#“I’m a Christian and take my faith seriously… | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mckitterick · 7 months

Text

Christofascist Republican calls LGBTQ people "filth" during public forum

The culture of hate among Christofascists recently led to the violent beating and subsequent death of Choctaw two-spirit teenager Nex Benedict in Oklahoma.

When questioned about how 50+ anti-LGBTQ bills might have affected this case, State Senator Tom Woods said,

“We are a Republican state - supermajority - in the House and Senate. I represent a constituency that doesn’t want that filth in Oklahoma.”

Several audience members clapped at his statement, while others appeared shocked.

“We are a religious state and we are going to fight it to keep that filth out of the state of Oklahoma because we are a Christian state - we are a moral state,” Woods said. “We want to ... let people be able to go to the faith they choose. We are a Republican state and I’m going to vote my district, and I’m going to vote my values, and we don’t want that in the state of Oklahoma.”

State Representative David Hardin added, “How you live your life personally, that’s between you and God... but what goes through our public schools - I will fall back on my faith. I want to make sure that at least the children in our public schools have that faith... what I want to make sure of is that our young children have the right to grow up with that faith."

After the forum, Woods reiterated his stance on the matter: "I support my constituency, and like I said, we’re a Christian state, and we are tired of having that shoved down our throat at every turn... I stand behind my statement, and I stand behind the Republican Party values."

When asked what he thought of Woods’ characterization of LGBTQ people as “filth,” State Senator Dewayne Pemberton said, “No comment.”

Again and again, today's christofascist Republicans (any other sort doesn't get elected these days) reveal that they want to indoctrinate public school kids into their own bigoted hatred, forcing children to hate anyone who doesn't subscribe to their narrow interpretation of their religious texts. Christofascists seek to impose their personal, misguided religious biases on the general public, including creating laws codifying hate and authoritarian control over the lives and bodies of everyone, not just others in their own religion.

Make no mistake, Nex Benedict's death was caused by christofascist indoctrination of the three girls who brutally beat Nex in that school bathroom. Nex Benedict's death was caused by the school failing to take their injuries seriously, by hate codified in Oklahoma state laws designed to harass LGBTQ folks and normalize bigotry against them, by Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters appointing hate-speech villain Chaya Raichik (responsible for "Libs of TikTok") to the Oklahoma Department of Education's Library Media Advisory Committee even though she doesn't live in the state (but he likes that she used Benedict's school and teacher for targeted hate). And on and on - it's a systematic attack on personal freedom and human rights - and the lives of queer folks.

Nex Benedict's death is exactly what christofascists seek through indoctrinating children into their hate that perpetuates bigotry into the future and forcing their religious fanaticism into the public sphere through unconstitutional laws built on hate and control.

Do you want to live in a theocracy dictated by those who narrowly interpret their personal religious texts to promote hate? Because as long as citizens fail to speak out against these harbingers of civilizational collapse, they'll only feel more and more emboldened to turn hate crimes into victories.

We must not let another of our people become victim of systemic bigotry. To protect children and end generational indoctrination, we must fire all public officials who subscribe to christofascist hatred and, when appropriate, prosecute them for the violence they incite.

If we fail to end the careers of hateful christofascists, we fail our children.

#Nex Benedict #christofascism #theocracy #fire all republicans

472 notes · View notes

blessedarethebinarybreakers · 3 months

Note

Hey, this is going to be long and wordy but I’m kinda desperate. Lately I’ve been having doubts about whether Jesus actually said what’s recorded in the gospels and whether those accounts are true, and the uncertainty there scares me, especially since I know the gospel writers almost certainly had their own agendas and that’s why accounts of the same event can sound different, why the birth narrative was skipped over or not, etc. On top of that I’ve seen posts from Jewish users outlining why Judaism typically doesn’t accept Jesus as Messiah/why you can’t be Jewish if you believe that, and their arguments seem pretty sound. So it all boils down to this big scary question of “What if this whole Jesus-as-Messiah thing was just the result of projection onto some random guy who seemed to be the real deal because the writers were so desperate to be rescued from the Roman occupation?” It sucks cuz I’ve been enjoying my renewed interest in church (for the most part) and while I’ve tried my best to learn not to take the Bible literally all the time (yay for growing up in an inerrantist doctrinal tradition 🙄), I still want to take it seriously and I still want to believe in Jesus as savior/Lord/etc. I don’t want to just be like, “Yeah I don’t buy the whole Messiah thing but I can still follow his example!” I want there to be meat behind why I follow, if that makes sense. So inasmuch as this could be my OCD being bored and trying to take hold of whatever it thinks would bug me the most (wouldn’t be the first time!), I would really appreciate any advice you have. I know there may not be any certainty or reassurance to be found here, but I still want to hear from someone who’s been there before so I can chart a path forward, and I think this is an important question to wrestle with. Plus I remember from one of your posts you said you have seminary notes on this exact topic so I’m curious lol.

"Gospel Truth": how do we know what Jesus really said and did?

Hey again! Sorry for the long delay on this one but I wanted to do some research before responding! You're right that these are important questions, and you're absolutely not the only one to feel doubt and anxiety over them. You're also right that I can't offer you certainty, but I do hope you'll find encouragement here, and places to go as you continue your journey.

This got super long (as always lol), so let's start with aTL;DR:

In this post, you'll find that there's a lot that we can surmise is very probable about Jesus' life story, but that ultimately we can't know much for certain — and that's okay. In Evolving in Monkey Town: How a Girl Who Knew All the Answers Learned to Ask the Questions), Rachel Held Evans gets to the heart of the matter:

"I don’t know which Bible stories ought to be treated as historically accurate, scientifically provable accounts of facts and which stories are meant to be metaphorical. I don’t know if it really matters so long as those stories transform my life."

This is a time where scholarship & faith go hand-in-hand: using the minds God gifted us, we study and learn what we can; and we cultivate faith in the things we can't — a faith that doesn't deny doubt, but makes room for it, and calls us into community so that we can wrestle out meaning together.

A couple other notes before we kick off:

Please know that you don't Have To Study All The Things if you decide it's healthier for you not to go chasing those rabbit holes. You don't need to be an expert in Biblical studies to be a "good Christian" or to take scripture seriously or to get to know God deeply.

I trust you know yourself and how your OCD works better than I could. So I'm going to share the information I have, and leave it to you to determine for yourself how much information you need in order to feel reassured, without giving your mind new problems to ruminate over.

So here's a link to a Google doc that has A Lot of information — like, too much lol. But save it for after you read this post; I'm putting the most relevant & important info here! If you finish this post and feel satisfied, you never even have to look in the doc.

However deep you go, if you find yourself getting overwhelmed, know that whatever you are feeling is valid and probably pretty common, and take a break! Do a calming meditation or an activity you enjoy to help regulate your mind and body. If possible, have someone you can unpack this stuff with — or have a notebook ready to journal in. <3

Okay, all that outta the way, let's dig in!

Who wrote the Gospels?

Tradition goes that the authors of the four canonical Gospels are three of Jesus' closest disciples — Matthew, Mark, and John — plus a disciple of Paul — Luke. But academics have determine that this tradition is very improbable; it's much more likely that none of the four authors knew Jesus personally, and that the earliest of them (Mark) wasn't recorded till the 60s — decades after Jesus lived and died!

When people learn this, it often leads to something of a crisis of faith. If these writers didn't even know Jesus firsthand, where the heck did they get their information?? And come to think of it, why do their accounts differ? Is some of it made up? Is all of it made up??

The anxiety and fear that wells up is normal, and it's healthy to acknowledge that you're feeling it. But once that first shock abates, it's possible to discover a sort of freedom in the knowledge that the Gospel writers (and all the authors of the biblical texts) were human, with human biases and specific goals fitting their unique context; and that they didn't have all the answers!

This realization can free us to approach scripture without certain expectations (that it's all inerrant and prescriptive, etc.), and allows us to bring our doubts to the table with us. If something in the text seems questionable — particularly if it seems to promote bigotry and injustice rather than God's love — we can consider whether something in its author's cultural context might be responsible for that part of scripture.

So taking some time to learn the unique contexts of each writer can be quite enriching to how we engage the Gospels. For a chart that sums up the Gospel writers' unique contexts, audiences, and priorities, see this post.

For even more, you'll want a book that digs into that stuff — I recommend Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament (the abridged version!!). As you learn about the Gospel writers, I hope several things become evident:

First, that they weren't just making things up whole cloth, or relying on a game of "he said she said" telephone for their information! Each one drew from different primary or secondary sources, eyewitness testimonies or written texts (many of which no longer exist, but scholars have pieced together evidence of, like the famous "Q source" that both Matthew and Luke drew from).

Yes, each author does have an agenda in writing about Jesus, and in how they tell his story. But that's not a nefarious thing; it's true of any text, whether biography, poetry, novel, song — you don't take the time to write something without a purpose in mind! With variation between their specific goals, overall each Gospel writer's agenda was to persuade their audience that Jesus is worth following, and/or to offer encouragement to those who already believed.

Another thing that modern readers sometimes interpret as intentionally deceptive is that, yeah, the Gospels contain things that aren't strictly factual, and that the writers knew weren't strictly factual. This is because ancient ideas about history & biography are very different from our own. When we read a biography, we expect it to be all facts, with citations proving those facts. But the ancients were much less concerned with making sure every detail was accurate; instead, they were focused on making their specific point about whatever thing or person they were writing/reading about. So yes, they might embellish one detail or leave out another in order to fortify their desired message. They cared more about the Truth as they interpreted it than a purely factual account.

On a similar note, each Gospel writer understands Jesus and the meaning behind his story a little differently — hence why they all tell things in slightly different orders, and characterize Jesus differently, etc. This is also understandable — we all interpret stories differently; we all come to different conclusions even when we have the same or similar information. See the section in the google doc titled "each Gospel's essence" to learn more about the different ways each writer characterizes Jesus, and why they may have interpreted him the way they did.

On that topic, let's get to your question about...

Jesus — Messiah, or no?

If you read the Gospel of Matthew and take it as pure fact, you'll determine that Jesus is the Messiah his people were waiting for — that he did indeed fulfill various scriptures. But if you read Mark, you won't find that argument at all! To the author of Mark, Jesus clearly did not match the stipulations of the awaited-for Messiah — and for Mark, that's kinda the point: that Jesus is something new and surprising, unlike anything human beings expected, upturning our ideas of power and salvation.

...So how did they come to these vastly different views??

Well, Matthew was a Jew writing to persuade his fellow Jews that the Jesus movement was worth joining; to do so, he felt he had to "prove" that it fit into Jewish tradition. So he prioritizes showing how Jesus is a righteous Jew who abides by Torah, and that he is indeed the Messiah they've been waiting for.

(It's also worth noting that when Matthew writes, over and over, about Jesus "fulfilling" various bits of Hebrew scripture, that verb "fulfilling" doesn't mean what it might sound like to us — that a given text was always and only about Jesus, with the prophet having Jesus in mind when they wrote it. Rather, to Matthew "fulfilling" the text meant "filling it up" with more meaning — adding to its meaning, not replacing the old meaning. More on that, with citations, in the Google doc.)

Meanwhile, Mark's author was a Jew writing mostly to gentile members of the early Jesus movement. He knew they wouldn't care whether or not Jesus fit the Jewish expectations for a Messiah! (In fact, giving Jesus a bit more of a "Greek" flair would appeal to them more.) So Mark doesn't perform the mental and rhetorical gymnastics that Matthew does to try to make Jesus fit the Messiah requirements.

So which Gospel got it right?

For many matters of scripture, I say "it's open to interpretation!" or "Maybe both are right in different ways, conveying different truths!" But for this particular case, it is very important as Christians to accept that Jesus absolutely does not fit the Jewish requirements for their Messiah. To argue otherwise is antisemitic — it's supersessionist, meaning it claims that Christianity supersedes or replaces Judaism.

We might understand, as the author of Mark did, Jesus to be a messiah — which just means "anointed one" in Hebrew (the Greek counterpart is "Christ") — without making antisemitic claims that Jews "failed to recognize their own Messiah." (In fact, there are multiple messiahs in scripture, e.g. in Isaiah 45, the foreign king Cyrus is referred to as God's messiah; though later scriptures like Daniel do start talking about a specific Messiah who will usher in redemption & a new age for the Jewish people.)

We can understand why some of the biblical authors, like Matthew, interpreted Jesus as this specific Messiah as a result of their own specific context, without agreeing with their view. See this post about “Anti-Jewish Content in the New Testament: Why it’s there and what we should do about it” for more on this important topic. (You can also find even further resources on supersessionism in this post.)

...Okay, so we've looked at the authors of the Gospels a good bit. We've learned that their idea of a "biography" is very different from ours — that they didn't consider it bad to rearrange, leave out, or embellish accounts — but what does that leave us with when it comes to knowing who Jesus "really" was?

What can we know for sure about Jesus?

Let's look at the facts. The first one is: we don't have any. Not any 100% certain ones, anyway. The guy lived before audio recorders and cameras; we're relying on written and oral accounts, which can be fabricated.

However, there are points about the Jesus story that are regarded as almost certainly historical by the vast majority of historians today, so let's look at those first:

Jesus almost 100% certainly existed. There is enough historical evidence (both inside and outside the Bible) to confirm this — even non-Christian historians almost unanimously agree that there was a historical Jesus. (Phew, am I right?)

Almost all historians also agree that several parts of Jesus' story almost definitely happened: that he was baptized in the Jordan; that he traveled around teaching and offering miracles (whether or not they agree he actually had the power to perform real miracles, of course); and that he was arrested and crucified by the occupying Roman Empire.

Some of these almost-irrefutable claims lend plausibility to others: if he traveled around teaching, what was he teaching? Why not the sermons, the parables recorded in the Gospels? And if he was crucified — the death of a criminal, an insurrectionist — what did he do to get himself crucified? He must have done something to cause Rome to see him as a threat to their Empire — why not some of the sayings and actions that are recorded in the Gospels, like his claim to be "Son of God" (a title used for Caesar); his protest march into Jerusalem satirizing Caesar; and his disruption at the Temple?

The attempt to determine which parts of scripture are "authentic," i.e. things that really happened / things Jesus really said," is often called "The Quest for the Historical Jesus."

Over the decades, scholars interested in this pursuit have developed various "criteria of authenticity," which they use to try to determine how probable any given bit of the Gospels is. In the google doc, I summarize the history of this "quest" and describe some of the most popular criteria. But what's important to understand is that these criteria have major limitations — they're often applied somewhat arbitrarily, for one thing, and ultimately they can't "prove" for sure whether something in the text is definitely historical or definitely not. So honestly, this is not a field of study that I recommend everyone go immerse themselves in! When I do, I have fun for a while, then kinda end up more overwhelmed by how much we can't know.

Still, sometimes these criteria of authenticity do yield some interesting points. For instance, the "Criteria of Embarrassment" (yes, that's what it's called lol) asserts that anything in the text that would have been embarrassing to its author is more likely to be historical fact — because why would the author have made something up that puts them in an unflattering light, or might be used to argue against their message?

For example, a lot of Gospel stories depict Jesus' disciples being kinda clueless, or saying petty things, or failing miserably (e.g. the denial of Peter). Why would the Gospel authors have wanted to make these earliest believers, who are meant to be role models for their audience, look so bad? This criterion says that wouldn't — that they must include those stories because they really happened, rather than being things the author made up to make their point.

Or take the Criterion of Multiple Attestation, which determines how many sources include a certain saying or event. The more sources contain a specific story, the more plausibly "authentic" that story is, since it means that different unconnected communities knew that story. Logical enough.

So yes, there are ways to consider the historicity of the Gospels — but not definitively. So the question becomes: is the historical knowledge we do have enough for me to feel some level of, I don't know, peace? stability in my faith?

And, at the end of the day, how important to me is it that every single thing the Gospels say is completely factual?

Back to what matters: the Good News

Facts are great — God gifted us our minds, and various scripture stories show God encourages us to wrestle with the text! — but we are called to faith as well.

Furthermore, taking the Bible seriously means accepting it for what it is — a collection of ancient texts compiled by humans, even if guided by Divinity — rather than insisting it be what it is not. For the Gospels, that means accepting that they are not biography, but story, and prioritize Truth over fact.

My pastor friend Roger puts it like this:

“For me, it isn’t about deciding which things Jesus really said or didn’t say. That’s a road that goes nowhere. As a pastoral response, I take scripture at face value and work to empathize with the people in and behind the text. Through that empathy, I can find some meaning that connects with what we’re facing here and now.”

When we acknowledge that the Bible includes human interpretations of the Divine, and that we bring our own human interpretations to our reading of it, where does that leave us?

It leaves us in need of conversation, of an expansion of our perspectives by talking through scripture in community. We do that conversing with friends, or attending Bible studies at church, or reading a variety of theological texts — getting as many unique understandings of Jesus as we can, joining our ideas together to get an ever broader glimpse of the Divine.

There's a reason Jesus taught in parables: he didn't want there to be one definitive answer to matters of life and faith! He wanted to ignite conversation, to draw us into community — because it's in community that we are the image of God, the Body of Christ.

So keep on wrestling, wondering, talking it through (taking time to rest when needed — there's no rush!). We discover scripture's meaning for us in our own place and time through the wrestling, together.

#reading and studying the bible #bible tag #the quest for the historical jesus #gospels #historical criticism #biblical criticism #essays #i didn't do a great job of citing all my sources in this post -- for citations go to the google doc!#there's a list of further reading at the top of the doc too btw

38 notes · View notes

kimberly-spirits13 · 6 months

Text

So this is a bit of a long time coming issue but I think I’m going to be taking some time off tumblr more frequently now. This is for my spiritual health and developing as a Christian. I struggle with idolizing this site over God and taking in media that is not good for my spiritual health. If anything drastic changes with my health, I’ll be happy to update. Thank you for the support over the years, I just don’t think this is something I can ignore in my faith anymore and I need to be more flexible with taking a few weeks or even just a few days off at a time. I still want to post but I want to be more intentional to make sure it’s not something I feel convicted about and I need to make sure I’m taking my spiritual health seriously since I truly believe it effects my eternity.

#dc x reader #dc comics #dc characters #batfam x reader #batboys x reader #batfam #dick grayson x reader #damian wayne x reader #jason todd x reader

49 notes · View notes

queenlucythevaliant · 2 years

Text

The best thing about the annual observance of Christmas is that reminds me of the simple fact that I love God.

Over the course of a year, it’s easy to get stuck on this or that issue of theology, this or that unanswered prayer. If you’re anything like me, you pursue that issue in prayer, in Bible study, in reading, in conversation, trying to make sense of it, to make the wrinkles lay flat against your soul. You stalk the questions down and in a way, that struggle becomes a focal point of your faith.

You might even think, when you’re feeling particularly unsettled, “At least I’m taking my faith seriously by struggling with the hard questions. It would be much worse to be complacent.”

And then, every year, Advent comes, and there are Christmas carols and readings from the Prophets. There are angels and lights and stars. Jonathan Toomy finishes carving the widow’s nativity set, Linus recites from Luke, a choir performs the Hallelujah chorus, and the beauty of it pierces through the questions and the struggle. Every year, the overpowering glory of the Incarnation and all that follows is brought to the forefront of my mind and it enraptures me. Fall on your knees, O hear the angel voices. I bring you good news of great joy.

Every year, Christmas reminds me that I’m not only a Christian in order to struggle with hard questions. I’m not even a Christian because I am convinced that the Bible is true. Even the demons believe in God -- I am a Christian because I love Him. His beauty can move me to tears.

Every year at Christmas, God woos me all over again.

#for me this year it's been epistemological doubts #the pastor at the church where i grew up did some not great stuff #and lied about it #and it's left me questioning what i've heard him say from the pulpit over the years #i've caught him in at least one major error and it was a pretty big one #that left me pretty shaken once i understood it #so i've been struggling with ideas of God as the final arbiter of truth this past year or so #there's a lot more to it this is very surface level #and then Christmas forces me to take a breath and just be like #'oh that's right. Jesus is really beautiful.'#unto us a child is born #pontifications and creations

230 notes · View notes

allegraforchrist · 3 months

Text

As a Christian blogger, and Christian overall, I find it hard to post on my Instagram or TikTok platforms. Not because I’m embarrassed to share the gospel or talk about it; it’s because doing it online feels performative. Of all the Christian tiktokers and influencers I follow / followed: their videos are always short and provocative. While I do find it great they’re sharing their faith and creating many posts to spread God’s gospel, I feel sometimes it’s not… purposeful towards the spiritual conditions of Christianity. It’s monetized and easily summarized. There’s either very little depth into the scripture and what it examples from following Christ. While not all of us have the same purposes as other parts of the body of Christ, we still have a purpose to fulfill as our specific body - whatever may it be, higher or lower. We can’t all be leaders and prophets and teachers and apostles online, and that’s where I worry we blur the lines between the Holy Spirit’s voice, and our voice. We preach and then act like we’re an Apostle, we read a verse out loud and then act like we’re a Priest, we pray for someone and then act like we’re a Prophet. We do all these things to encourage people to come to Christ: make videos, create content, make memes, do cool edits of Jesus and the Chosen and Bible verses… all the meanwhile we’re losing ourselves to the idols of popularity, monetization, false teachings, and religiousness. We become so absorbed in performing the Word of Christ online, we forget to act on the Word of Christ in the real world. Social media connects us to thousands upon billions of people, but we can still reach a disconnection if we aren’t looking at our Bibles first and following God, and not following which section in the Bible we can make a video about that’ll get the highest amount of attention. Sharing the Gospel for demand, and not Christly desire.

-> Matthew 5:17 ; 5:19-20, “Gods Law is more real and lasting than the stars in the sky, and the ground at your feet. Long after the stars burn out and the earth wears out, God’s law will be alive!… Trivialize the smallest item in God’s law and you will have only trivialized yourself. But whoever takes it seriously, shows the way for others, and you will find honor in the kingdom.”

I’m not saying don’t preach the gospel online, or make videos to Glorify Jesus, or creative edits. What I’m warning against is Glorifying the Lord we have in our heads that we represent on the online world. Christianity isn’t always heartache and spiritual warfare; but if we highlight only the moments of positivity after those challenges, and post it online comedically and aesthetically, it will cause others mistake those as methods to resolve spiritual deficits, spiritual warfare, and the lack of intimacy they have with the Holy Spirit. Most of the videos by on-face creators, either have a short Bible verse targeting a very specific struggle; or preach a video to stop scrolling, with a few minutes of your time, to share a message completely devoid of the scriptures insight. Again, I’m not shaming or condemning creators methods of sharing the Gospel, I only want to warn against what I’ve been shown by the Holy Spirit.

We cannot copy and paste scriptures with a video we hope will reach the masses and “speak to them.” The problem is that the scripture is urged to be read and heard, and not declared and prayed about with God. We aren’t encouraging people to look into the scripture, what the scripture indicates in how you relate it to your spiritual vulnerability, and then taking yourself vulnerably and humbly before God and declaring before Him that you need His guidance and help - with that scripture. We’re teaching self-sufficiency by Scripture, and not God-based suffiency with Scripture. It’s easier to just preach scriptures AT people, and give them a comforting clip, rather than teach them to rely on God, as the scripture mentions thousands of times - cross referenced front to back - to use the scripture to declare yourself before the Lord and His Kingdom, against the kingdom of Babylon, the kingdom of Darkness. It’s not enough to read a verse to people on a screen, you need to fulfill your purpose of sharing the Gospel, in the only way you can, through the Son of God. Whom declared God’s word against the devil and said to rely on the Father.

-> Matthew 4:4, "Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.”

-> Philippians 4:13 “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.”

-> John 14:1-3 “Believe [confidently] in God and trust in Him, [have faith, hold on to it, rely on it, keep going and] believe also in Me.”

-> Psalm 121:1-8 “I will lift up my eyes to the hills—From whence comes my help? My help comes from the LORD, Who made heaven and earth…”

You can be a mouthpiece for God, but you need to know how to do it according to the Holy Spirit, and if you don’t encourage this in yourself, you aren’t going to be able to do it online and in real life. You will then be falsely teaching. You can bring thousands of new believers to the Gates of the Kingdom through your platform, but if you don’t share the application of the technologies the scripture works through in praying, and fasting, and the tongue of the Holy Spirit (the Word), you will deny them from the knowing Jesus.

-> Matthew 7:21, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”

In conclusion. I don’t like making videos on Instagram or TikTok about Christ, as it feels performative and short-sighted. I’m not saying all creators give me the spiritual impression I spoke about, and I’m not saying don’t go about and share the Gospel online, as creatively as you can: I’m only speaking about the warning signs I’ve experienced and only to speaking about certain ways the Christian online community can become disillusioned between Glorying the loving Christ, and Glorying themselves for loving Christ. Amen.

#christian blog #christianity #christian girl #christian #christian faith #christian girly things #christian bible #faith in jesus #christian vent #jesus saves #Jesus loves you

11 notes · View notes

notbecauseofvictories · 2 years

Note

I read that you don't watch bible shows or write bible poetry anymore, but can i ask you if there a specific reason (apart from being an atheist, my friend is agnostic but she's interested in religion)? I mean, you used to write magnific poetry and i saw that you recently re published them on ao3. I don't mean to be rude or disrespectful or anything, if this is too personal feel free to not answer.

(It’s probably too personal, but when has that ever stopped me!)

For me, I think it boils down to:

The Christian Bible is only a truly meaningful and unique story if it is a deadly serious exercise in communicating with, reaching for, finding the limits of, and generally exploring/naming/scoping/realizing/reaffirming the divine. Don't get me wrong, I loved writing about angels, prophets, the early church, Peter and Judas, Eve and Mary! But the thing I really loved, the thing that rung like a struck bell, was that in doing so I was reaching for God, and everything that capital-G-God implies. The seriousness of it, the truth of it, was the point. If I just wanted to write about social institutions, there were better examples; if I wanted to talk about alternative dimensions where the laws of physics are different, there's plenty of room in scifi and fantasy. Writing about the Church, about Purgatory in the very Catholic sense of exploring something that could actually exist in the theological universe and what it would look like, is a totally different project than "hey it would be crazy if the lion that is also jesus talked."

I loved the Christian Bible as a way of exploring these ideas as well as something I felt, deeply---and in doing so, affirming that these feelings were a mirror, an extension of a greater ontological reality that I could only catch in glimpses, out of the corner of my eye.

Now I don't feel that! And I don't believe that particular reality exists. It doesn't make what I wrote before meaningless, but it does mean I have little interest in returning to it. What joy could I take in seriously communicating with the divine, if I don't believe there's a divine to reach for? I'd be better off divorcing myself from the rituals, the hierarchy of angels, the Aristotelian physics embedded in the Catholic universe---writing fantasy, essentially, at least I can return to these things with more distance, insight, and interest.

(To be fair, I'm still wildly susceptible to depictions of faith in literature---there's a reason that The Silt Verses is one of the only podcasts I've been able to keep up with. But that's fictional religion, separate and apart from writing, reading, and thinking about the characters of the Christian Bible with deadly seriousness.)

None of this means the Christian Bible isn't meaningful in a general sense of Western thought, literature, art, history. I still think the Psalms are beautiful, am intrigued by the stories (and recastings and retellings and musicals and---) that the Christian Bible birthed. But if I'm interested in religion as a political force, or the church as a sociopolitical institution, I don't have to sit through Passion of the Christ 2: Christ Harder to do it. At the end of the day, I don’t believe in god, so I don't feel any particular interest in returning to the spaces where that’s a valid question.

And for someone who grew up in a faith that regularly had us chant “I believe in one god, the father the almighty....” I’m not sure what place there could be reserved for me now.

#.......did I write this whole post and go ''hey maybe you're still mourning your loss of faith?''#maybe so. maybe so.#tw religion #tw christianity #it begins in a garden #also I posted that stuff on ao3 because I haven't written anything new. it's really not that deep.

102 notes · View notes

sunstar706 · 9 months

Text

Hear me out: Bucky Barnes is 100% not Jewish.

I’ve been doing a lot of scrolling on Tumblr/Ao3 the past few days looking for other people’s opinions on the nitty gritty of Bucky Barnes’ background, and realized- a lot (a *lot*) of people headcanon him as Jewish, which I find really interesting. Judaism, on the whole, is an extremely interesting subject, as the only non-universalizing Abrahamic faith, the only ethnic Abrahamic faith, and the oldest Abrahamic faith (making it one of the oldest monotheistic religions ever to exist).

Let me present to you my speculation on Bucky’s religious background. First of all, we know Steve is Catholic. Just getting that out of the way.

Am I a geography and demography nerd? Yes, yes I am. And I also have a strange hyperfixation on names. That’s why this stood out to me immediately.

James Buchanan Barnes, born March 10, 1917, into a poor family in Brooklyn, New York.

James is a really ambiguous name, with versions in pretty much every Indo-European language, as far as I know. It’s the number one baby boy name in the United States of all time, beating out the second place name (Robert) by over 300,000. Honestly, this name tells me nothing. Moving on.

Buchanan. It’s Scottish. That says a lot. It was fairly common at the time for the eldest sons middle name to be the mothers maiden name, so we can safely say that Winnifred Barnes (née Buchanan) was most likely Scottish.

Now, this is where we get historical, and also where speculation starts. As many Outlander fans will know, things went south for Catholics in Scotland after the battle of Culloden Moor and the Jacobite rebellion, however… The Roman Catholic ecclesiastical hierarchy was reestablished in Scotland in 1878. Catholic emancipation occurred in 1829, and there was a revival of Papism in Scotland, along with an influx of Irish Catholic immigrants coming in (especially with the potato famine starting in the 1840s in Ireland), so, while Catholicism isn’t as popular in Scotland today (approximately 15% of modern Scots are Catholic), when Winnie was born (likely somewhere between 1897 and 1900, I usually put it at 1899) there would have been a good number of Catholics in Scotland. There’s a really good chance she was Catholic.

Now. Barnes. If there was ever an extremely English surname, it was Barnes. It’s pretty hard to provide reasonable evidence that George Barnes was not English, so, let’s run with that. While England today has high percentages of Islam, Hinduism, and even reasonable amounts of Sikhism and Buddhism, it was… very Christian back in the day. In fact, the only really established non-Christian religion in England was Judaism (England contained approximately 60000 Jews in 1880, a number which rose to 300000 by 1914. However, please consider that the majority of these people were fresh immigrants escaping anti-semitism in Eastern and Northern Europe, who would not have had the surname ‘Barnes’). Delving further into English Christianity- they were Anglican, pretty much.

Guess what? Protestants (ex. Anglicans like George) and Catholics (like Winnie) don’t like each other. While marriage between Protestants and Catholics wasn’t illegal in the uk at the time, it is extremely unlikely their families would have approved. So, Winnie and George moved to NYC. (Actually, this is how my very own great-great-grandparents ended up in New Zealand).

So, where does James Buchanan Barnes lie on the religion side of things? I can tell you The chances that he’s Jewish are very low. I’d say he’s probably Catholic, even if just to blend in- New York is extremely Catholic, even today. He could be Anglican. After all the shit Hydra put him through, he’s might’ve given up on religion all together. Or maybe he converted to Buddhism. A lot of people do that (Buddhism is the third largest universalizing religion on earth). I’m kidding, don’t take that seriously, he’s not a Buddhist.

I think he’s Catholic.

But hey, nothings concrete. I’ve read some really great stories where he’s Jewish. I’ve read great stories where he’s Catholic.

-Ranger616

#bucky barnes #steve rogers #captain america #winter soldier #the avengers #george barnes #winnifred barnes #religon #marvel #marvel cinematic universe #judaism #christianity #catholiscism #protestantism #anglicanism

15 notes · View notes

valyrfia · 1 year

Note

Contract anon back again! I am here to rant about Ferrari and their unseriousness.

WHAT ARE THEY DOING? Charles said that he didn’t even have talks with Ferrari yet (to renew his contract). If what he’s saying is true, that means that Ferrari STILL doesn’t see his importance to the team. If that’s the case, I know he loves Ferrari but he seriously should start evaluating his options. I don’t know where else he would go, but this is just ridiculous. He should have been the number one driver since 2021. The other option of what’s happening is that they want to appease Sainz, and are purposefully making Charles look unstable and look like a damn fool to do so. If they want to appease Sainz that badly, then it makes me think bad things about Vasseur and his “prioritization” of Charles. I’m so pissed off.

Anon, I'm so glad you're back. I'm really not sure what's up with the contracts here and trust me I'm as pissed as you.

Charles should've been promoted to n1 as soon as Seb left (considering he was still technically and obviously n2 all the time that Seb was with him in Ferrari and still performed better than Seb) that's obvious. All that aside, the first half of 2022 when he was not only a serious competitor for the WDC but actually leading it over Max and Lewis should've been a serious lightbulb moment for Ferrari. Carlos is nice, I like him fine but he's not the same talent Charles is. He would actually make a very good n2 in my opinion, but he (understandably) has an ego that makes a n2 position difficult to accept. Add in Mattia Binotto's obvious bias against Charles/towards Carlos (ie. Silverstone 2022 and developing a car for 2023 that suits Carlos's style over Charles's) and Charles is stuck in an awful position with that ridiculous team. I think it goes without saying that any other driver would have left Ferrari by now, but Charles has this blind faith in Ferrari that leaves them with the negotiation power when in reality, Charles would get insane deals out of Red Bull and Mercedes (that I think would rival The Sir Lewis Hamilton's current deal). Ferrari have become complacent in their ownership of Charles, and they need to realise what they've got in front of them.

Ferrari at the moment are the least organised of the principal teams to the extent that even the tifosi agree that they are an embarrassing team to support. I stand by what I've said in previous asks, which is that if Charles decided to leave Ferrari and join RBR or Merc, he would bring a good portion of the tifosi with him. I don't think Charles realises this though so I need someone to tell him.

Selfishly, I would love to see Charles consider Red Bull if only because I think him and Max have similar driving styles and a championship fight between both of them in the same car would be epic. Realistically, Charles could step easily into the Merc N1 seat once Lewis retires. Both Christian and Toto have been vocal about Charles's ability (moreso than Charles's OWN TEAM PRINCIPALS, may I add) and how they would pay a lot of money to have him driving for their teams. I just need Charles to take off those red-tinted glasses he wears and actually have a good look at his own career and life and realise that Ferrari isn't going to give him a championship anytime soon and then decide whether he wants to gamble on possibly winning one WDC with Ferrari, or go and win a few elsewhere then come back to Ferrari later in his career.

#charles please leave ferrari i beg #lestappen rbr 2024 #for good measure #charles leclerc #ferrari #anon

29 notes · View notes

lawlightautismtruther · 7 months

Text

All I ever hear when talking with the girls (am I 100% girl? No, and that might be why I feel the disconnect here) is the following

- he’s so tall and big and muscular and deep voiced and UHHHH I WANT HIM TO RAIL MEEEEE

And I’m just like “good for you. Where’s my 5’5” 110 angel of a male, whom I want to carry around princess style to our king sized bed” and they all just look at me like

😨

Like are yall not aware that not EVERYONE is like you??!!!

Like I have no problem with how other people experience sexual attraction, obviously I don’t. That would be hypocritical as hell because people tend to have a problem with how I experience it (note I live in the evangelical American south and the internet is the only place that gets me) but I wish (and I’m the 10000000th person to express this, which goes to show how behind we still are) that women/women-adjacent people were ALLOWED to be masculine and be attracted to femininity without being ostracized and made to feel embarrassed. Especially for lesbians, but also for people like me. I feel like people around here can actually conceptualize a sapphic relationship better than the type of relationship I seek (but they accept neither, unfortunately).

I fear what would happen if they learned I was bi 😩

I’m not emotionally attracted to women (it’s a sexual thing), so I’d end up with a man anyway, but the JUDGEMENT I would still receive from these prehistoric brained people is CRAZY. I feel especially for lesbians and gay people because I know it’s 1000000x harder on them, even if people can conceptualize them better, they hate them even more.

Like, I constantly receive the “well if you’re so attracted to “sissy-boys” why aren’t you just a lesbian?” Which is SO stupid because it implies two really fucking idiotic ideas

1. Sexuality is a choice (specifically, gay people choose to be gay)

2. Being attracted exclusively to femininity = (or at least should equal) being attracted exclusively to women (and the inverse, which is often used to invalidate masc attracted lesbians as jaded straight women or something stupid like that)

WHEN WILL THESE PEOPLE GRASP NUANCE AND VARIANCE IN SEX/GENDER EXPRESSION AND EXPERIENCE.

I know a lot of it is the Bible and Christian culture (which is barely even in the Bible at all), but they break the rules and conventions of it EVERYDAY and find a way to justify it. Yet they can never justify people like me who aren’t harming ANYBODY

Which is proof it’s not 100% about religion, even if they’re consciously convinced it is. It’s about prejudice and ignorance.

what I’ll never understand is the motivation a lot of these people give me for being so obsessed with gender essentialism and policing others “the death of masculinity and femininity in men and women respectively will lead to the downfall of society”

LIKE BROTHER SOURCE PLEASE?!! WHATS YOUR SOURCE HELP

And for the love of God, don’t say the Bible. I’m a Christian myself, actually. But I am fully aware that the Bible was never supposed to be a source for ANYTHING. It’s simply a collection of relevant documents to the history of our faith. That’s it.

GIVE ME A SCIENTIFIC STUDY AND MAYBE I’LL TAKE YOU A LITTLE MORE SERIOUSLY FOR ONCE (but that will never happen, so by default I will never take these people seriously. Also because if gender variance were an issue, God wouldn’t have made me (and millions of others) the way I am. There are actual problems in this world to worry about, so stop trying to convince me that by “acting like a man” and preferring men who “act like women” I’m contributing to the destruction of society. To be honest, I hope I’m contributing to the downfall of society, because this one stinks). Instead, target the rapists, the murderers, the pedos, the human traffickers, the child exploiters, the money hoarding ultra-rich, the fascists, the racists, the sexists, the homophobes, the supremacists, the nazis, the liars, the cheaters, and the media that promotes them. But most of these people are too far gone to see what’s wrong with the above. So I’m ranting about it all here in this echo chamber. I have no choice.

9 notes · View notes

aprillikesthings · 7 months

Text

Things I’m totally okay with:

Being a Christian who takes my faith seriously

Reading and writing weird and/or kinky fanfiction

Things that I have decidedly mixed feelings about:

Thinking about said fanfiction while I’m at church or trying to do daily prayer

#dear brain: can this wait #look I’m sure God finds this very funny #Christianity #my life

10 notes · View notes

queen-esther · 6 months

Text

What’s funny about that anon accusing me and my husband of “church hopping” is that this implies you’re somehow failing as a Christian if you don’t have your final denomination figured out right off the bat when you first come into the faith, which honestly just feeds more into this idea on Christian social media (particularly among converts) that every single Christian must immediately be some sort of armchair theologian, historian, and Biblical scholar with all the answers in order to be taken seriously. You can’t change course at all with new understanding along your faith journey, because doing so would require you to admit to your online following that you may have been wrong about something, and being wrong is the worst sin any Christian can commit, obviously. I always say I would’ve gone Orthodox originally had I actually given the faith a fair shake and taken more seriously Orthodoxy’s claims of being the original Church instead of just blindly taking Catholicism at face value, but apparently admitting this means I’m just a fairweather Christian who hops from Church to Church at the slightest inconvenience. 🤪

#like my husband said these people wouldn’t be saying trash at all had it been in the reverse

10 notes · View notes

avelera · 1 year

Note

Looking at your rant on the Crowley-Lucifer theory as a Jewish person myself who actually majored in World Religions- I one hundred percent agree with everything you said. It was nonsensical from the start and I'm glad Neil ran it into the ground. Even without the S1 line stating that Lucifer was not Crowley, Gaiman knows his religion and mythology. Definitely knows it better than the majority of GO fans do. And you didn't come across as antisemitic or ignorant to me at all, idk what that other person was on about.

Thank you! Seriously, this is a huge relief. I know I shouldn’t get this angry about it but I have vast respect for Jewish people and the Jewish tradition and so being accused out of the blue of ignoring or diminishing Jewish people or Jewish thought is incredibly upsetting to me.

I personally am not a Christian (if anything, I’d consider myself a Hellenistic pagan, or an atheist if called upon by those I didn’t want to talk about that faith with) however I was raised in the Catholic tradition albeit unwillingly pretty much from the start. I’m informed on Catholic Christianity from that context, but I feel no connection to it or protectiveness of it (indeed, I welcome future iterations of GO absolutely tearing into Christian dogma, I think it’s hilarious and fertile ground for satire). I also took several courses on religion in college, both on the Christian and Jewish tradition. I don’t claim this makes me an expert by any standard but I am at least educated beyond a casual understanding of these faiths, I would like to think.

Anyway, it’s actually my gut feeling that a pivot from a context where Christ is the explicit son of god in GO to one where the Jewish tradition was actively called upon and needed to understand the text would be absolutely fraught with potential to give offense to the Jewish faith. It’s one reason I think GO stays far away from invoking the Jewish tradition, specifically out of respect.

GO takes place in a fantasy world where the Antichrist is real. To say the Jewish tradition is active would imply it’s only accurate to a point and then it becomes inaccurate because it would mean that Jewish people were wrong about Jesus being the Messiah, ie it means that in that universe Jewish beliefs are wrong and then superseded by the objective existence of Christ as the son of god and the events of the Second Coming, which is an incredibly offensive thing to say and ground that is incredibly fraught with echoes of arguments from the history (and present!) of Christian bigotry towards Judaism. It’s not disrespectful, in my opinion, to separate out the Jewish tradition from the discussions of GO lore, quite the contrary, to borrow from Jewish and Christian tradition while giving Christian dogma and its Messiah preeminence within the story as objective fact would be far far more offensive, and I personally think Neil understands that.

#good omens meta

21 notes · View notes

wat-the-cur · 10 days

Note

Not sure if you've already said but, do you have a favorite askiewniverse film? Also what do you like about it?

Oooh, this is a fab question. A tricky one to answer as well. All of the View Askewniverse films have something that delight me, with makes it very hard to pick a favourite one. If you twisted my arm, though, I guess I would have to say it’s “Clerks”.

Something I really like about Kevin Smith films, is that even though they vary massively in terms of quality, they all feel really sincere. I’ve yet to see a Kevin Smith film where I didn’t feel like he was trying, even when he later admitted he didn’t really like what he ended up with. That’s what sets his films apart from other comedies of a similar type, at least to me.

“Clerks” has that sincerity in spades. I love the vibe of the film. Not because it feels “gritty”, or “indie”, but because it feel like a film made by some guy you know. It feels like the best that could be made with limited resources, and limited life experience, and enough determination and passion to make it entertaining. Though there is a certain amount of zaniness to to film, I love the mundanity of it. I love that it’s just about people going about their day, working, goofing around, wasting time, talking about films and complaining about customers. And it’s about friendship, and being honest with people and yourself, and being appreciative of the people who love you and the things you’ve got that really are good. Everyone in it, even the side characters, feel like they have distinct lives that you just don’t set to see, just like in real life. It’s got a story, but it’s also episodic, with different segments. And it does everything in one day, which I always enjoy. It was the first film in the Askewniverse that I saw, and the one that started everything off for me.

I’m sorry if that all sounded really corny, but it’s how I feel about the film! If you twisted my arm again though, I would admit that it’s very closely tied with “ Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back”. That is an ultimate “cheer up” film. It’s just pure joy and fun. I don’t care if you can’t take it as seriously as the others. You’re really not supposed to.

As I said, all the View Askewniverse films have things about them I love. I love the unconventional horror of “Vulgar”. The low stakes and nostalgic feel of “Mallrats”. “Dogma” and “Chasing Amy” were films I took ages to get to watching. Each feature subject matter very close and tender to my heart, those are Christian faith and bisexuality. But, where “Chasing Amy” left me feeling satisfied, but ultimately sad and exhausted, “Dogma” left me elatedly happy. I love that “Dogma” is a film for people of faith that doesn’t go out of it’s way to be squeaky clean. It feels more honest than that. Again, it’s sincere. It feels like the very real struggle a person of faith goes through with the difficult questions. It encourages freedom of thought to ponder them, love and compassion, and for all it’s dark and vulgar humour, it is ultimately very respectful. It’s rare that you see a faith-based film, or a religious comedy like it.

Thanks a lot for sending this question, buddy! It was so fun to think about and answer. What’s your favourite View Askewniverse film, and why?

#asks #sweet asks #view askewniverse #clerks #clerks 1994 #jay and silent bob strike back #dogms #dogma 1999 #chasing amy #mallrats

6 notes · View notes

diivineray · 2 months

Text

Okay I’ve chilled cuz now I’m thinking about xie lian in book 4/5 and DONT READ if you don’t wanna get spoiled

But like the way these two contrast each other so deeply still pains me to this day.

And the way I see and understand both sides.

Especially after you’ve seen everything Xie Lian and Jun Wu went through all to help people. And they were ungrateful. Seriously, the ppl were ungrateful little fucks.

They wanted instant gratification. Sure, fear of what would happen to them causes panic and lack of faith, but ultimately the ppl really are the problem.

One mental image I always have is how Xie Lian was using so much of his power and strength to keep that statue from falling and crushing the people beneath him. It’s not logical to expect ppl to remain calm and faces are popping up on their bodies sURE but it’s the way they screamed and cried and pulled on Xie Lian who needed concentration to be able to IDK keep them fucking alive ?? And it’s a scene that regularly pisses me off because at that moment no one was thinking ‘he’s working so hard to save us’ they wanted a solution right then and now. And again that is fair. It’s a hectic situation.

Jun Wu spending years constructing that bridge and ppl couldn’t wait. It was taking too long. They started putting their faith in other people. I’m sorry but that would be piss me off too. And the fact that their lost faith results in his weakened strength, and the moment the volcano hit and everyone suddenly starts rushing forward to be saved, with Jun Wu’s already weakened state, no one was putting faith in him in that moment. Cuz if they had, his power likely would have gotten stronger. They were only thinking of themselves and saving themselves. Naturally the bridge would break. Not only did the people lose faith in their God but their God lost faith in them.

But all I could think about is how, even in life we try and try and try to help people and often times that help gets thrown back in our faces. Xie Lian made countless sacrifices for people and it still wasn’t enough. He practically gave his body to them to stab and mutilate and it still wasn’t enough.

Because he failed, because Jun Wu failed, something that was really the people’s fault they started to be hated. Looked down on. Their temples burned and destroyed. Statues broken and ruined.

They both wanted to do good, both thought they had what it took and both flew way too close to the sun.

The reality is, you can only do so much. There is a reason God, in Christianity does not intervene. At least in my own view, one it’s just how life is. People live and people die. You can’t save everyone. And if you could, I think the balance would be thrown off. There’s a reason in time travel that bringing back the dead, changing time to bring someone back alters and messes up things.

Humans are imperfect beings. They are going to make mistakes, they are going to be selfish and cruel, and they are gonna suck. But that’s also where they are kind of great too.

The world is not black and white. Mistakes happen, but they can be fixed. And that’s the big difference with xie lian and Jun Wu. What xie lian and Jun Wu couldn’t.

Not even Gods are perfect. Hell, most of them are meant to be seen as such as a way to show humans how NOT to be.

This is also what happens when you’re placed on a pedestal. When you overplay your own hand, when you take on more than you can chew. When you don’t ask for help. When you think because you have power you can do anything. It was a humbling experience for Xie Lian.

Xie Lian had to fall, and live as the very people he was trying to save.

And why I love this book so much is that it could have went the easy route and he could have kept that determination he had in the beginning but instead we see him spiral. We see him lose faith. We see him give into temptation, do some bad things and ultimately almost act out in revenge.

And I will always love the scene where he meets the old man in the rain because that too could have been brushed off so easily.

Xie Lian was waiting for a reason to NOT unleash the plague. He laid in that crater of his, and when that old man tripped over him and spilled his rice he was rightfully upset. Cuz sir what are you doing here just laying in the middle of people’s way?

And the old man got upset with him. And xie Lian already in his head was like ‘I guess there isn’t a good person left’ like he just saw it as ‘they don’t care no one cares’ when firstly he was going about it all the wrong way.

But when that old man started talking to him after they bickered with each other, he gave xie lian that hat. And showed xie lian yes, ppl aren’t perfect but they aren’t all that bad. He had to have a GENUINE interaction with someone to see it.

That person had to be mean first, had to act accordingly, be human for xie lian to see why that meant something. He literally picked xie lian up and told him to try again and not lay in the middle of the road you silly

And that was what he needed to hear. Just ONE person. He didn’t need the world to look at him, he just needed one. And that’s where Hua Cheng’s love comes in after those 800 years.

Jun Wu, didn’t get that. He had Mei Nianqing but after he found out the truth he ran away so naturally Jun Wu is going to take that as abandonment. Which he later uses to show Xie Lian that friends don’t stay. Family leaves. No one ever stays.

And the fact that he had to manipulate things in order to make Feng Xin cuz THAT BOY WOULD NOT HAVE OTHERWISE AND I STAND THAT.

to prove to xie Lian, look see?? Even your most loyal bodyguard doesn’t want to be around you. Isolation.

But just GAH. I’m about to read tgcf cuz now I’m in my feels and ugh i love this series so much 😭😭

#if you haven’t read it you absolutely should #best read of my life #ooc. // 𝐛𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐝𝐢𝐚 𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐬 #tgcf rant.

2 notes · View notes