Taking
Taking

Taking

The
The

The

That
That

That

You Know
You Know

You Know

Off
Off

Off

Track
Track

Track

over-this
over-this

over-this

plant
plant

plant

dont
 dont

dont

follow
 follow

follow

🔥 | Latest

Apparently, Dude, and Fucking: wha!? Sl BAPU BAPTIST CHUR(H SUS DISGUST MyCHILD Dortyouatti? SaSin!God condemns W all! BRIAN heed to have a talk 0 CHRISTIANS CELEBRATE TH ISLAMIC TEMPUE I didnt die ona Cross for this BS RADICAL righte homoSexvality ar the last 2.000 yearsold. prismatic-bell: the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99: prismatic-bell: broken-bits-of-dreams: prismatic-bell: aiko-mori-hates-pedos: artbymoga: Throwback to all these Jesus comics I drew in 2012… Good post OP Good post, OP, and if you ever decide to do another may I please suggest “NOT IN HEBREW IT DOESN’T” as a punchline? So much of the Old Testament is HORRIFICALLY translated from the Tanakh, it drives me batty. WAIT WAIT WHAT DOES IT SAY?????? I NEED TO LIKE,, DESTROY MI MUM FOR BEING REALLY HOMOPHOBIC Okay, so, strictly speaking, the infamous Leviticus 18:22 does say “forbidden.” Here’s the thing: 1) The word translated as “forbidden” is “toevah.” While that translation isn’t … wrong, it’s sort of like saying “McMansion” means “really big house.” There are a lot of connotations in that word. The specific issue with toevah is that we … sort of … don’t know anymore exactly what it meant. Based on context, it seems likely that the word referred to something ritually forbidden. This part of Torah was written not only as a guide for future generations, but also to say “so, look around, see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT.“ Thus, if we interpret “toevah” to mean something that’s forbidden to do as a ritual before G-d, then the verse says nothing whatsoever about Adam and Steve and their two kids and their dog–it’s saying you shouldn’t have sex with another man in the Temple as a sacrifice. 2) Following the same “this is ritually forbidden” logic of toevah, this verse may also be interpreted as “don’t do sex magic,” which was a thing in. Like. A lot of fucking cultures at the time. 3) Hebrew is a highly gendered language, and the grammatical gender in this verse is really really weird. One of the “men” in this verse is given female grammar. Why? Who fucking knows, man, this isn’t the only grammatical oddity in Torah. (There are also places where G-d is referred to as plural, and also as female.) One suggestion is that this is a way of creating a diminutive–that is, that the verse should be read as “a man should not lie with a boy.” Now, it’s worth noting that modern secular scholarship has concluded the written Torah was written down around the 6th century BCE, and most non-Orthodox Jewish scholars are like “yeah, all things considered, that sounds pretty legit.” Do you know what else was happening around the 6th century BCE? What laypeople tend to mean when they say “ancient Greece” was happening. Do you know what happened a lot in that time period in Greece? Dudes forming relationships with younger boys, like ages 10-15, and using them for sex in exchange for financial gifts, mentorship, etc. While we don’t know just how young some of these younger boys may have been, we do know some were prepubescent. In light of this, and also something I mentioned under the first point–”see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT,” if this verse is interpreted to say “a man should not lie with a boy,” then it’s pretty clearly “my dudes, my fellows, my lads, don’t be fucking pedophiles.” 4) Because of the grammar I mentioned in #3, it’s also possible that “should not lie with a man as with a woman” is actually referring to a place, not an abstract personhood: a man shouldn’t have sex with another man in a woman’s bed. In the time period, a woman’s bed was sort of like–that was her place, her safe sanctuary. It was also a ritually holy place where babies were made. By having sex in her bed, you’re violating her safe space (and also introducing a man who may not be a male relative, thus forcing her into breaking the laws of modesty). If this verse is read this way, then it should be taken to mean “don’t sexually violate a woman’s safety and modesty.”5) And as an offshoot of #4, this may be a second verse relating to infidelity. Which woman’s bed is any random dude in 600 BCE most likely to have access to? His wife’s. But laws were administered differently based on whether the person they pertained to was slave or free, male or female, and so on–thus, a man committing adultery with a woman would be treated differently than man committing adultery with a man (especially because the latter would carry no chance of an illegitimate pregnancy). So you’ll note, there are a lot of ways to read this verse, and only a one-to-one translation with no cultural awareness produces “being gay is wrong, all of the time”.(You’ll also notice the word “abomination” is nowhere to be found. That’s like … a straight-up fiction created for who only knows what reason.) Apparently tumblr mobile doesn’t want to show @prismatic-bell ’s long and in-depth essay, so here’s the screenshots, because it still shows up on mobile browsers: Much appreciated.
Apparently, Dude, and Fucking: wha!?
 Sl
 BAPU
 BAPTIST
 CHUR(H
 SUS
 DISGUST
 MyCHILD

 Dortyouatti?
 SaSin!God
 condemns W
 all!
 BRIAN
 heed to
 have a
 talk
 0

 CHRISTIANS
 CELEBRATE TH
 ISLAMIC TEMPUE
 I didnt
 die ona
 Cross for
 this BS
 RADICAL

 righte
 homoSexvality
 ar the last
 2.000 yearsold.
prismatic-bell:
the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99:


prismatic-bell:


broken-bits-of-dreams:

prismatic-bell:


aiko-mori-hates-pedos:

artbymoga:
Throwback to all these Jesus comics I drew in 2012…

Good post OP


Good post, OP, and if you ever decide to do another may I please suggest “NOT IN HEBREW IT DOESN’T” as a punchline? So much of the Old Testament is HORRIFICALLY translated from the Tanakh, it drives me batty.


WAIT WAIT WHAT DOES IT SAY?????? I NEED TO LIKE,, DESTROY MI MUM FOR BEING REALLY HOMOPHOBIC

Okay, so, strictly speaking, the infamous Leviticus 18:22 does say “forbidden.” Here’s the thing: 

1) The word translated as “forbidden” is “toevah.” While that translation isn’t … wrong, it’s sort of like saying “McMansion” means “really big house.” There are a lot of connotations in that word. The specific issue with toevah is that we … sort of … don’t know anymore exactly what it meant. Based on context, it seems likely that the word referred to something ritually forbidden. This part of Torah was written not only as a guide for future generations, but also to say “so, look around, see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT.“ Thus, if we interpret “toevah” to mean something that’s forbidden to do as a ritual before G-d, then the verse says nothing whatsoever about Adam and Steve and their two kids and their dog–it’s saying you shouldn’t have sex with another man in the Temple as a sacrifice.

2) Following the same “this is ritually forbidden” logic of toevah, this verse may also be interpreted as “don’t do sex magic,” which was a thing in. Like. A lot of fucking cultures at the time.

3) Hebrew is a highly gendered language, and the grammatical gender in this verse is really really weird. One of the “men” in this verse is given female grammar. Why? Who fucking knows, man, this isn’t the only grammatical oddity in Torah. (There are also places where G-d is referred to as plural, and also as female.) One suggestion is that this is a way of creating a diminutive–that is, that the verse should be read as “a man should not lie with a boy.” Now, it’s worth noting that modern secular scholarship has concluded the written Torah was written down around the 6th century BCE, and most non-Orthodox Jewish scholars are like “yeah, all things considered, that sounds pretty legit.” 

Do you know what else was happening around the 6th century BCE? What laypeople tend to mean when they say “ancient Greece” was happening. 

Do you know what happened a lot in that time period in Greece? Dudes forming relationships with younger boys, like ages 10-15, and using them for sex in exchange for financial gifts, mentorship, etc. While we don’t know just how young some of these younger boys may have been, we do know some were prepubescent. In light of this, and also something I mentioned under the first point–”see your neighbors? DON’T DO THAT,” if this verse is interpreted to say “a man should not lie with a boy,” then it’s pretty clearly “my dudes, my fellows, my lads, don’t be fucking pedophiles.” 

4) Because of the grammar I mentioned in #3, it’s also possible that “should not lie with a man as with a woman” is actually referring to a place, not an abstract personhood: a man shouldn’t have sex with another man in a woman’s bed. In the time period, a woman’s bed was sort of like–that was her place, her safe sanctuary. It was also a ritually holy place where babies were made. By having sex in her bed, you’re violating her safe space (and also introducing a man who may not be a male relative, thus forcing her into breaking the laws of modesty). If this verse is read this way, then it should be taken to mean “don’t sexually violate a woman’s safety and modesty.”5) And as an offshoot of #4, this may be a second verse relating to infidelity. Which woman’s bed is any random dude in 600 BCE most likely to have access to? His wife’s. But laws were administered differently based on whether the person they pertained to was slave or free, male or female, and so on–thus, a man committing adultery with a woman would be treated differently than man committing adultery with a man (especially because the latter would carry no chance of an illegitimate pregnancy).


So you’ll note, there are a lot of ways to read this verse, and only a one-to-one translation with no cultural awareness produces “being gay is wrong, all of the time”.(You’ll also notice the word “abomination” is nowhere to be found. That’s like … a straight-up fiction created for who only knows what reason.)


Apparently tumblr mobile doesn’t want to show @prismatic-bell ’s long and in-depth essay, so here’s the screenshots, because it still shows up on mobile browsers:








Much appreciated.

prismatic-bell: the-spoopy-ghost-of-raejin99: prismatic-bell: broken-bits-of-dreams: prismatic-bell: aiko-mori-hates-pedos: artbymog...

Ass, Children, and Grandma: Thread Zachary Fox and 3 others liked A$MR Rocky @ChristianMingel Trained psychologists: "Hitting your kids can cause them to be violent adults" Twitter genius: "l was hit and I never turned out violent. That's why l can't wait to hit my own kids when l get them" 1/4/18, 2:44 PM 19.2K Retweets 55.4K Likes imfemalewarrior: thebaconsandwichofregret: asexual-not-asexual-detective: Am I the only one who thinks that hitting a kid and abuse are different things? Like, if I ever had a kid, I wouldn’t spank their ass raw or something like that. But a bop on the mouth or the ear pull or a smack upside the head? Yea. Those are behavior modifiers. Except they’re not. The studies done by the trained psychologists in this joke show that little kids don’t associate being hit with the thing they’ve done wrong. Very small children only understand consequences that are directly caused by the thing they did. Steal a biscuit, biscuit tastes good. Then for no reason mummy hit me. Very different to stole a biscuit, now no biscuit after dinner because I stole a biscuit. And they also show that when a child is old enough to understand why they are being hit that non-physical punishment is equally as effective and less mentally harmful in the long run. Do you know who benefits the most from hitting as a punishment? The parent. It gives a satisfaction rush. Parents do it because it makes them feel good. Basically kids have two stages: too young to understand why they are being hit so physical punishment is useless for anything other than teaching a child that bigger stronger people can hit you whenever they like (Which sounds like the same lesson you would learn from abuse) And the second stage is old enough to be reasoned with so many punishment options are available and you chose physical violence because it makes *you* feel better, which is an abusive action. The only time a person should ever use violence against another human being, of any age, is to stop that person from being violent themselves. We need to listen to the professionals telling us what is actively harmful to our children and what is actually effective in helping them learn how to grow up and navigate each new stage of their development.  Children are people and you need to Respect them, part of that is learning how to help them and what harms them and not doing the thing that harms them.  -FemaleWarrior, She/They  i think it’s  a societal perversion to acknowledge that hitting your mother, your friend, your grandma if they did something “wrong” is not okay, yet for some strange reason this same correct logic is never used on children the irony is that children are objectively less culpable for their actions than adults yet we use the most violent methods available to “correct” their actions. I find this a disgusting paradox. 
Ass, Children, and Grandma: Thread
 Zachary Fox and 3 others liked
 A$MR Rocky
 @ChristianMingel
 Trained psychologists: "Hitting your kids
 can cause them to be violent adults"
 Twitter genius: "l was hit and I never
 turned out violent. That's why l can't
 wait to hit my own kids when l get them"
 1/4/18, 2:44 PM
 19.2K Retweets 55.4K Likes
imfemalewarrior:

thebaconsandwichofregret:

asexual-not-asexual-detective:

Am I the only one who thinks that hitting a kid and abuse are different things? Like, if I ever had a kid, I wouldn’t spank their ass raw or something like that. But a bop on the mouth or the ear pull or a smack upside the head? Yea. Those are behavior modifiers. 

Except they’re not. 
The studies done by the trained psychologists in this joke show that little kids don’t associate being hit with the thing they’ve done wrong. Very small children only understand consequences that are directly caused by the thing they did. Steal a biscuit, biscuit tastes good. Then for no reason mummy hit me. Very different to stole a biscuit, now no biscuit after dinner because I stole a biscuit.
And they also show that when a child is old enough to understand why they are being hit that non-physical punishment is equally as effective and less mentally harmful in the long run. 
Do you know who benefits the most from hitting as a punishment? The parent. It gives a satisfaction rush. Parents do it because it makes them feel good. 
Basically kids have two stages: too young to understand why they are being hit so physical punishment is useless for anything other than teaching a child that bigger stronger people can hit you whenever they like (Which sounds like the same lesson you would learn from abuse)
And the second stage is old enough to be reasoned with so many punishment options are available and you chose physical violence because it makes *you* feel better, which is an abusive action. 
The only time a person should ever use violence against another human being, of any age, is to stop that person from being violent themselves. 

We need to listen to the professionals telling us what is actively harmful to our children and what is actually effective in helping them learn how to grow up and navigate each new stage of their development. 
Children are people and you need to Respect them, part of that is learning how to help them and what harms them and not doing the thing that harms them. 
-FemaleWarrior, She/They 

i think it’s  a societal perversion to acknowledge that hitting your mother, your friend, your grandma if they did something “wrong” is not okay, yet for some strange reason this same correct logic is never used on children the irony is that children are objectively less culpable for their actions than adults yet we use the most violent methods available to “correct” their actions. I find this a disgusting paradox. 

imfemalewarrior: thebaconsandwichofregret: asexual-not-asexual-detective: Am I the only one who thinks that hitting a kid and abuse are d...

Tumblr, Blog, and Dragon: g-meister: “Do you know why they call me the Dragon of the West?”
Tumblr, Blog, and Dragon: g-meister:

“Do you know why they call me the Dragon of the West?”

g-meister: “Do you know why they call me the Dragon of the West?”

Bad, Head, and Iron Man: saltyaboutfictionalcharacters: sam-falcon-wilson: cyclesofthemoon: professionallyprocrastinating: antisolanum: teameveryonebutironman: i-love-tony-stark: sam-falcon-wilson: I need to talk about this scene. This scene actually, physically hurt me when I watched it in theaters, and cemented Iron Man as a bad guy in my head. Sam Wilson saw his friend get shot out of the air. He was too late to save him; he watched his wingman die, and he was powerless to do anything. So imagine how he feels when the shot that was meant to hit him hits Rhodey, who begins to plummet towards the ground. He immediately dives after him with zero hesitation, but he’s just not fast enough. He even apologizes to Tony, although he has nothing to apologize for. And do you know what Tony does? He shoots him. Point blank. I don’t care if Tony didn’t know about Riley. It doesn’t matter. Sam Wilson just risked his life going after Rhodey, probably having flashbacks the entire way down, and he fails. Again. And Tony doesn’t care. He shoots him, and he’s so close that the force of the shot sends Sam somersaulting backwards. Sam did nothing to injure Rhodey in any way, and even tries to help, and Tony. Fricking. S h o o t s. H i m. How can you support or stan this disgusting man? Also, if I recall correctly, Sam Wilson served as a pararescue airman. That means he’s a trained medic, he could have helped Rhodey and probably would have if Tony hadn’t shot him point blank in the chest. Yeah, either tony is that much of an asshole that he didn’t bother to get to know Sam despite him being part of the team for two years or he’s that much of an asshole that he shot a trained medic in the chest. And let’s not forget that using a repulsor blast that powerful, powerful enough to throw him back like he was shot with a shotgun, at relatively close range, on a target with no power armor (and no the falcon suit doesn’t count, it’s for flight not protection) could easily have killed him. Shock, cracking his head on the ground, stopping his heart from the force, that could have killed him. I mean, sam’s a tough cookie, but that wasn’t “the hulk punching thor after the battle because he didn’t forget about his insult from earlier, but they both know he’s gonna be alright” it’s “Tony is so selfish that he is willing to potentially kill sam because he hurt rhodey” Despite all of this, Sam’s first words to Tony, after being imprisoned thanks to him, is “How is Rhodes?” Concern for a former team-mate is still foremost in his mind, despite the fact that going back to help, rather than following Steve and Bucky to help them in Siberia, is what landed Sam in the Raft. Then Sam turns around, and we see that half of his face is one massive bruise, and he is moving slowly. Yeah, no, that is never going to be justifiable. … Also, what is to say that Rhodey’s injuries weren’t made worse by Tony’s attempts to help, since the guy with medical training was injured and potentially unconscious thanks to Iron Man ‘getting angry and reacting’. Sam Wilson wasn’t offering to help. Sam Wilson was standing there, looking at him, and the guy with PTSD and trust issues properly assumed that the fucker would take another shot. Like, you’re expecting him to think clearly? Why would he react any other way? Yeah, I expect him to think clearly. He’s an adult. Cut it out with the PTSD defense; just because someone has a mental illness like that doesn’t excuse their actions. Sam also has PTSD. He was probably having a vivid flashback to the time his friend died in front of him in much the same way. So, excuse him for sitting there, reliving all his past mistakes, beating himself up because maybe if he has been faster, or if he had done this or that, Rhodey wouldn’t be paralyzed. Get the hell off my post with your gross Tonky defense and cry to someone who cares, because I don’t. plus, sam did nothing to rhodey. all he did was dodge a shot from vision that would have killed him if it connected. he has no protection in his flight gear so if he fell from the height that rhodey did he would have died. Tony shot him for not allowing himself to be killed, even when he was apologizing and could have helped rhodey. tony stark is trash.
Bad, Head, and Iron Man: saltyaboutfictionalcharacters:

sam-falcon-wilson:

cyclesofthemoon:


professionallyprocrastinating:

antisolanum:

teameveryonebutironman:

i-love-tony-stark:


sam-falcon-wilson:


I need to talk about this scene. This scene actually, physically hurt me when I watched it in theaters, and cemented Iron Man as a bad guy in my head.

Sam Wilson saw his friend get shot out of the air. He was too late to save him; he watched his wingman die, and he was powerless to do anything.

So imagine how he feels when the shot that was meant to hit him hits Rhodey, who begins to plummet towards the ground. He immediately dives after him with zero hesitation, but he’s just not fast enough. He even apologizes to Tony, although he has nothing to apologize for.

And do you know what Tony does?

He shoots him. Point blank.

I don’t care if Tony didn’t know about Riley. It doesn’t matter. Sam Wilson just risked his life going after Rhodey, probably having flashbacks the entire way down, and he fails. Again.

And Tony doesn’t care. He shoots him, and he’s so close that the force of the shot sends Sam somersaulting backwards.

Sam did nothing to injure Rhodey in any way, and even tries to help, and Tony. Fricking. S h o o t s. H i m.

How can you support or stan this disgusting man?


Also, if I recall correctly, Sam Wilson served as a pararescue airman. That means he’s a trained medic, he could have helped Rhodey and probably would have if Tony hadn’t shot him point blank in the chest.


Yeah, either tony is that much of an asshole that he didn’t bother to get to know Sam despite him being part of the team for two years or he’s that much of an asshole that he shot a trained medic in the chest. 


And let’s not forget that using a repulsor blast that powerful, powerful enough to throw him back like he was shot with a shotgun, at relatively close range, on a target with no power armor (and no the falcon suit doesn’t count, it’s for flight not protection) could easily have killed him. Shock, cracking his head on the ground, stopping his heart from the force, that could have killed him. I mean, sam’s a tough cookie, but that wasn’t “the hulk punching thor after the battle because he didn’t forget about his insult from earlier, but they both know he’s gonna be alright” it’s “Tony is so selfish that he is willing to potentially kill sam because he hurt rhodey”

Despite all of this, Sam’s first words to Tony, after being imprisoned thanks to him, is “How is Rhodes?”
Concern for a former team-mate is still foremost in his mind, despite the fact that going back to help, rather than following Steve and Bucky to help them in Siberia, is what landed Sam in the Raft.
Then Sam turns around, and we see that half of his face is one massive bruise, and he is moving slowly.
Yeah, no, that is never going to be justifiable.
…
Also, what is to say that Rhodey’s injuries weren’t made worse by Tony’s attempts to help, since the guy with medical training was injured and potentially unconscious thanks to Iron Man ‘getting angry and reacting’.


Sam Wilson wasn’t offering to help. Sam Wilson was standing there, looking at him, and the guy with PTSD and trust issues properly assumed that the fucker would take another shot. 

Like, you’re expecting him to think clearly? Why would he react any other way? 


Yeah, I expect him to think clearly. He’s an adult. Cut it out with the PTSD defense; just because someone has a mental illness like that doesn’t excuse their actions.
Sam also has PTSD. He was probably having a vivid flashback to the time his friend died in front of him in much the same way. So, excuse him for sitting there, reliving all his past mistakes, beating himself up because maybe if he has been faster, or if he had done this or that, Rhodey wouldn’t be paralyzed.
Get the hell off my post with your gross Tonky defense and cry to someone who cares, because I don’t. 

plus, sam did nothing to rhodey. all he did was dodge a shot from vision that would have killed him if it connected. he has no protection in his flight gear so if he fell from the height that rhodey did he would have died. Tony shot him for not allowing himself to be killed, even when he was apologizing and could have helped rhodey. tony stark is trash.

saltyaboutfictionalcharacters: sam-falcon-wilson: cyclesofthemoon: professionallyprocrastinating: antisolanum: teameveryonebutironman:...