Merlin’s Beard, I have been in denial. WAIT FATHER TIME, I MUST SUCCEED IN LIFE BEFORE I GET ANY OLDER
this is me.
Merlin’s Beard, I have been in denial. WAIT FATHER TIME, I MUST SUCCEED IN LIFE BEFORE I GET ANY OLDER
this is me.
This came up a couple times in the tags on this post, and I decided it needed to be drawn.
Zuko then moves on to being very specific and describing everything in song. Possibly followed by Toph shoving him off the dragon.
Rather than her going “dark” as in evil or immoral, I think she’s going “dark” as in she’s becoming more like the Doctor.
And the Doctor became more human this episode (caring about human life more than he has in this body, etc.), it’s like they literally switched roles.
Or perhaps they are both rubbing off on each other in this way: Clara is becoming more detached from humanity the more she sees of the universe and the Doctor is becoming more human the more he sees through her eyes. I don’t think any other Doctor in New Who has spent as much time in his companion’s home as 12. 10 may have, but the scenes where 12 is in Clara’s flat suggest he is there often, almost like an absentee roommate.
If this is where they are going, I love it, but I’ll love if they go another direction, too. The only thing I’m worried they’ll mess up is the Promised Land payoff.
DID HE JUST TRY TO GET HER TO MOVE HER STUFF IN TO THE TARDIS
"We’ve literally got acres of space"
Though I wonder if he’d have asked if he knew Danny didn’t approve.
WHY DO I SHIP WHOUFFALDI IF I HATE WHOUFFLE?!?!?!
Because Clara actually has a personality this season beyond being a flirt?
I’m in the same boat as you, buddy.
He bore a new demon hunter by not killing Cole.
Also, the more he kills and acts like a jerk, the farther he has to climb back up to the former sort-of-good guy he was before. In fact, all it would take is him killing an innocent for him to be haunted by his mistakes for all time (assuming he becomes good again).
My hypothesis: Sam does succeed in getting Dean back to some semblance of who he was, but Dean either slips into his demon ways or feels overwhelming guilt for what he’s done, after which a new hunter!Cole will appear for a final showdown and kill him.
The only wrench I can foresee to 99% prevent this is if Cole learns who his father really was and agrees that Dean had to kill him.
This is how the solar system is actually moving as it traverses the galaxy.
WaitYeah it’s not circular as you’ve been taught. It does revolve around the sun, but like every other star, the sun travels, and pulls us too. Fih-boe-nah-chi
and just where the fuck are we going
You know Nonny, I wish I drew more Artemis, too. I’d like to, but right now I’m focusing on building up a portfolio of original work with original characters so I can get a job doing what I love. I fully intend to go back to fanart after that. :)
And man, Netherworld was AGES ago. Like, back in high school ages ago. And I’m beyond college now. Netherworld was the first thing I wrote where the characters’ personalities weren’t directly copied from people I knew. I learned a lot doing it, but I was also a HUGE amateur about it. What happened to it was bad planning. I got so far in the plot and realized I had nowhere to go. I had raised a lot of questions in the plot that I had no answer to, and characters I didn’t know what to do with.
The comic never got to the bits of plot that REALLY didn’t make sense. I think I ran out of steam when the next book came out and nixed a lot of my ideas. I don’t think I’ll ever take up Netherworld again, but you can definitely expect more Artemis Fowl art from me. :)
Thanks for the ask!
Isn’t it nice how people twist their religious scripture to suit their weds but when it’s used against them it’s suddenly not okay
I talked to a monk about this quote once (we have mutual friends, and he came to a New Year’s Eve party at my shared art studio). He said this isn’t even talking about homosexuality. That the bible never actually says homosexuality is wrong. What that passage means is this:
Women were treated as subservient and it that you shouldn’t treat other men as subservient, like they are beneath you. It is not talking about homosexuality. If it was, it would say it outright since the bible lists other things outright.
I take the word of a monk who have studied the bible extensively more than a self proclaimed Christian.
The above text, I would like to point out is from the point of view of this translation of the original Hebrew. I spoke with my cousin’s rabbi on the matter and his response was different, saying that it was a mistranslation. See, the true translation says that a man shall not lie with another in the bed of a woman, which is to say, the Hebrews had a shit ton of rules about when a man was or was not allowed in a woman’s bed and private quarters (including, if she didn’t want you there, you weren’t allowed there. Hebrew women were also allowed to divorce their husbands and the image of the ‘oppressive Hebrew people’ is an image that was propogated by Christianity which, historically speaking, doesn’t treat the Jewish people too well and liked to paint them as being rather barbaric and backwards and cultish with their traditions, which, another piece of fun info, their traditions were one of the main reasons why the Jewish people were less likely, in medieval times, to die of the plague. Because washing your hands and avoiding the dead and vermin and the like was a lot of help. Of course the Christians persecuted them for not dying but that’s another matter. I’m sidetracked). So the verse is literally saying ‘Don’t fuck in some lady’s bed because that’s just goddamn rude’
Also, whenever a Christian brings the book of Leviticus up, you should feel free to point out that these are rules that were given to make the Hebrew people prepared for when the son of God came to earth. In Christianity, it’s believed the son of God was Jesus. So by following the rules set in Leviticus or pushing them as things we should follow, they’re saying that Jesus was not the son of God, and that Jesus did not, in fact, die for our sins. Jewish people believe, in their faith, that the son of God hasn’t yet been born, so many choose to follow these rules.
Most people of course roll their eyes when I explain the translation of the verse (full breakdown found here) but it’s always fun to point out the nature of the rules in Leviticus and the implications of following them.
I’m a theology student and I am on the verge of crying because of how accurate this commentary is. Historical context is simultaneously the most interesting and most important part of interpreting any texts.
Most religious people seem to base their beliefs on things that are severely mistranslated. I wish they would do their research before using the bible for hate.
I studied theology extensively and was going to become a theologist until I switched majors. The above commentary is 100% accurate and what I try to stress in a lot if conversations with Bible Thumpers.
Jesus also affirms the homosexual relationship between the Roman Centurion and his “slave”. The particular Greek word used to refer to this special slave was “pais”. Greek language studies and contexts show that a “pais” was a male love slave. Regular slaves were called “doulos”. The Centurion makes this distinction clearly when he asks Jesus to heal his slave (pais), and then to prove his status he tells Jesus that his slaves (doulos) go when he tells them to. But this slave (pais) was special. He was the Centurion’s lover.
Hearing this, Jesus was so amazed he says he had not found ANYONE ELSE who had such great faith. He then blesses the Centurion and heals his male lover.
THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE REALLY TEACHES ABOUT SAME SEX COUPLES.
In short, the English adaptation is a mistranslated farce.
I had never heard the above story, and reading this post I didn’t understand why Jesus would think the guy was such a huge example of faith, so I googled it.
And I discovered something brilliant. I can’t stop laughing.
Here’s what happens: the Centurion goes to Jesus and says “My pais is really sick, please, save him”, and Jesus is like “sure, take me to your house and I’ll heal him”. The Centurion then replies “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word.” And that’s why Jesus was so amazed, because the guy believed he could heal without even seeing the sick person.
I had never heard the story before, but man, had I heard the Centurion’s response. I remember it vividly from when I was, like, 3 to 6 years old and had to go to church with my grandparents. It is one of the sentences people have to keep repeating during catholic mass. It was, in fact, the very first problem I ever had with the catholic church. I never believed in god or anything religious, but I liked the church’s beautiful windows and the choir. What made me start to hate going to church was how much people had to constantly humiliate themselves and blame themselves for everything. I do deeply respect religious believes, but I hate the abuse organized religion can commit against it’s members, and the frequency with which that quote was repeated was one of my first hints of that.
So I can’t help being amused by discovering where it came from. C’mon! I don’t know about other christian religions, but catholics are devoutly quoting a non-straight man in church every week. A non-straight man who Jesus held as an example in front of a crowd.
This is gold. This is a treasure that will probably be very useful during this year’s Christmas family reunion. Matthew 8:5-13. Gotta memorize that.
I once pointed out the homosexual centurion to some religious homophobes and they went apeshit like they were basically going “WHO SAID THE ROMAN CENTURION WAS GAY” and I was like “uh, the bible?”
And they went on to say “but the pharisees respected him!”
And I was like “dude, according to Jesus the pharisees were shallow fakers, they wouldn’t dare say a word against a guy who had more power than them just to keep on his good side”
And they had no response to that. Man, I hope they learn from that.
You can read into these verses all you want, you can even argue that Leviticus is no longer viable because Jesus came to fulfill the law, and thus we can no longer be condemned as long as we are cleansed by Him.
However, there are New Testament verses that state blatantly that homosexuality is wrong.
I Timothy 1:9-10
We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine
Now, you can argue that this doesn’t reflect Jesus’s teachings, or that Bible is written by man so it can’t be all accurate. But 2 Timothy 3:16 says all Scripture is God-breathed, and I won’t go any further on that subject because it would turn into another rant.
My point is, LGBTQ+ groups shouldn’t use the Bible to legitimize their lifestyles, and anti-gay groups (religious or otherwise) shouldn’t use it to legitimize their hate.
If the research on Matthew 8 is accurate, we should treat those of other lifestyles just how Jesus did: he didn’t see their faults, he saw their humanity. He saw the person His Father made them to be, and He loved them. He loves the LGBTQ+ as much as he loved the Pharisees, his disciples, the prostitutes, the lepers. Because we’re all sinners, and as such aren’t in a position to judge anyone.
Anyway, as a Christian I ask that everyone would search the Bible for themselves (not trusting the Internet) for the truth, not for a way to back up their agendas.