Stranger Things
occasionally subtle
★
if i look back, i am lost
cherry valley forever
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
dirt enthusiast
RMH
Janaina Medeiros
⁂
shark vs the universe
No title available
Acquired Stardust
Sade Olutola
Discoholic 🪩
Claire Keane
祝日 / Permanent Vacation
we're not kids anymore.
d e v o n
Jules of Nature
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Türkiye
seen from Germany
seen from Mexico
seen from United States
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from Canada
seen from Austria
seen from Italy
seen from Russia
seen from Malaysia
seen from Netherlands
@therebelknights
I bring a sort of "no one deserves to to be murdered" vibe to the political discussion which a large number of people on both sides of the spectrum seem to dislike
If you believe that somebody deserves to die because they do not share your political views, then you possess the exact mindset of every dictator throughout history. You are just like them and if you had the same power they did, you would commit the same atrocities.
The birds that live outside my window have decided (for the past three months) that they must sing as loudly as the possibly can at three/four am evey morning until the sun rises then they can go back to singing at a normal level.
I can still hear them all the same mind you.
"Why dont you play ambient sounds on your computer?"
Not only does their pitch means I can still hear them, it makes them sing even LOUDER.
25 years ago an unknown Chinese protester stood in front of a tank in defiance of the government. No one knows the identity of the man but he was given the nick name “Tank Man”. This is one of the most iconic photographs of the century.
It’s actually been 27 years now since the incident known as the Tiananmen Square Massacre occurred. The picture above, famously referred to as “The Tank Man” was actually taken on June 5, the day after the massacre. (Which honestly makes him the one of the bravest person, to go back and stand up to a regime after such a terrible event transpired)
So what happened? I’m gonna give the TL;DR version:
April 15, 1989. Hu Yaobang, a former Communist Party Chief dies.
Many people, including workers, laborer, students and some officials come to mourn. You see, those protestors were originally there to mourn, not protest.
Time passed and there were some hunger strikes, and protests, and a call for accountability and reform from the government.
Eventually, things went south, because the communist party doesn’t have time to deal with these sorts of “demands” and grievances.
Keep in mind, the people wanted not the end of the Communist Party, but for the party to stop with the official corruption, rule of law, and the gross monopoly of information and power.
Incidentally, China still suffers from all of these SAME problems to this day…
June 3, 1989. The massacre started at night to disperse the crowd. Many were shot, wounded, and killed.
June 4, 1989. Some of the parents of the protestors who never came home went looking for them. It was still total mayhem.
June 5, 1989. The iconic image of the tank man was taken. To this day, no one knows what became of this person.
Content Warning for video: blood
“Tell the world…”
I cannot stress how important it is that people remember and know about this event. Do you know how China responded? With lies and censorship.
Even now, in 2016, we do not have an official death toll on the Tiananmen Square Massacre, the Chinese government doesn’t even acknowledge the event as a “massacre”. And they weaves these cover stories of “counter revolutionaries trying to overthrow the government”. Therefore, the violence was necessary to ~protect~ the people. (Or some bullshit like that)
The amount of lying and censorship in China is, quite frankly, scary amazing. Tumblr, which somehow managed to fly under their radar, found itself being blocked in that country.
After all, tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.
And those who remember the incident in China? …………well, you tell me.
Please at least REMEMBER this tragedy. Untold innocent lives were lost, and a nation has been fed a lie for almost three decades now from their oppressive af regime.
I have never seen this video before.
What the fucking hell.
What the hell.
Tiananmen Square happened when I was seven, and let’s just say children have a really interesting way of interpreting information.
I just remember thinking it was a happy event, because all these people were out on the street, and at first the army were interacting with these people. And it almost looked like a festival because people were singing and talking, and hopeful. And then tv coverage for the events got cut off.
The blocking of the live coverage had all the adults anxious, nobody said anything for ages, I just remember my grandmother saying, “Just be glad your father isn’t in China, now.”
And that stuck with me to this day. Because yeah, if dad had been in China then he would have been in Beijing studying, he would have been on those streets with those other students.
It was the first time I knew that something horrible had happened to all those people I saw on the television. I don’t even remember how I knew that the army must have shot at the civilians, I just knew. Because when you grow up in China, especially in the 80s you knew there were things you don’t say, that you can’t express in a public forum, because that can get you and your family in trouble. You just knew, and it didn’t fucking matter if your were a child or an adult.
To this day I don’t remember how I found out what happened in Tiananmen Square, because the news covered it up, but people found out. My grandparents knew, my uncles and aunts knew. Extended family visited my grandparents, I remember people telling my mother not to mention my father’s name because my father was a Chinese Beijing University graduate, who had gone overseas. Because there were people who died in the protests that my dad knew.
And it was all just so frightening because nobody was telling me directly what was happening, but I just knew that all the people on the streets was probably dead.
Looking back on it, Tiananmen Square instilled in a me a life long distrust of governments, but especially the Chinese government. I’m ethnically Chinese but I never want to return to China, not even for a holiday, and this has been my attitude even before Xi Jinping took power. Because Tiananmen Square was a peaceful protest that ended up with the army using heavy artillery against their own people. How can you trust in a system, in a government like that? Because if my dad had delayed further studies overseas by two years he would have been one of those students, one of those fucking kids on the streets that would have died.
And you know, when the Umbrella movement was happening in Hong Kong I was deeply panicked and just anxious because I kept on thinking all those people, all those kids are going to be killed. And when that didn’t happen it was such a relief.
When I found out years later that Chinese people a few years younger than me didn’t know what happened in Tiananmen Square I was so fucking angry. I can’t even articulate the rage and the sheer tiredness of it all.
Dad and I talked about Tiananmen Square a few times through the years, broadly, politically, and at times with sheer rage on dad’s part. I don’t even know what I wanted to say, but just fuck this fucking regime.
I was In Hong Kong when Tiananamen Square Massacre happened. Hong Kong was still a British colony then and had full freedom of press, and its reporters were there recording live footage while trying to stay as long as possible when tanks rolled in and shots were fired, when students lay in blood and their fellow students piled the injured bodies on those wooden plank carts to get them to the hospitals, while asking the Hong Kongers who were there to support the movement to please remember that night and spread the story of the massacre far and wide, because they already knew they would be silenced, if not imprisoned or murdered.
That night, and in the upcoming months, Hong Kong was in perpetual tears, and in literal shock.
Keep reading
Dangers of working on a set.
That’s what I said.
Okay but you forgot the best part! During the scene where Aragorn, Gandalf and the other Main CharaktersTM ride ahead to go shout at the gate (and talk to the mouth of sauron in the extended edition) they were very firmly told only to ride up ahead “this far” because that area was cleared and beyond that it wasn’t.
But. Viggo Mortensen is absolutely mad and lead them just…. a bit farther than that. Everyone else was very scared they might blow up any second. Viggo said it “added a little extra tension”.
#they just don’t make behind the scenes stories like lotr anymore
Viggo was just Like That™ for the whole trilogy, taking method acting to extreme levels:
he would spend multiple days walking overland to locations in full pack, sword, & armour when everyone else was travelling in trucks
refused to use any prop swords that weren’t actual steel
basically lived in the forest in-costume, sleeping rough under the sky, even fishing & foraging for his food when possible
often spent hours in the barn just bonding with the horses. He adopted the horse he rode, Uranus, after filming ended
repaired all his own gear by hand, which was often since he never took it off
had a tooth knocked out during filming but had the crew simply glue it back in place so they could keep filming
the instructor who taught everyone swordplay said Viggo was the best swordsman he had ever trained
carried his sword literally everywhere & practiced non-stop, resulting in the cops being called when locals reported “a wild man swinging a sword around his head" outside a gym in Wellington
an orc actor fucked up & accidentally threw a dagger directly into Viggo’s face, but Viggo just deflected it with his sword. They kept that shot
infamously broke 3 toes kicking that helmet but stayed in-character & sold his very real scream as part of the scene. They also kept that shot
Viggo insists on doing his own stunts; in The Two Towers where Aragorn is unconscious & floating down the river, the strong current pulled him underwater for so long that a rescue team had to go in to save him. Viggo survived by grabbing a boulder on the riverbed and pulling himself to the surface
It’s probably more accurate to say that Aragorn played Viggo Mortensen in the off season, so I’m 100% unsurprised to hear he put a whole crowd of fellow actors in genuine mortal peril for a 12% increase in authenticity
So this is not something I usually post because it involves something deeply personal about my pregnancy.
In early December we found out that our son is suffering from Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia (CDH), where his diaphragm didn't full close. He is left with a hole in his diaphragm, allowing the organs in his abdomenal cavity to move into his chest cavity, restricting the growth of his lungs and affecting the positioning of his heart.
So far a portion of his intestines, most of his stomach, and now a portion of his liver is sitting in his chest cavity.
He'll need surgery with in days of birth to move the organs back into his abdomen and repair the diaphragm. He is expected to stay in the nicu a minimum of five weeks but could be up to 3 months or more, depending on his progress during pregnancy and how he responds and heals post surgery.
We hope to stay as much time as possible in the NICU with him during his time their.
And thats why I am posting this link today. Its hard for me to ask others for help, especially financial. It would mean the world to us if you could donate money so we can be there for our son.
Donations would go toward loss salary while staying with our son in the NICU, transportation to and from the hospital, food while staying there. Also the money would go toward things needed when we bring him home from the hospital, like the possibility for oxygen needs, feeding tubes and formula, medication, and other monitoring equipment he may need. Additionally, depending on how his hernia progresses before birth, we may need to relocate out of state and we want to be able to have that option to give him the best care.
@robert-the-foul @r0bilargreenleaf
If you can not donate, please share. I’ve provided two different fundraising sites:
Our baby has been diagnosed with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH), a serious condition that will require specialized care and a prolong
Our baby has been diagnosed with congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH), a se… tiffany F needs your support for Help Us Be Present For Our CD
Sharing this again. Our son actually reherniated, and he had excess air in his abdomen from that , plus had some holes and adhesions on parts of his intestines from when they were entangled up in his chest.
They repaired the hernia again , luckily it was small but they added a biological dissolvable mesh to help cover the area. They had to get rid of part of his intestines from the issue that they saw. His blood pressure has been too low, so they don’t think his intestines would properly heal if they attached the pieces of intestines together just yet, so now they are being held outside the body in the meantime.
They told us 6-8 weeks for healing possible then they’ll attached the intestines together.
It’s a set back for sure.
They had mentioned that before they caught this they were considering starting feedings soon and weaning off more things .
Being able to pay for transportation is our biggest concern right now. Then later any specialty equipment or medication may be needed.
New developments: son is still healing, has had some set backs but now my husband is in the ER and needs surgery that’ll probably leave him home from work for a couple weeks.
So no pay, and he may not be able to visit our son until he is cleared to move about more.
I am asking, please, anything will help, as little as a dollar is a dollar toward visiting our son and to help take care of our house.
If you’re able to help, these folks are worthy of our generosity.
The Greek phrase "Δεν ξεχνώ" goes also for our brother ethnoi across the former Ottoman empire! Greeks were also forced to labour - literally - to death along with them in the amele tabourou (Amele Taburları) labour camps. The survival rates were a dozen out of thousands of people, in a system that gave ideas to Hitler.
In Greece we have a very famous book about those labour camps, "The Number 31328, the book of slavery" ("Το Νούμερο 31328 Το βιβλίο της σκλαβιάς") by Greek writer Elias Venezis. From his hometown, Ayvali, 3.000 Christians were taken to the labour camps. From them only 23 survived and he was among them, and wrote this book. I can imagine the similar horrors Armenians underwent. Every April 24th let's remember them and honour them!
Source for photos: eastern_christians on Instagram
I will say it again:
The LGBTQ+ person who asks Christians to "welcome and accept them without telling them they should change" is openly demanding that the Christians change. From being Christians, to being non-Christians.
Because Christ died to save you from who you used to be. When you become a Christian, you're choosing to change from who you were to who He tells you to be. That is Christianity. To tell Christians to stop talking and behaving like that is what they believe is to not only reject Christianity yourself, but demand that they reject it, too.
Do not listen to any influencer, pop culture icon, or person who says to you that Christians do not love LGBTQ+ people, because they say LGBTQ+ people should change who they are.
Christians change who they are. More accurately, they let Christ change who they are. Thats how they became Christians. Truth goes hand in hand with love—it is not opposed to it. But love is not anti-rejection. Love rejects plenty of things. Love rejects hatred, self-focus, and lies.
Don't listen to anyone, "Christian" or otherwise, who tells you different.
Also just want to add that not supporting the LGBTQ+ community doesn’t equal hatred or homophobia. If you have a promiscuous sister and you don’t believe in sleeping around, Christian or not, you are not going to hate her, you are just not supporting her lifestyle, it’s the same for the lgbt community.
Christian’s have done a horrible job on hating people who are apart of the lgbt but know Christ didn’t call us to hate them, He called us to love them.
Disagreeing and being against a lifestyle choice does not equal hate. I’m against my uncle being drunk but I don’t hate him. I’m against my parents being completely unkind to strangers but I don’t hate them. I hate the sin they are trapped in, not the sinner themselves. True love is warning someone they are in a burning building, not watching them go down with it.
Please stop equating alcoholism and dehumanization to queer identities. They are not one and the same.
Queer Christians would like to have a word with OP and everyone agreeing with them but I bet you guys are gonna keep othering us as long as we don’t follow your ideas for what being a Christian is 👍
Everytime you say you love the LGBT+ but do something that leads to them feeling rejected, judged, dehumanized, etc (like constantly comparing and associating them to people who actually harm others; or saying they need to change; for example), you’re not actually loving them. You’re just paying lip service to cover up your sense of self-righteousness and completely ignoring their perspectives on the matter.
Signed,
A queer Christian
PS. What do you all keep referring to when you say LGBT community? They’re not a monolithic, organized group. Ya know, just like Christians.
It's not "our ideas" of what Christians are. The word literally means "little Christ." The first usage was recorded in the Bible, in the context of a culture that affirmed homosexuality, using the term derogatorily.
So the word "Christian" means "Those non-affirming-of-our-lifestyle mini-Christs."
The word "Christian" literally means "acts like Christ." Christ claimed to be Yahweh. Yahweh declares homosexuality, "queerness," a sin. Therefore, there is no such thing as a queer Christian.
It would be like saying, "I'm a carnivorous vegetarian."
Words have meaning. You want to be in this social religious club that flashes a commonly-known name around, meets weekly, and picks and chooses what is true based on nothing but personal preference? Call it something else. Because that's not what "Christian" means.
"Christian" means you're picking up the flag of the Nazarene who lived 2000 years ago and claimed to be the God--the specific God that said, among many other things, "those who practice homosexuality shall not enter the kingdom of God." And that's the only flag you're flying.
Don't like that specific flag? Then you don't like Christianity. Stop pretending.
The Bible's pretty clear that there is such a thing as "the Church," which means people who fit the description "follower of the real Christ" and such a thing as people who call themselves the church but aren't, because they don't follow Christ. You'd have to be willfully ignoring huge chunks of the Bible not to see that, and to say things like "Christianity is not a monolithic, organized group." What do you mean by that? True Christians follow Christ. Christ is real and there are things about Him that are objectively true--and things about Him that are not. It's definable.
Finally, this whole premise of "love does not do anything that leads to someone feeling rejected, judged, dehumanized" comes from where? Says who? Who says that that's not what love does?
If a parent doesn't judge that a little kid's desire to smack their brother across the mouth is wrong, and as a result of that refusal to judge, just lets the kid keep doing it, that parent is unloving. Because the kid will ruin their relationship with their brother, deprive themselves of a positive sibling relationship, and the brother will be physically and emotionally injured, because that brother's natural conclusion is that the un-judging parent doesn't care enough about them to make a judgement call that leads to intervention.
So we've established that "judgement" can be a loving thing to do.
Now let's talk about "rejection." You can feel rejected but not be rejected. When the parent stops the kid from smacking their brother, the smack-happy kid can feel embarrassed and resentful toward the parent. Because on some level, they really wanted to hit their brother. Maybe they even felt it was the right thing to do, quite strongly. And the parent is doing what? Rejecting that desire that the kid has. If the kid identifies strongly enough with their desire to hit the brother? Then the kid will feel "rejected" when the parent rejects that desire by stopping it and declaring it to be wrong. The kid feels rejected. But is the kid rejected? No. The parent rejects that desire the kid is having—it's a wrong desire, it's something the kid shouldn't have and doesn't have to cling to or act on. And the parent knows it's going to hurt the kid. So in calling the desire "wrong," and rejecting it, the parent is doing the opposite of rejecting the kid. Who you are does not have to be what you desire.
So you can love someone while rejecting what they desire—and it's not the same as rejecting who they are.
Last one. Let's go to "dehumanized."
Who gets to decide what "human" means? If it means "never does something wrong that should be turned away from—" and therefore Christians should never make LGBTQ+ people feel like they've done something that's wrong that should be turned away from—then none of us are humans. Because, as stated before, other actions like drunkenness or pettiness or selfishness are wrong and should be turned away from—and that's what all Christians do. They admit their wrong and turn away from it. They actually believe that all humans do wrong things which should be turned away from.
So by definition, if a Christian is saying to someone, "what you're doing and accepting and identifying as is wrong, and it's hurting you, and you should turn away from it—and I know this because I used to do it too" then they're actually including LGBTQ+ people in their group already. They're saying "you're just like me. Except you haven't decided to turn from what's hurting you and embrace Christ as your identity yet. I'm inviting you to do that part."
It's all in 1 Corinthians 6.
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
So we've established that it is not inherently unloving to judge, and just because someone feels rejected or de-humanized doesn't mean that's what they are—nor does it mean those feelings are the result that the Christian intended or communicated.
So. Who gets to decide what "love" means? God, who is Love. Who gets to decide what "Christian" means? Christ, who is God. You can pretend. But you can't change what those words mean, any more than you can change what you are.
Repent and turn to the One who can. It is what I did. It is what all Christians do—we let Him change everything we are because we agree with Him, the righteous Judge, who said we needed it. And it would be unloving for me to say anything else, because letting someone harm themselves by rebelling against the God who judges justly without saying a word is not love.
I say this with the most loving tone possible. But I am not gonna respond to all that, fam. I know the arguments against homosexuality like the back of my hand 🤣 I was like you once. So I’m not gonna engage in a back-and-forth verse-tossing at you cuz until you unpack everything you just said with some ounce of humility. I’m not gonna waste your time.
But I’m also not surprised that you’ve automatically judged me and accused me of not being a Christian. Happens I suppose. But the fact that sexuality is your litmus test for it and not the Gospel or Jesus Christ himself is very telling.
You really should try listening to other Christians and perspectives about all this. You have plenty of brethren out and about who disagree with you, many of which are far more well-read and understanding than you seem to be. People who engage with the text from different angles than just the kind you come from but still are Christians.
My point remains.
It's not accusation. It's an "if -> then" statement. "If" you accept Christ's teachings, you're a Christian. If you don't, you're not. There's no accusation to it: it's just the way it works. Just like if I said, "wait, you can't mean it when you say 'I'm a vegetarian,' you're eating meat." that wouldn't be an accusation. It would be an observation, based on facts. Fact 1: you're claiming to be something. Fact 2: you're contradicting your own claim. That's not an accusation.
I'm not sure what part of the Gospel we're having a misunderstanding of.
The Gospel is: "your sin (a word which means 'your state of doing and being the opposite of what God commands') separates you from a loving and just God who is in charge, and who must punish sin or else He wouldn't be just. You have no way to solve your sin on your own. But if you repent (be willing to submit to Him changing who you are) and trust in Christ, He will take the just punishment that you deserved into Himself and make you a new creation, because He's not only just, He's loving."
What part of that is not Scriptural? What part of that am I wrong about? Because it seems to me like the only part I know for sure you disagree with is the definition of sin as "your state of doing and being the opposite of what God commands" and perhaps "repent."
Jesus said "Why do You call me Lord and not do what I say?" in Luke 6. James 2:26 says "faith without works is dead." The litmus test is the Gospel—the Gospel is that you were changed by Christ. If there's no evidence of that change (obedience) then that would be the basis for my observation (not accusation) that you're living inconsistently to the claim "I'm a Christian."
I don't care how well-read I or anyone else is. I don't care about mankind's viewpoints and how many of them there are. Not because, compared to my understanding, they're unimpressive—but because compared to God's Word they're worthless. Anything good anybody has to say is only that because it lines up with God's truth. Anything else is not good, and not worth listening to.
I have a friend who's a bank teller. He says they teach counterfeit investigators not to look at every new counterfeit that comes up, not to explore every possible variation on the genuine dollar—but instead to study the only real, genuine dollar. You don't have to know everyone's opinion and everyone's take on the truth. You just have to know the truth. I didn't make the truth up, and I didn't decide what it is. I just submit to it and then point to it. And if I didn't, I would be wrong, and it would remain the truth. Who am I, that my experiences or my reading or my opinions or the people I'm listening to should inform God's Word?
Bro, when you talk about Christ’s teachings, you’re referring to the Gospel accounts (stuff like Sermon On the Mount) none of which actually refer to homosexuality as we know it today. He was going for something even deeper in his sermons. Every New Testament teaching about sexuality otherwise has come from Paul, who is not Christ and people debate over what he meant in those verses.
You’re throwing in all these ideas and claims and verses to make yourself appear like you know what you’re talking about. I am not even accusing you of not being a Christian, just challenging your claim that LGBT+ folk by mere association and identity are inherently un-Christian or that it’s impossible to be queer and Christian (Where are my Side A and Side B people at? 🤣). Meanwhile you are implying to know my faith, know how God is working (or not working) in my life. But you don’t actually know me. You’ve never met me, never spoken to me in conversation. I can admit that in my own life I do not necessarily always live out Christ-likeness (just like everyone else). But I don’t think these views are part of that issue.
Your approach is a very problematic way to look at your neighbors, very imperialistic in nature I argue. It’s Othering 101 because you’re so hellbent on believing you’re right and that every word you speak is stamped with “God-approved” that everyone else who says differently isn’t.
You’re so caught up with your views of Christianity and the Bible that you can’t even consider the possibility that everything you’ve said could be wrong or possibly inaccurate or not the entire message.
Meanwhile I’ve learned that I don’t need absolute certainty in this area of my life (sexuality or Scriptures I mean). I can have faith on God being here with me. I have Him. Christ came down on the cross to save me. He loves me. I love and live for Him. If that means changing how I approach my queer neighbors, then so be it as long as the Gospel is not just shared but lived out.
Believe it or not there are also different interpretations or views of what sin is, what hell and heaven are, etc. So yes that includes sexuality.
I’m done replying to this, cuz this just feels like you’re yapping your mouth at me and treating me like a sounding board. Think of me however you want but you don’t actually know me. You’re speaking to a complete stranger who decided to spend time challenging you a little as a fellow believer. And then you go on about claiming that I, someone you’ve never actually met or spoken to, am not a Christian.
I don’t have to answer to you or defend myself. God can speak for me and if He decides to give me a huge slice of humble pie then so be it. He’s done that plenty of times in my life. But your approaches and assumptions about other people are dangerous and in fact quite antichrist.
Have a good day and God bless.
Even if what you were saying about the Sermon on the Mount were true, it would not change the fact that Jesus claimed to be God, and God declared homosexuality a sin in both the Old and New Testament. It also wouldn't cover the inferences in Genesis about God's plan for sexuality.
Just because "people debate" over Paul's teaching (which was referred to as Scripture by Peter, and is therefore just as valid as Christ's words in the Sermon on the Mount) does not mean that the truth hasn't been revealed. We debate over things that are obviously true beyond reasonable debate all the time: atheists still debate the existence of God. I'd be interested to know if you think that means God doesn't exist: simply because they're debating the matter.
Paul meant homosexuality; the same gender sleeping with the same gender. You have to do hermeneutical gymnastics to come up with any other excuse for what Scripture says.
Listen, you're the one telling me what I am and am not doing. You're making a lot of "you're so this," and "you're doing that" statements. But you're not actually responding to the points I'm making. How can I even consider that what I've believed has holes if you would rather tell me what kind of attitude I have than respond to what I've stated I've believed?
That's not the Biblical definition of "challenging another believer."
I'd like to know who this God is that you have faith in. You're telling me it's the God of Christians, and you're very insistent that I'm wrong to even suggest your faith is not in the God of Christians...but you're ignoring the only way that specific God has chosen to reveal Himself, which is Scripture.
It would genuinely be like me saying, "I don't have to understand qui-qui-quee's reblogs, I can make decisions based on who qui-qui-quee is." Well, that statement is meaningless. Because I can only put my faith in something known. And all I can know about you, all I have available to put my faith in, (in this context) is your reblogs. In this context, that's how you've chosen to let me get to know you. So if I ignore the only window I have into who you are, but still insist that my faith is in who you are, I'm just saying "my faith is in my idea of qui-qui-quee." Because I can't be saying my faith is in who you are—I've chosen to ignore your revelation of who you are. My faith's really in me, in this illustration.
I'm not saying that 100% for sure your faith is not in God. But every action we take is faith-based, and that faith has to be intentionally placed on something every time.
You don't have to answer me. But you have to answer God: how do you know what He wants with this whole homosexuality thing? Not "how do you know what people say He wants?" Not "how do you know what your ideal god wants?" Not "how do you know what you would want if you were a god?" Not "how do I you know what you feel like God wants?"
You have to answer this question to God: "Has my goal been to figure out what You want, as if nothing and nobody else matters except You? And have I accomplished that goal, or have I just gone with whatever feels most comfortable?"
For the word of God is alive and powerful. It is sharper than the sharpest two-edged sword, cutting between soul and spirit, between joint and marrow. It exposes our innermost thoughts and desires. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God. Everything is naked and exposed before His eyes, and He is the one to whom we are accountable. Hebrews 4:12-13
We either submit to the God of Scripture, or we follow something else entirely.
Choose this day whom you will serve.
@quiche-quibbles is right.
I hate seeing this post going around because it is so much of the same thing we all have heard too many times before and it's exhausting making the same arguments again and again. So I've ignored it to this point. But...
It's exhausting being compared to murderers and drug addicts and such simply for inborn and unchangeable qualities. No, being attracted to one gender or the other does not automatically make you either evil or holy.
Secondly, as quiche-quibbles intimated, there are many queer Christians who do follow the biblical rules, who make the choice to abstain from sexual relationships forever. We're still LGBTQ+ and we're still Christians. (And I wonder if you would make that sacrifice yourself?)
And yes, we are called to accept and love people where they are. First of all, you can't force somebody to convert. Only God can transform a heart. Constantly harping on people about how they're wrong and sinful will only drive them away, and how will you teach them the right path when they've learned to avoid you?
What happens with all this talk about queer people "not being Christian" and "having to change before they can be loved" (side note, do you have to be sinless before you can be loved? Do you extend this attitude to your own pet vices? I wonder why God bothered to send His only Son to wash you in His BLOOD, WHILE YOU WERE STILL SINFUL, unless he did love you already, unless he already saw you as His beloved child, a member of the body of Christ, WHILE YOU WERE STILL SINFUL?)
This attitude doesnt encourage anybody to change, it simply makes it clear to queer people that there is no space for them in your community. And why would anybody be inspired to change by that kind of behavior?
Anyhow, if you actually have any interest in this topic, I'd recommend everyone read Gay and Catholic by Eve Tushnet. It's the best resource I've found for discussing the issue of what it is like to be queer and Christian, and I believe it would be very accessible to a straight audience as well. It might be eye opening if you've never really considered the issue from our side before.
I’d recommend you read Gay Girl, Good God by Jackie Hill Perry.
You’re ignoring everything that’s been said to this point, so I’m not surprising it feels exhausting—on both sides. I’ll summarize it, because it is a lot to read:
Inborn qualities they cannot change, as opposed to drug addicts and alcoholics - You’re misunderstanding the point. According to Scripture, all of those things are, in a sense, something we begin with that we can’t overcome on our own. It’s called “sin.” We don’t desire the things we were made to desire. That is the area in which the comparison is made. A substance to gain satisfaction from, a human relationship to gain satisfaction from—that’s all under the same Scriptural banner of “filling a need you were never made to have and do not have to have if you’ll submit to God.” So in that sense: yes, it’s “inborn” because all mankind has fallen from what God created them to be—and yes, it’s a choice to continue in it. That’s what the Gospel is. That’s what the plan for salvation from all sin is. Homosexuality, transgenderism, everything that;s not God’s original plan, they’re not special cases. They’re just in the long list of twisted desires from the fall. That’s all. But you’re absolutely right that being attracted to “one gender or the other does not automatically make you either evil or holy.” The Bible says “there is none good.” We’re all evil. Before Christ. That’s the Gospel.
there are many queer Christians who do follow the biblical rules, who make the choice to abstain from sexual relationships forever. We're still LGBTQ+ and we're still Christians. - I wonder if I’d make that sacrifice too. But by the grace of God I have sacrificed other things that my flesh wants, because I know that I can’t have that and Christ. So according to the definition of “Christian,” which is, “take up your cross, die to yourself, and follow Christ; identify with Christ, nothing else,” I would never call myself, “LGBTQ+.” No matter what feelings I have. I don’t classify myself by anything other than “identified with Christ.” Especially not “my feelings; my sexual impulses.” That’s plain in everything Jesus said. So, the statement is still true: “There is no such thing as a queer Christian.” Because to call yourself “queer” is not just to acknowledge that you sometimes have lustful desires outside of God’s will for you—it’s to identify with those. It’s to claim that’s part of who you are, when Christ says, “no, you were washed, you are clean, do not call what God calls ‘clean’ ’unclean.’” A Christian boasts in, identifies in, nothing but Christ. So you can’t be both.
And yes, we are called to accept and love people where they are. First of all, you can't force somebody to convert. Only God can transform a heart. Constantly harping on people about how they're wrong and sinful will only drive them away, and how will you teach them the right path when they've learned to avoid you? - Not if by “accept and love people where they are” you mean, “call sin ‘not sin.’” Or “never bring up the fact that they’re treating sin like it is not sin.” If that’s your definition of “accept” and “love people where they are,” it’s not Jesus’ definition. He told the woman at the well that she needed living water; He didn’t settle for just letting her live the way she was living. There’s no reason for Him to die if there’s no acknowledgement that something was wrong, and broken, which needed fixing. Secondly, no, of course you can’t force somebody to convert. And of course only God can transform a heart. We’re not commanded to force conversion or change hearts; we’re commanded to speak the truth in love, and obey in that way, and God will do the rest. Who’s “constantly harping on people about how they’re wrong and sinful?” This post was to Christians, about the lie that you can’t tell people that, to be a Christian, you must be changed by Christ. Thats what the post was about. Telling someone that what they’re doing is wrong and sinful is not the same as harping on someone. And that’s certainly not what this post was about. Again, read what I said: love rejects plenty of things. It is not anti-rejection. It’s just a matter of what ot rejects. What does the Bible say about
What happens with all this talk about queer people "not being Christian" and "having to change before they can be loved" (side note, do you have to be sinless before you can be loved? Do you extend this attitude to your own pet vices? I wonder why God bothered to send His only Son to wash you in His BLOOD, WHILE YOU WERE STILL SINFUL, unless he did love you already, unless he already saw you as His beloved child, a member of the body of Christ, WHILE YOU WERE STILL SINFUL?) - I didn’t say they had to be changed before they could be loved. You’re reading that into what I said, because your definition of “love” seems to be “don’t tell me when I’m wrong.” “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, so that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.” God loved the world. Which spurred Him on to action. To do what? Make the relationship right, after sin broke it. See how the sin has to be acknowledged? I never said otherwise. You're reading that into what I said. There’s a response to God’s love required. You can’t just say, “well He loves me, so I’ll keep living for the things that He died to save me from.” Don’t put words in my mouth.
This attitude doesnt encourage anybody to change, it simply makes it clear to queer people that there is no space for them in your community. And why would anybody be inspired to change by that kind of behavior? - It’s not my job or my goal, nor was it the command I was given, to “inspire them to change.” That’s up to God. Already said that. There is no space for someone who identifies with their sin, as if it is not sin, under the word “Christian.” Just like there is no space for someone who eats meat under the word “vegetarian.” That is how it works. Feels like, again, you’re exhausting yourself by arguing against things I never said, and ignoring what I did make clear.
“Your side” is not really a “side” in the grand scheme of things. I’m not saying that your experience is not personal, or unique—in a certain category. But broadly? You’re no different from me. The Bible says so. We’re both broken by sin. We both need Jesus the same amount—and we need Him to change us. Thats the point of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.
Really good response here! As someone who struggles with same sex attraction, I don’t want my identity to be connected to sexual sin. I am a new creation, the old is gone. 💕
Fandom Problem #15,028:
What are the chances that both of the books I read about the Barbary slave trade, one fiction and one non-fiction, go out of their way to be politically correct and say the European slaves' lives weren't that bad, right after showing how horrendous they were?
The fiction book, The Sealwoman's Gift, got my goat by having the heroine be attracted to her fucking slaver.
The non-fiction book, The Stolen Village: Baltimore and the Barbary Pirates, bewildered me by concluding - after a long description of the hell the slaves lived in - that they and their children lived happily ever after with their slavers, and isn't it wonderful that some modern North Africans can trace their ancestry back to European rape victims?
What. The. Fuck.
After a tragic fire that took the life of a chambermaid, The Hotel Nantucket began a slow downfall into the ruin building in the modern day. That is until London billionaire Xavier Darling rebuilds the hotel and hires Nantucket sweetheart Lizbet Keaton as his general manager, who is determined to make this hotel a five key resort with her small, but trustworthy staff handle the typical hotel problems, while the chambermaid maybe haunted.
a non-selective plan for the resurgence of fic commissions
Too many children in the comments like ‘I think authors should be able to share ko-fi links :) it’s just nice’ and ‘OP is just a cop.’ Homie, OP is trying to keep AO3 fully functional without interruption. I will report your ass, too, because I value fic artists and our freedom of expression and my audience and our shared history far more than I value the few bux you wanna make on a commission.
It is not hard to link to your Tumblr or Twitter with a vague message like, “If you’re looking for my other works or other ways of supporting me, go here: link.” I have had people buy me coffees after enjoying my fic and asking where to support me. I threw up a link to my Tumblr and people cared enough to follow it. They were fully understanding when I explained in the comments that they could not commission me and I could not link them directly to any donation platform, but they could go to xyz link to read more. And they did! Nobody has to put AO3 directly on the firing line.
Go ahead and commission independently. Just do it anywhere else except on AO3. And then don’t come crying to the community when you, personally, get a C&D from a massive corporation.
AO3 is our bullet shield. Tumblr will pull your shit down. Wattpad won’t fucking protect you. LJ and FF.net already sold our asses for one (1) corn chip. AO3 is trying to protect us, you goddamn lemmings.
If you cannot follow the rules that protect fanspaces, you do not belong in our fanspaces.
The only people who misunderstand this are doing so intentionally and maliciously. Do yourself a favor and block the infants who think this isn’t a big deal.
Please remember that this ALSO INCLUDES FANDOM CHARITY AUCTIONS.
When you post charity auction fics, DO NOT note that they are commissions in any way. You can note them as “here is my thank you gift to X for such-and-such event” but please please PLEASE do not list them as commissions.
I think a lot of younger people are seeing this as a moral panic by OP. These are NOT being laid out as moral injunctions! This is not about being good! This is about covering your own ass and keeping fandom away from larger-scale legal trouble. No one is saying “If you break the rules you’re BEING BAD!” They’re trying to tell you “breaking these rules is DANGEROUS for yourself and potentially others as well!”
What transphobia actually is:
Firing someone solely for being trans
Being denied housing solely for being trans
Physically assaulting and murdering someone solely for being trans
What is not transphobia
Someone not wanting to date/have sex with a trans person
Acknowledging biological sex and differences
Women wanting their own single sex spaces (sports, gyms, clubs, etc.)
Okay everyone I been having a argument with someone
But have Arabs and Muslims ever suffered a genocide or been an oppressed by another group for the past 1500 years?
All my sources say that they never once suffered a genocide or oppression they inflicted on other groups like the Jewish people, Middle East Christians, Iranians, etc.
Sooo did they went through a genocide?
The Nakba sound like what racist southerners say “ the war of northern aggression” so I can’t be ass about it since Palestinians still have a “Abeed” neighborhood
But has the Arabs or any Muslims group truly suffered a genocide like those they inflicted upon others to this day?
My autistic mind find that borderline impossible to believe if Arabs or Islamic groups are telling the truth
The Turks oppressed the arabs a lot while the ottoman empire was a thing, that's a easy one, we can go back further and see all kinds of groups going after all kinds of other groups.
That's just how history be.
I'll let others that can be more detailed than me go at it here though
So if I'm understanding correctly at the information you're looking for your effectively trying to see if Arabs and Muslims have had to deal with the same type of persecution and broad-scale death that groups like the Christians and the Jews have had to deal with for literally generations.
And which the answer to your question is no but also yes. Generally speaking some of the biggest persecutors of Arabs and Muslims have been other Arabs and other Muslims. Specifically in regards to individuals who are either not seen as extreme enough or not seen as faithful enough. You often see purges of entire groups or regions because they are seen as heretics even when realistically they aren't. And this has been a consistent trend for the entire existence of Islam actually.
It's kind of like how communist or extremely good at killing communists. In this same way Arabs and Muslims are phenomenal killing other Arabs and Muslims.
Van Gogh’s Starry Night Furisode. Gofukusayan
Did you know that races and nations in fantasy stories aren't always representative of real life people? Sometimes a race of evil creatures who are born wicked is NOT a stand-in for whichever race the writer hates.
An evil nation can represent things like corruption, despair, sin, sickness, hatred, self-doubt, trauma- anything that poses a threat and must be overcome by good can be represented by an army of evil. Often an evil race represents evil itself and the hero defeating them is good triumphing over evil. Call it cliche, but it's rarely racist. Would it be less problematic if the good guys killed good people rather than evil monsters? If the heroes represent pure good, then their villains being evil isn't racist. It's normal.
Not to mention that even in the scenario where the evil army in a story represents a real group, it still might not be racist. Great example: Fantasy Nazis. Is it fair to say that every person in Nazi Germany was pure evil? Absolutely not. Do we need to address that nuance in a fantasy story about their victims? No!
Some people don't read stories in good faith. They make a checklist of forbidden tropes and use them as proof that a story is problematic. Instead of policing the words creatives are allowed to use, we should focus on what they use those words to say.
Also I think if you see a fantasy race and immediately think "well they're terrible! They must represent X race!" Perhaps. The problem is you.
We know that Jesus was a perfect child, and teach that children should obey their parents. Scripture says "He returned to Nazareth and was subject to them in all things."
Even if you reject the idea that the Faithful Dead can pray for people here on earth, then this passage alone means God obeyed Mary for around 30 years.
For 30 years Jesus also subjected himself to the laws of nature, and the ravaging effects of sin and death. He also subjected himself to every earthly authority in perfect submission to the law, as God also commands us to do, since Jesus is not a hypocrite and perfectly obeyed his own commands, paying the temple tax and obeying the laws of Caesar, only excepting laws customs & demands which were evil, of course, since he would put God's law first. Yet, it is not inaccurate to say that for 30 years Jesus made himself subject to Caesar.
Yet no one would say that implies that "God obeys Caesar."
Likewise Jesus perfectly obeyed all the laws of Moses but you cannot just say "At the command of Moses, all obey, even God."
Maybe don't just cherry pick phrases?? The next sentence clarifies that Mary is only omnipotent by grace, while Jesus is omnipotent by nature. The following paragraphs are about how her power comes from Jesus always indulging her requests and that her entire life she only wanted to give glory to God and help the helpless.
Edgy opinion maybe but a spade doesn't stop being a spade just because you attach the words "by grace" to it. "Omnipotent" has a meaning. It is a characteristic that only God can have.
Isaiah 42:8 "I am the LORD (Yahweh), that in my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols."
Okay, we got a new one, boys.
Close enough welcome back Chekov's gun.
Prev you can’t bury this in your own tags
