the same breath as “I must obey my master” thirty years later after Sidious accomplished what Gardulla and Watto never managed to: breaking his spirit and convincing him he has no other options but obedience, accepting painful consequences, never looking for a way out. something like that

[she-is-amused]

Aaaaaaaaaaaand my neighbor’s tree that kinda leans over my yard (which we love the shade from) has a crack running up the trunk after the violent windstorm this morning.

Hubby talked to this neighbor a long time ago about going halfsies on cutting down this tree because it’s a type that goes hollow while still leafing out and just suddenly falls one day. And it would more-likely-than-not hit our house if it falls. It’s a very large tree. He talked to the neighbor again this evening when we were inspecting things and noticed the crack. The guy still doesn’t want to do it. There’s a crack in the trunk taller than me.

I didn’t need this new thing.

[jesusismy-savior]

At first I was really happy about the month of June cause it’s my birthday on the 4th

But then it hit me

It’s also pride month.

A month where many people celebrate sin….

I will continue to preach to the misguided in hopes God will move through their hearts!

[itshardtodancewiththedevil]

Let me get this straight. I’m not religious, but I was raised by a preacher who taught me that God does not ‘hate’ homosexuality.

The one verse that says something about homosexuality? “Man shall not lay with man”? It’s misinterpreted, I’ve gotten multiple pastors to admit that, it’s supposed to be “man shall not lay with boy”. Pedophilia, not homosexuality.

That being said, Gods whole point all the time is love. Love thu neighbor. Embrace sinners. Love. Love is love is love. Why would a God that tells us to love, be against love?

I appreciate your religion, and I appreciate your prayers. But they are unnecessary. I am not going to Hell, and I never was. Love is not, and never will be, a sin.

Thank you.

[starrtoon]

“The phrase “men who have sex with men” (translated “homosexuals” in the NASB) is a translation of the Greek word arsenokoitai. Those who object to this translation say that arsenokoitai does not refer to all homosexual relationships but only to those involving abuse, coercion, or unfaithfulness. They say the word does not refer to “loving, faithful” same-sex relationships. Arsenokoitai is a compound word: arseno is the word for “a male,” and koitai is the word for “mat” or “bed.” Put the two halves together, and the word means “a male bed”—that is, a person who makes use of a “male-only bed” or a “bed for males.” And, truthfully, that’s all the information we need to understand the intent of 1 Corinthians 6:9. The word meaning “bed” carries a sexual connotation in this context—the Greek koitai is the source of our English word coitus (“sexual intercourse”). The conclusion is that the word arsenokoitai is referring to homosexuals—men who are in bed with other men, engaging in same-gender sexual activity. The notion that some homosexual relationships are accepted is not even hinted at in this passage. The men’s commitment level or the presence of “love” is not addressed. The idea that the condemned same-sex activity is linked to economic exploitation or abuse is also a forced reading with no textual basis. Paul’s reference to “homosexuals,” together with a reference to “effeminate” men in the same verse (in the NASB), effectively covers both active and passive homosexual behavior. God’s Word is not open to personal interpretation in this matter. Homosexuality is wrong; it always has been, and it always will be. “

https://www.gotquestions.org/arsenokoitai.html

[itshardtodancewiththedevil]

Thank you for informing me! See, another problem is, the Bible was written by man. Not by God. It’s a product of its time. Regardless of meaning, there are many arbitrary rules in the Bible that no longer apply to today’s society, this being one of them.

Can’t eat shrimp.

Can’t wear mixed fabrics.

Can’t get a divorce.

Just saying, if you’re gonna be nit picky about following the Bible’s rules, either follow all of them or let people live their lives. You can’t just go through the Bible and pick and choose what to follow and what not to follow. That wasn’t the disciplines intention.

Love is love.

[starrtoon]

you can’t claim that the Bible is written by man so that means it’s okay to dismiss things you disagree with, cause then by that logic the parts on salvation and God’s love can also be dismissed and not true because they were ‘’’written by man’’’.

also

“Leviticus says not to eat shellfish (Lev. 11:9-12), use mixed seed or fabrics (Lev. 19:19), harvest the corners of fields (Lev. 19:9), and that homosexuality is wrong (Lev. 18:22; 20:13).  If homosexuality is wrong because Leviticus says so, then shouldn’t we also obey the other laws about shellfish, seed, fabrics, and fields because that is in Leviticus as well?  If not, then why not?  Why would Christians pick and choose what parts of the Bible to follow?

First of all, not all of Leviticus is written to everyone.  There were abominations that applied only to the Jews such as eating shellfish, rabbit, and pork, etc., which were things that typologically represented purity before the Lord.  We know this because God says, “Speak to the sons of Israel saying…”  He gives instructions to the Israelites, not to the rest of the nations.

Here is a list of instances when the occurrence of the phrase “Speak to the Sons of Israel saying…” is found in Leviticus, the book under consideration.

Lev. 4:2, atonement for unintentional sins

Lev. 7:23, don’t eat fat from ox, sheep, or goat

Lev. 7:29, procedures for peace offering to the Lord

Lev. 11:2, list of animals the Israelites may eat

Lev. 12:2, uncleanness after giving birth

Lev. 23:24, rest on 1st day of 7th month

Lev. 23:34, Feast of Booths on 15th day of 7th month

Lev. 24:15, the one cursing God will bear his sin

So, we can see a host of things that dealt only with Israel.

However, there are abominations that did not apply only to Israel, but to everyone else also.  Again, let’s look at Leviticus.

Lev. 18:22-30, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. 23 Also you shall not have intercourse with any animal to be defiled with it, nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it; it is a perversion. 24 Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled 25 ‘For the land has become defiled, therefore I have visited its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants. 26 But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you 27 (for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled); 28 so that the land may not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you. 29 ‘For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people. 30 ‘Thus you are to keep My charge, that you do not practice any of the abominable customs which have been practiced before you, so as not to defile yourselves with them; I am the Lord your God.’”

What abominations is Lev. 18:22-30 speaking of?  Contextually, chapter 17 is about blood atonement procedures, so that is for Israel, not for everyone.  In Chapter 18 God says to Israel, “You shall not do what is done in the land of Egypt where you lived, nor are you to do what is done in the land of Canaan where I am bringing you,” (Lev. 18:3).  So, now instead of it applying only to Israel, God mentions things that are done by Egypt and the land of Canaan.  What were the things those nations did?  The chapter contains the following.

Lev. 18:6-18, don’t uncover the nakedness of various relatives.

Lev. 18:19, don’t have sexual relations with woman on her period

Lev. 18:20, don’t have intercourse with your neighbor’s wife

Lev. 18:21, don’t offer children to Molech

Lev. 18:22, don’t lie with a male as with a female

Lev. 18:23 don’t have intercourse with animals.

So, we see there are requirements in Leviticus only for the Israelites, and there are lists of abominations spoken of that were for the non-Israelites as well.  It is in the latter group that homosexuality is listed.  It is a mistake for people to mix topics intended only for Israel with topics that included the non-Israelites.  Furthermore, when we see that the New Testament condemns the idea of homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27, we could see the continuity between Old Testament moral law and New Testament moral law.

Three divisions of the Law in Leviticus

A common mistake made by homosexual proponents when discussing the Old Testament, in particular, Leviticus, is the failure to understand the three main divisions of the Law:  civil, ceremonial, and moral.  This is important because the civil and ceremonial law are not in effect now, but the moral law is.  Let’s take a look at these divisions within the book of Leviticus since it is the book under examination.

Civil - Expired with the demise of the Jewish civil government

Ceremonial - Expired with the fulfillment of priestly work of Christ (Matt. 3:15)

Moral - No Expiration because it is based on God’s character.  "You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy,“ (Lev. 19:2)

Justice practices (Lev. 24:17-23)

Law of property redemption (Lev. 25)

Be just with the poor, (Lev. 19:15)

Do not hate in your heart (Lev. 19:17)

Retain just scales in commerce (Lev. 19:35f)

Robbery, extortion, false witness, and restitution (Lev. 6:1-7)

Various sacrificial offerings for sin (Lev. 1,2,3,4,5,6)

Priestly duties (Lev. 7:1-37)

Laws on animals for food (Lev. 11:1-47)

Cleaning house of leper (Lev. 14:33-57)

Law of Atonement (Lev. 16:1-28;17:1-16)

Regulations for Priests (Lev. 21,22)

Festivals (Lev. 23:1-25)

Do not steal or lie (Lev. 19:11)

Do not oppress your neighbor (Lev. 19:13)

No idolatry (Lev. 26:1-13)

Don’t sacrifice children to Molech (Lev. 20:1-5)

Don’t commit adultery, incest, bestiality, homosexuality, etc. (Lev. 20:9-21)

You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Lev. 19:18)

Homosexuality is under the moral law category.  In addition, as stated earlier, it is an abomination practiced by all people (Egypt and Canaan), not just the Israelites.  Therefore, we see that the moral aspects of the Law are still in effect, but not the civil or ceremonial.  Again, there were things addressed to Israel only where God said: “speak to the sons of Israel saying…”  These things included atonement for unintentional sins, eating habits, uncleanness, feast days, rest days, etc., which do not apply to us today.

Should we also dismiss the commands not to lie, steal, or commit adultery?

If, as some argue, we are not under the Law and therefore we can dismiss Leviticus along with its clear condemnation of homosexuality, then shouldn’t we also dismiss Levitical teachings that warn against lying (Lev. 19:11), theft (Lev. 19:13), bearing false witness (Lev. 19:16), hating your fellow man (Lev. 19:17), exacting vengeance (Lev. 19:18), avoiding unjust balances (Lev. 19:36), sacrificing children (Lev. 20:1-5), committing adultery (Lev. 20:10), committing incest (Lev. 20:11-14), and the practice of bestiality (Lev. 20:15-16)?  Of course not.

Furthermore, if we are to basically dump the book of Leviticus because it is Old Testament law, then why are parts of Leviticus quoted in the New Testament as still being valid?

          LeviticusNew Testament

Lev. 19:2, “Speak to all the congregation of the sons of Israel and say to them, “You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy.”

1 Pet. 1:16, “because it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”“

Lev. 19:18, ”“You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord.”

Matt. 22:39, “The second is like it, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”“

Lev. 26:12, “I will also walk among you and be your God, and you shall be My people.”

2 Cor. 6:16, “Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.”“

Are we to dismiss Leviticus along with the idea of being holy, of loving our neighbor, and that God will walk among us in the person of Jesus?  Of course not.  To do so by saying we are not under the Law displays deep theological ignorance and exegetical prejudice. There are certainly aspects of Leviticus which are no longer applicable to us today (civil and ceremonial), but there are other parts that still are, as is stated above in the moral aspect of the Law that was intended as admonitions not just against Israel but the other nations as well.

Finally, when we see that the New Testament also condemns homosexuality, it is clear that we cannot just dismiss Leviticus as a whole along with its moral regulations on sexual activity.  Homosexuality is clearly condemned in Leviticus and its condemnation cannot be dismissed by saying we are no longer under Old Testament Law.”

https://carm.org/leviticus-homosexuality-old-testament-law

[soundlessdragon]

@starrtoon You are a champ for this fantastic summary

[sacredheart-stigmata]

in a few days im going to meet with some doctors about my increasing memory gaps and growing problems with memory in general. I’d appreciate prayers, especially that the doctors can help and are able to figure out what’s going on 🙏❤️

[2colde]

it's thousand yard stare summer

[she-is-amused]

It is well with my soul.

[mybrainisalibrary]

Christians of tumblr:

Recently got into a debate at a church leadership meeting about Children's Church - ie when kids attend a separate 'service' from the adults on Sunday, either for part of the service (like prayer time and sermon) or the entire time

I'm super curious what thoughts others have in the following polls!

I am a Christian who:

Grew up in Children's church, have a positive view of it

Grew up in Children's church, have a neutral view of it

Grew up in Children's church, have a negative view of it

did NOT grow up in Children's church, have a positive view of it

did NOT grow up in Children's church, have a neutral view of it

did NOT grow up in Children's church, have a negative view of it

not Christian/bald/other

Voting ended onJun 15

[mybrainisalibrary]

I am a Christian who

IS a parent, have a positive view

IS a parent, have a neutral view

IS a parent, have a negative view

is NOT a parent, have a positive view

is NOT a parent, have a neutral view

is NOT a parent, have a negative view

bald

Voting ended onJun 15

[mybrainisalibrary]

If there is only capability (volunteers, time etc) for ONE option, it is better to:

Have Children's church and no kids Sunday School

Have kids Sunday School and no Children's Chruch

not christian/bald/etc

Voting ended onJun 15

[bombsights]

and this is why baseball is the best sport (see also: these baseball sidequests)

[wowwforever]

how could you post all this and not include that Matt Hilton (bee guy) got a baseball card out of this event

[turtleduck-inc]

they had a bee delay.

a bee-lay, if you will.

[jamie-goblin-child]

[yetanotherdayofdrudgery]

Married the woman of his dreams.

One of the three Hobbits allowed into Elf Heaven.

The only working class member of the Fellowship.

[a-totally-reasonable-username]

@namelessennes

[avidreaderffn]

@sandstonesunspear

[polyamorousmisanthrope]

Jesus Tapdancing Christ... THIS is a good welt pocket and the people who designed Simplicity 2895 ought to be blasted well ASHAMED of themselves for the crap way THEY wanted a welt pocket made. *SNARLS*

[makereadgrow]

This is how I learned to do it and a good example of what you want to see in a short form tutorial: pinning, pressing, seam finishing, good fabric handling.

I would mention that you can make the pocket facing with a small panel of your matching fabric that is visible and the rest in a lighter fabric to reduce bulk. That's a lot of denim layers for comfort.

[teaboot]

HOT DAMN