Tumgik
#religion mention?
missnekonyan · 7 months
Text
Tumblr media
Hallelujah! She's back!
3 notes · View notes
heffrondriving · 2 years
Text
heaven please grant me the sheer willpower to not listen to Fall by Big Time Rush at least fifty times consecutively every time it comes up on my playlist.......my brother in christ i am not god's strongest soldier :'(((
7 notes · View notes
prokopetz · 5 months
Text
Bryan Lee O'Malley remarking that he had Scott explicitly spell out that his relationship with Knives was inappropriate in Scott Pilgrim Takes Off because he feels like a lot of the comic's readers maybe didn't pick up on that is very funny not only because how do you not, but also because the original Scott Pilgrim comics are some of the most didactic media I've ever read outside of, like, medieval Christian allegories about the wages of sin. It's just constantly explaining to the reader exactly why Scott is a bad person, sometimes with little annotated diagrams. Genuinely, what's it gonna take for the twentysomething male audience not to idolise a loser?
20K notes · View notes
awakefor48hours · 5 months
Text
I saw a post about this so now I'm curious
New poll with more options if you want there
please consider reblogging for a larger sample size unless you're planning to say something that's anti-theistic
8K notes · View notes
Text
You know what? I want a whole post for this:
Sex Repulsion is not the same thing as, or an excuse for, Sex Negativity
non-negotiable!
I am a sex-repulsed asexual. This means that I am uncomfortable and repulsed by the idea of engaging in sexual acts. This does not mean that I have an excuse to be repulsed by other people's sexual attraction or the right to police how other people engage in or express sexual acts or attraction.
Young queer people need to learn the difference between sex repulsion and sex negativity, and actively work to unlearn sex-negative attitudes. Asexuality, even sex-repulsed asexuality, is and should be fully compatible with sex positivity.
If you are uncomfortable with the idea of other people feeling sexual attraction or engaging in sexual acts that do not involve you in any way, that is not sex repulsion it is the cultural Christianity and you need to seriously work on that.
8K notes · View notes
outofcontextdiscord · 7 months
Text
Tumblr media
2K notes · View notes
what-even-is-thiss · 9 days
Text
I think a lot of people's idea of how religion works is that it's just an oppression factory or something. I'm not even just talking about Christianity here. It's like when people choose to wear clothing specific to their religion and people try to tell them that they're oppressed and they're like no lol my family would support me if I decided against it I chose this of my own free will and people still try to preach to them about their own experience or something.
Like yeah mandatory caveat that you need to believe people about their religious trauma but sometimes it really is fine. Sometimes it's hard to tell when it's fine. Sometimes it's not fine. And that's life. Religions are connected to identity and family and politics and heritage. All extremely messy things that don't have an inherent goodness or badness to them. Religion can be a tool of the oppressor or empowerment for the oppressed. Both things can be true at once. I'm not here trying to make excuses for anyone or anything. I'm just like. It's complicated. It's all complicated. It's more complicated than a lot of you seem to think it is.
971 notes · View notes
midnightsslut · 5 days
Text
religion is one of the most prominent recurring themes on the album, and it has been present in some capacity for quite a few records now. taylor previously compared love to religion: her saving grace, her belief system, and a fated divine intervention (false god, cornelia street, and cruel summer are the best examples of this). ‘sacred new beginnings that became my religion’ and ‘we’d still worship this love even if it’s a false god’ are two of the defining statements about her philosophy on the lover album.
taylor doesn’t want to leave all of that behind on ttpd, at least not at the beginning. the first supernatural force she mentions is the spaceship on down bad, which she compares to a skylight of freedom in the epilogue. *something* has finally come to save her from her life of suffering. she doesn’t care if it’s a force of good at first; if anything, she’s just fine being taken away by aliens. she views this man as her destiny. it isn’t until guilty as sin? that taylor starts to ponder the moral implications of what she’s doing. is she guilty as sin for wanting to leave her previous religion and relationship behind? she comes to the conclusion that, even if she rolls the stone away and gets resurrected/redeemed, she cannot avoid the fallout. she is okay with the thought of having to wait, as long as both lovers vow to be together forever, just as she once did with someone else in false god. ‘I choose you and me religiously’ finishes the bridge of the song in a direct callback to cornelia street.
the next mention of religion has murkier imagery. she claims that she does not need the Lord’s help to save this man. she sees the halo that he has, and she can fix him herself. now that she feels free of her prior cage, she isn’t looking for divine intervention anymore. she wants control. she is their route to salvation.
when the relationship falls apart, she retreats back into the position of a believer rather than a divine figure. she compares him to a Holy Ghost who promised to save her and take her to heaven. instead, she is in hell in every sense of the word: she’s down bad and feels guilty for digging up the grave. he was a jehovah’s witness who promised that she could break free of the cage imposed by love without changing her religion altogether; she would’ve just had to switch denominations. she could still have a marriage and kids! she could still have a blue tortured poet! the man was different, but not the dreams they had together. the story of the first part of the album ends here. her faith has been broken, and she has only found any semblance of sanity by refusing to mention these belief systems altogether.
side b/the anthology blends the christian imagery of side a with goddesses, sorcerers, and prophecies. she bargains with these powers to let her have the future she wants (the prophecy). she doesn’t sound like someone believing in salvation. if anything, she feels cursed. she decides that the concept of divinely ordained timing will never work in certain relationships (‘the goddess of timing once found us beguiling / she said she was trying / peter, was she lying?’). this disdain extends onto her perception of other people’s faith (‘bet they never spared a prayer for my soul’). she does position herself as a prophet in cassandra, but even then, she admits that the role has hurt her. perhaps the pain in thank you aimee was meant to be, or perhaps she was just strong enough to build a legacy in spite of it, boulder by boulder. is she a martyr? does she want to be? or did she save herself?
the only real love song on this half of the album makes no mention of fate or any divine forces. it wasn’t meant to be. it’s not a supernatural invisible string or lightning in a bottle. she is just in love.
the album ends with the manuscript, which revisits an old story of a defining, formative heartbreak. as she sings ‘at last, she knew what the agony had been for’ while describing the legacy of her writing, she seems to revert to thinking about the purpose of trauma. the only exception is that, in this case, she is the one who found meaning in her pain by turning it into a manuscript. writing is her belief system now, and she proselytizes by telling her stories and thus giving up the manuscript.
ultimately, her belief in destiny has chewed her up and spat her out. she so desperately clung to her existing belief systems that she was fooled by a conman, which left her feeling cursed. religion is supposed to be with someone even in their darkest moments, but the album explains that taylor often felt abandoned. the only constant in her life was, well, herself. she’ll be okay, but her pen will be her saving grace.
746 notes · View notes
i-am-a-freg · 6 months
Text
Friendly reminder to everyone that biblically accurate angels also include angels that look like men. Not all angels appear as terrifying multi eyed thingies. “Be not afraid” is not said only when they appear as terrifying multi eyed thingies. You would also be freaked out if a beautiful man appeared to you whilst you were alone in your house praying to God.
1K notes · View notes
aalghul · 17 days
Text
jason doesn’t feel guilty for the murders he committed!!! he can’t feel catholic guilt or want repentance or atonement for something he doesn’t feel guilt about! and there are dozens of religions we could explore jason in that would be so much more fun than catholicism or any type of christianity
603 notes · View notes
puppetmaster13u · 4 months
Text
Prompt 171
Danny would like everyone to know it was a complete accident. Look, normally he was really good at not altering the timeline! He was! 
But the dude was definitely not in the right Time, and he had to get his trust which took so long, like damn he thought he had anxiety. Seriously though, kevlar in the 1700s? Yeah that wasn’t right, and Peepaw always complained about the messes that the speedsters caused, so he was trying to prevent a mess by tugging the dude away and helping him out. 
Falling in love maybe a little, was not in the plan. But honestly the man had a worse sense of self preservation than he did as a teen and was also straight up adorable, in a wet cat  who could kill you sort of way. 
So maybe he helped the dude grab a child that was going to be drowned. It wasn’t like anyone else saw them! Even if similar situations might’ve happened a few different times. 
Still, no one saw them! 
So why is there now a small cult who worships the Shadowed one and Radiant one, aka his companion (who would not give his name save for B, which, fair, probably didn’t want to accidentally wreck the timeline either) and well, him?! At least they worship them as guardians of children, but uh. Should he maybe, perhaps, fix this…? 
802 notes · View notes
missnekonyan · 1 year
Text
I want to see a local musical yesterday and it was really good! I won’t mention the name explicitly for location reasons, but it was fun to watch~ I’d say that it’s my 2nd time watching a musical. The 1st was 1 of Noah’s arc that I watched in 1st grade.
3 notes · View notes
shiftythrifting · 1 month
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
sorry to blow up your submissions but i have a lot of pics of thrifted things and i only just found this blog and im excited
462 notes · View notes
prokopetz · 6 days
Note
Do you happen to know the origin of the fantasy trope in which a deity's power directly corresponds to the number of their believers / the strength of their believers' faith?
I only know it from places like Discworld and DnD that I'm fairly confident are referencing some earlier source, but outside of Tinkerbell in Peter Pan, I can't think of of any specific work it might've come from, 20th-c fantasy really not being my wheelhouse.
Thank you!
That's an interesting question. In terms of immediate sources, I suspect, but cannot prove, that the trope's early appearances in both Dungeons & Dragons and Discworld are most immediately influenced by the oeuvre of Harlan Ellison – his best-known work on the topic, the short story collection Deathbird Stories, was published in 1975, which places it very slightly into the post-D&D era, though most of the stories it contains were published individually earlier – but Ellison certainly isn't the trope's originator. L Sprague de Camp and Fritz Leiber also play with the idea in various forms, as does Roger Zelazny, though only Zelazny's earliest work is properly pre-D&D.
Hm. Off the top of my head, the earliest piece of fantasy fiction I can think of that makes substantial use of the trope in its recognisably modern form is A E van Vogt's The Book of Ptath; it was first serialised in 1943, though no collected edition was published until 1947. I'm confident that someone who's more versed in early 20th Century speculative fiction than I am could push it back even earlier, though. Maybe one of this blog's better-read followers will chime in!
(Non-experts are welcome to offer examples as well, of course, but please double-check the publication date and make sure the work you have in mind was actually published prior to 1974.)
4K notes · View notes
awakefor48hours · 5 months
Text
I want to give more options to this poll so
*Also, I’ll let you decide what you define “religion.”
Like last time, please consider reblogging for a larger sample size unless you’re planning to say something anti-theistic
6K notes · View notes
titkoks · 2 years
Text
17K notes · View notes