Kiibo's Corner @the-kiibo-anon - Tumblr Blog

Posts

Hello

I'm the-kiibo-anon, I'm @the-kirbe-anon 's friend who decided to also do a similar gimmick to kirbe :>

Here's my other friends:

@that-one-kirble

@oh-korbo

@kirbbrik

@the-kurple-anon

tags used in the blog:

If you want to see the blog without the spam reblogs:

#Poyo!

For posts with my doodles:

#Kiibo doodles

For Bible verses and theology posts:

#kiibo's quiet time

For posts relating to my friend:

#Kirbe anon

Have a wonderful day :>

( I am not the creator of the Kirbo videos, that would be TerminalMontage)

#intro post #kiibo anon

spiribia

a lot of stories treat romance like it makes the relationship between two characters self explanatory and to be honest it doesn’t

enonem

story: they're in love :)

me: why?

story: what do you mean? they're in love :)

me: what do they bring to each other's lives? what do they admire about one another? what draws them to each other?

story: love :) :)

me: ok... so what is that going to look like now?

story: like love :) :) :)

me: are their personalities going to clash at all? are they going to have arguments? learn to compromise for each other? will they need to adapt to sharing their life with another person? is it going to be smooth perfect harmony from day one? are they going to be always together? see each other sometimes as their occupations allow? how does this relationship affect their lifes.

story: they're in love :) :) :)

anamericangirl

The whole idea that trans people need to have their gender identity affirmed by those around them is ridiculous and just more evidence that gender is not something you can choose, it is just something you are.

I have never needed or desired anyone to affirm to me that I am a woman. No one has ever said “you’re a woman” to me in any capacity and I don’t need them to because I am a woman and I know that. If anyone did “affirm” my gender I would find that odd and think something was wrong with them because people who know their gender don’t need it affirmed by third parties.

Even if someone tried to tell me I wasn’t a woman that wouldn’t bother me and I would just think something was wrong with that person because again, I am a woman and I’m a woman regardless of what others say and I don’t need the confirmation from others that I am indeed a woman. Gender affirmations are not something that comes up in day to day conversations.

I sympathize with people who struggle with gender dysphoria but if you are a trans person and are confident in your identity and the way you present yourself then you should not need the outside world to affirm your identity for you. How you identify just describes how you identify yourself, it doesn’t dictate how you are identified by others. If you need your gender affirmed by me and the people around you then that suggests you’re not confident in your self identification.

purpleisnotacolor

it's so fun seeing all this poetry on tumblr about "gods" when everyone's concept of a "god" is just a superhero who'll die from a lack of attention, and mine is a maximally great being.

purpleisnotacolor

"…what's a God to a nonbeliever?" a real and supremely powerful being who continues to be such despite being ignored? the same as math is to the illiterate? the same as the sun is to the blind? the same as a hurricane is to the person who ignored the warnings and stayed on the shore?

she-is-amused

I don’t think enough kids are taught that part of ‘sharing’ is respecting others’ property rights; a person ought to share and be generous, yes, but they are under no real obligation to do so, and you have no right to demand they relinquish their property for your enjoyment.

emmaubler

Behold, the beloved children's book I hate the most:

The rainbow fish has shiny scales, and one of the other fish swims up to him and says rainbow fish should give him one because he has so many. When the rainbow fish doesn't give up his possessions, he's shunned by all the other fish. In order to "make friends", he gives up all but one of his scales to the other fish, and only then will they play with him. The message is supposed to be "sharing is good", but the rainbow fish isn't sharing--he is actively giving away his possessions because no one will play with him if he doesn't give them things. He has things the other fish want, too, so he's obligated to give them away or else he's selfish and they're right to make him an outcast.

It's a terrible portrayal of sharing, but you see kids act out this manipulative view of sharing because they're taught it is. "He won't share!!!" they'll cry when another child gets the truck they want, hoping the adult in charge will force the issue. The correction is teaching, "Yes, he's playing with it now, but you can ask him if you can play with it when he's done", because if you force the first kid to give up the toy immediately all you've taught the kids is that word "sharing" is a weapon you can use to get things from others.

Sharing isn't sharing if it's coerced, Rainbow Fish.

disgruntled-foreign-patriarch

A very good point

fictionadventurer

For all the talk about bad Christian fiction, I've seen several different ways that Christianity can be well-integrated into the story.

The story is about something unrelated to Christianity, but the characters are Christian and their faith affects their outlook and daily life. I recently stumbled across Wormwood Abbey by Christina Baehr, which is a light, fairly forgettable cozy fantasy that happens to do this really well. The story is about a woman who learns that dragons exist around her family's estate, but as the daughter of a rector, she often mentions prayer, sings religious songs, or thinks of Bible verses that relate to things she experiences. The Christianity feels organic to the character, and thus enhances the story rather than distracting from it.

The world is a Christian world where Christian beliefs are shown to be the correct framework through which to view the world. This happens in good Christian fantasy, like Lewis and Tolkien, but there are plenty of real-world stories where the themes line up with Christian truths, and this can make a story Christian whether or not religion is explicitly practiced by characters within the story.

The characters wrestle with how to apply their faith in their daily lives. Regina Doman's Fairy Tale Novels often feature this, as the characters struggle to deal with plot problems while living out their faith. Amy Lynn Green's work often features this as well--characters hold certain values (like, for instance, a Quaker pacifist) and have to figure out how they apply or don't apply to specific situations, especially when they conflict with other values, or they have to figure out how to live out their values (such as forgiveness) in moments where it seems impossible or even ill-advised. Charlotte Yonge's best works (specifically, what I've read of The Three Brides) do this as well--instead of preaching the one right answer, you have characters trying to figure out what the best answer is as they figure out what's right or wrong in this specific situation.

Characters face the revelation that there's a spiritual world that exists beyond our ordinary world, which can cause terror, but also provide comfort and hope. Elizabeth Goudge's novels often exist in this space, with very internal stories of characters coming to embrace the truths that come with living in a spiritual world. To a lesser extent, I'd say Amanda Dykes' work often fits here, with characters ultimately find comfort and hope from philosophies that line up with Christian truth. In less-cozy works, there's also the possibility of stories where an entirely secular person encounters God and has to figure out what that means for their life.

So our options are Christianity as character, Christianity as setting, Christianity as theme, or Christianity as plot. The ways this is integrated most seamlessly is when Christianity (or the ways they struggle with it) is a vital part of the character, so the plot that arises from it lines up with a Christian worldview. It also works well for the characters to just exist within a world where Christian truths are the way the world works. It doesn't even necessarily require the characters to be explicitly religious. Truth is something that everyone is searching for, and stories that honestly showcase truth or the search for it are going to resonate with a wide audience, even if they aren't Christian themselves.

provider-of-guardians

@the-orion-scribe

anscathmarcach

So we know Prosperity Gospel is bad. But I’ve noticed people diving into a sort of opposite to Prosperity Gospel that feels just as harmful.

I don’t know if it has a name. But it takes the form of:

Jesus said we would suffer, so I have to make myself suffer.

If I receive a blessing, I must reject it or seal it away out of humility.

Relying on emotional support from anyone except Christ is a sin and Idolatry.

Being passionate about anything is Idolatry.

Feeling like anything you’ve done/made turned out well is the same thing as the sin of Pride.

Always be punishing yourself, lest you think too highly of yourself.

God would NEVER speak to you or give you a word, you must have opened yourself up to demons.

Yes, we should be humble, be open to suffering when it comes, and discern words. But I can’t see this form of thinking as anything other than Spiritual Self-Harm that’s only turning people to despair and snuffing out their potential in serving Christ.

femconstellation

While women and girls are the primary victims of prostitution, I do want to make it clear that I hate female pimps, too. I hate madames or whatever they call themselves. I hate the women with an OF who glamorize the lifestyle and push it onto impressionable teenage girls. And while I hate the men who pay for sex and the men who sell women and girls to other men most of all, that does not mean I don’t hate the women who are complicit in the oppression of other women.

ynhart

Wow it's actually sad and enraging to see so many people proudly advocating ableism and straight up infanticide (like it's not just abortion anymore). It's escalating so quickly.

People really be casually boasting about being human rights defenders and at the same time dehumanize certain people for selfishness and despair. Where's coherency. Hello? Human dignity depends on a person's "utility" as if we are tools? Depends on their level of intelligence? Depends on how much money they have? Depends on how much of a nuisance they are in our lives? Depends on the stage of biological development they are? Are you really sure???? Just use your brains for a moment and think about what all this implies.

The world is crazy and the fact that people are falling for horrible views about human value so massively and blindly nowadays is a clear sign that the devil exists and is in the details.

I guess there's still much work and prayer to do. Please don't forget that our dignity as human beings is priceless and inherent from the moment of conception till natural death.

burningtheroots

"Sex work is work".

Okay, then why not teach it at school?

Why not fight for making it a 50:50 business where men are just as represented and available?

Why not introduce an anti-discrimination policy so customers can‘t reject a worker due to their sex? (that would be fun)

Why not cut down unemployed men‘s unemployment benefits when they reject a job offer from a pimp? (it already happened to women in my country)

Just wondering.

soundlessdragon

Something about the human body being the product somehow changes things 🤔

lifeafterpsychiatry

Many relationships would be a lot healthier if we romanticized honest, open and direct communication instead of idealizing the idea of a partner who’s intuitively in tune with your every need. You don’t need someone who can read your mind, you just need someone who’s willing to listen when you speak.

dangerously-human

The core of most religious misunderstandings I've witnessed with irreligious people is that they fundamentally misunderstand what religion is to religious people. It's not simply a matter of choosing what worldview most appeals to you or matches your own opinions. This is how you fundamentally believe the world already works, and living accordingly. It's not selecting from an array of possibilities with varying appeal, but aligning yourself with truth. You may not always like that truth, but that doesn't mean you get to throw it out or pick something else - you do the changing to match religious reality, not the other way around. I'm coming at this from a Christian experience, obviously, but this is true of any religion that claims objective, exclusive truth. "Why would you choose to follow a God who—" Because I didn't choose this God; this God, the only true one who exists, chose me; and I best get my priorities and values in order with his, because this world is here by his creative whim. He alone defines truth; he is truth.

apesoformythoughts

“A religion is not the church a man goes to but the cosmos he lives in.”

— G.K. Chesterton

blessthosewhocurseyou

Yeah. I feel like a lot of misunderstandings arise when people assume we're like, agnosticly looking at various religions and then picking on because it seems fun or something instead of like, this is how you believe the world already works.

tuxankhamun

Commenting "God isn't real, stupid" on a post of someone asking for prayers for a sick family member doesn't make you seem like a smarter, more intelligent individual, it just makes you sound like a raging, hateful loser lmao

vexingwoman

Trans people always have and always will exist and it doesn’t hurt anyone one bit! Incredible!

If you acknowledge that gender is a social construct, you must also acknowledge that your gender identities are entirely contingent on that social construct.

In other words, your gender identities are also socially constructed—they’re not innate characteristics the way being female, black, homosexual, or disabled are innate characteristics that exist independently of any social customs or theories.

So no, trans-identified people have not always existed and will not always exist. Trans-identified people have only existed and will only exist so long as the social construct of gender exists. This is like claiming Christians have always existed and will always exist, when in reality Christians have only existed and will only exist so long as the concept of Christianity exists.

Furthermore, if you acknowledge that gender is an oppressive social construct that ascribes feminine expectations to female people and masculine expectations to male people, if you acknowledge that gender is the reason female people were confined to the domestic sphere and denied their most fundamental rights, if you acknowledge that gender is a system created to reinforce female subjugation and male domination and not just a fun, quirky little way to express yourself, then it’s not hard to comprehend that any ideology which hinges on the continued existence of this sexist social construct is inherently regressive and harmful.

kanelia

What is trans?

None of people like the anon can define 'trans' any better than they can define 'woman'. How can you say trans people have always existed when you do not know what trans is?

Anytime when people repeat the 'trans people have always existed' mantra, what they actually mean is that gender nonconforming people have always existed. (Or what we consider gender nonconforming now.)

However, claiming that trans and gender nonconformity are the same thing makes zero sense. Being gender nonconforming does not mean that you actually think you are the opposite sex or that you are at least supposed to be. In fact, gender as a concept is so restrictive and artificial that even the most feminine stereotypical tradwife or the most masculine man you can find has some gender nonconforming traits.

Moreover, the trans ideology does not even define trans as gender nonconformity. It does not define trans at all. Anyone can be trans if they just say so (or rather if the trans community says so), and anyone questioning this (including people with actual gender dysphoria) is a bigot.

So no, trans people, as the modern gender ideology defines (or rather does not define) them, have not always existed. The thought that someone not fitting into gender stereotypes, wearing clothes of the opposite sex, wishing they were the opposite sex or even, outrageously, getting turned on by the thought of being the opposite sex, would actually then be the member of the opposite sex or cease to have a biological sex at all, is very much a modern invention.

secretariatess

So one thing I’ve noticed about pro-homosexuality Christian posts and arguments is that the passages referring to homosexuality as a sin don’t really mean what we read. They argue that in places like Leviticus, it’s supposed to mean two men aren’t supposed to sleep in a woman’s bed, or that the word we translate to homosexuality that Paul uses doesn’t necessarily mean what we think it means.

I know there are arguments against this. I know this isn’t much more than clutching at straws. However, pointing out the passages where homosexuality is a sin is only half the argument.

Every time advice is given for a godly marriage, it’s given to wives and husbands. Consider Corinthians and Ephesians. “A wife must not separate from her husband. A husband must not divorce his wife. Wives submit to your husbands. Husbands, love your wives. This idea is reiterated in 1 Peter. The marriage advice given out leaves little room for any other kind of marriage beyond one man and one woman. If homosexual relationships were accepted by the new church as some have suggested, wouldn’t it stand to reason that Paul and Peter would have worded their letters so that such relationships are included? Instead, it’s rather exclusive.

Furthermore, the relationship between Christ and the Church is described as a marriage. Christ is the groom and the Church is a bride. What would the point of this analogy be if all kinds of marriages are recognized and accepted by God? Wouldn’t it have been better to say that the relationship was like a marriage and leave it at that? Because within even a cultural standpoint, there doesn’t seem to be room to show acceptance for another kind of marriage. It’s exclusionary from the start. And Christianity was radical from the beginning; they did many counter-cultural things. Accepting a homosexual marriage if it was really God’s plan would not have been an issue for them. Instead, when marriage is talked about it, whether by advice or analogy, it is a heterosexual and a heterosexual marriage only.

Not only does the Bible state homosexuality a sin, but when talking about marriage, it excludes any other possibility.

In the end, however, the issue goes much deeper than this. The deeper seated issue is one of pride. I haven’t experienced same sex attraction nor will I pretend that I have. I do know, however, what it’s like to struggle with pride. It’s the pride that makes people throw doubt on what passages really mean in the Bible. It’s pride that says to stubbornly stick to a sin and feel attacked when the sin isn’t accepted as okay. It’s pride that refuses to even bring the problem to God and instead insist that it’s okay. It’s pride that doesn’t want to admit wrong. It’s all pride. And to let go of the defensiveness surrounding making homosexuality would require one to lay down their pride. From experience, letting go of pride is extremely difficult. But God makes it possible.

onlyblackpearls-deactivated2024

Actually I just spoke to God & she says the straight men who wrote the Bible got some stuff lost in translation since it’s a long way from heaven to earth & they already had their own biases that most likely (meaning definitely) bled through into their interpretation of religion. She also says your bigotry is not very christian & would like to remind you of the whole “judge not lest ye be judged” idea 💕

secretariatess

Interesting how you know for certain that some stuff got lost in translation, but that one bit taken out of a much bigger passage somehow wasn’t one of those things.

Interesting how the Bible consistently refers to God as the Father, and yet you insist on calling Him “she.”

Interesting how you know what God really meant when there’s no basis for it other than your own opinions.

How can we know what’s Christian if we have nothing to look to? Are we going to look to the world for it, the world and its ever changing morality? Are we going to go by the world’s definitions, definitions that are constantly changed by the day’s standards?

What basis do we have to know God and how to be a Christian if we cannot rely on the Bible? If we rely on ourselves, how can we count ourselves trustworthy? If we can count ourselves trustworthy, then do we really need God? What is God’s purpose if the Bible is so faulty? How can we discern what is right and wrong in the Bible if some things got lost in translation?

How can your conversation with God be trusted if we cannot trust what the men who knew God before us cannot be trusted? If the reason is that it’s a long way from heaven to earth, how do you know that you aren’t getting something lost in translation yourself? How do you know that you aren’t interpreting what God said with a bias of your own? How can you expect me to believe anything you said if you have removed my foundation of Christianity and God and have not provided me with another foundation of your own, let alone a way around the contradictions that stand in the way of your statement being truthful?

If what you wrote was written genuinely, then these are questions that should be carefully considered and not ignored or carelessly answered. If this was a troll post without any sincerity or belief behind it, well, then, there’s nothing else to say.

brenni-murasaki

Luce~

Credits: giolyne joestar

anamericangirl

Genuine question for. I'm a biologist and I saw your discourse with someone else over bible interpretations. Which, if you personally wanna use YOUR religion to dictate how YOU operate your life, totally fine. I absolutely respect that. But America is full of Diverse peoples with various religions and beliefs from the Indigenous Americans to the Settlers that consider themselves American to this day. So religion is a little wiggly with the idea of what you choose to apply of course.

Animals Self Abort ALL the time. Self Abortion has been around for millennia of course and I'm sure you already knew that. Animals are creatures of God. Sometimes animals self abort by natural processes such as Starvation or Hormonal triggers. Sometimes they intentionally consume toxic herbs that trigger the effects. It depends on species and global location of course. Genuinely: Do you apply the principle that Animals should not self abort at all while they are creatures made by God? Or how do you apply that if you apply that principle at all? Humans are also Animals. They are animalia (Your alternative option is you are either a plant, virus, fungus, or bacteria). Do Gods rules only apply to Humans despite them being Animals? Or are they the only exception upon which the Rules of the Bible should be applied?

Do you also believe that people of different religions and cultures or beliefs should subscribe to your ideas and beliefs? Or do you believe that they have their own liberties and autonomy? It would help me understand your arguments a lot better, I think.

Well first, the topic of discussion was not which religion should govern the rules on abortion, the topic was specifically what the Bible says about abortion. The op made an inaccurate claim about what the Bible and God say about abortion so we were discussing the Bible's stance on abortion. My arguments against abortion itself, however, are not religious in nature and I only discuss the religious and biblical perspectives on abortion if someone else brings them up first. If we were discussing what abortion laws should be and how we should handle it on a societal level I would not be using my religion as an argument.

Secondly, while humans are scientifically classified as animals we are also very different from the kind of animals you are referring to and I don't think anyone would argue that. Animals do a lot of things we as humans do not and consider wrong so the fact that animals do something is not an argument for humans also being permitted to do that thing. Animals also rape, kill and eat each other and that's considered normal behaviour for them but I would argue that it's unacceptable for humans to engage in such behaviour and I assume you agree with that. So just because we are scientifically classified as animals that doesn't mean we should be using the behaviour of animals as a guide for our own.

From a religious standpoint, since you asked, yes, God's rules only apply to humans because he gave them specifically to humans. God created humans in his image with a soul and we are not considered animals by God. God actually gave us dominion over the animals.

Animals don't have the ability to make moral judgments, people do. And we don't consider these things moral wrongs in the animal kingdom because we know all animals are capable of focusing on is their own survival. And if you really want me to get into the religious aspect of, all of creation was impacted by the fall. Even animal behaviour and relationships changed due to the original sin of man.

As for your last question, I do believe everyone should subscribe to my beliefs because they are correct and I want everyone to know and believe the truth and my religion is an evangelical religion but I believe that everyone has the freedom to believe whatever they want and they absolutely have their own liberties and autonomies and I don't believe in or agree with forcing anyone to adhere to particular religions.

When talking about abortion, though, I already mentioned my beliefs on how we should treat it as a society are not religious in nature. When you live in a society with other people there have to be common rules that are agreed upon and I think not killing each other is a staple rule that everyone should adhere to regardless of their religion. We already have laws against killing people, those laws just aren't applied to the unborn.

tlaquetzqui

Anon, if our religion, specifically, can’t dictate the rules of society, we have to bring back honor-killing and widow burning.

If there’s anything about your society that you prefer to rural India, call the nearest church and thank them, because India is one of the two best Indo-European societies (the other is Zoroastrians).

Trending Blogs

Recently Viewed Blogs

Kiibo's Corner