(via magicandoldinvention)

REBLOG

whatshouldwecallme:

GPOY GPOY GPOY

REBLOG

stfuconservatives:

nextyearsgirl:

stfuconservatives:

ethiopienne:

deliciouskaek:

14kgoldnyc:

sanityscraps:

goldenheartedrose:

soultired:

goldenheartedrose:

inflateablefilth:

nothingaboutus-withoutus:

artemispotter:

(snipped)

This is an enormous chain and I’m sorry, but I need to say this:

The laws in the Old Testament were set forth by god as the rules the Hebrews needed to follow in order to be righteous, to atone for the sin of Adam and Eve and to be able to get into Heaven. That is also why they were required to make sacrifices, because it was part of the appeasement for Original Sin.

According to Christian theology, when Jesus came from Heaven, it was for the express purpose of sacrificing himself on the cross so that our sins may be forgiven. His sacrifice was supposed to be the ultimate act that would free us from the former laws and regulations and allow us to enter Heaven by acting in his image. That is why he said “it is finished” when he died on the cross. That is why Christians don’t have to circumcise their sons (god’s covenant with Jacob), that is why they don’t have to perform animal sacrifice, or grow out their forelocks, or follow any of the other laws of Leviticus.

When you quote Leviticus as god’s law and say they are rules we must follow because they are what god or Jesus wants us to do, what you are really saying, as a Christian, is that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was invalid. He died in vain because you believe we are still beholden to the old laws. That is what you, a self-professed good Christian, are saying to your god and his son, that their plan for your salvation wasn’t good enough for you.

So maybe actually read the thing before you start quoting it, because the implications of your actions go a lot deeper than you think.

/An atheist who understands Christian theology better than Bible-thumpers do.

^

(mic drop)

(Source: drunkonstevphen)

REBLOG
ad-sidera-caeli:

from xkcd, if that wasn’t already obvious

ad-sidera-caeli:

from xkcd, if that wasn’t already obvious

REBLOG

Fifty Shades of Grey is a Twilight fan fiction turned New York Times bestseller that has coined the new term “mommy Porn” Originally starring the famed Bella and Edward from the Twilight universe, the protagonists were re-written as the charmingly sadistic and financially successful Christina grey and the inexperienced Anastasia Steele. Fifty Shades of Grey is the first book of three tracing their unique relationship. Christian identifies as a dominant in his sexual relationships that revolve solely around BDSM, more commonly known as bondage. He sets his sights on Anastasia to be his new submissive who has difficulty acquiescing to this new role, to say the least.

Anastasia is a character who despite having lengthy narratives in the novel, seems to lack any real personality or depth as a person. After the initial blossoming of their relationship, she rarely talks about anything else. Each event in her life seems only to be discussed in relation to her new beau. She sleep with Christian for the first time after the first few days, which in this day and age is socially acceptable for a strong self actualized sexual being, but does someone who can only refer to her vagina as “down there” really have any business having sex to begin with?

Christian Grey who of course on top of being emotionally damaged and unavailable in that oh-so-enticing way is also obscenely wealthy and continually lavishes gifts on Anastasia. While Anastasia continually rejects (and then later accepts) each and every one of his expenditures and with the thinly veiled insistence that she doesn’t care about his money; you have to wonder if he wasn’t that rich, would she really be that keen on visiting his “Red Room of Pain”?

The novel relies heavily on an appropriated idea of what BDSM culture is to titillate audiences. Christian has to be emotionally damaged from an abusive childhood in order for readers to accept him as a likeable character and to justify his esoteric sexual preferences. Anastasia has to fight against submission in the attempt to make her a strong female character despite the fact that she seems to only be capable of talking about Christian and her pseudo-anorexic eating habits.

The novel overall fell short of expectations. The racy content may be a hit with the suburban house wives, but perhaps it should have remained a Twilight fan fiction.

REBLOG

(Source: surreallaerrus, via whatsjohnbeensmoking)

REBLOG
nightbecomesme:

bookwoman84:

romanticillusions:


Mary Badham and Gregory Peck on the set of To Kill a Mockingbird (1962). The two kept in touch after filming, and she continued to call him Atticus until the day he died.

#actually required to reblog to kill a mockingbird always
(I love my Scout) 

She called him Atticus until the day he died.

nightbecomesme:

bookwoman84:

romanticillusions:

Mary Badham and Gregory Peck on the set of To Kill a Mockingbird (1962). The two kept in touch after filming, and she continued to call him Atticus until the day he died.

#actually required to reblog to kill a mockingbird always

(I love my Scout) 

She called him Atticus until the day he died.

(via whatsjohnbeensmoking)

REBLOG

I tried to explain to my coworker about how i don’t have a certain “type” of guy I like, there’s always just this something. And he was like “I think your just attracted to people with shitty personalities”

REBLOG

(Source: deprivedofmesmerism)

REBLOG
whatsjohnbeensmoking:

Amanda Palmer.

whatsjohnbeensmoking:

Amanda Palmer.

REBLOG