#it's more appreciation than passion

[hamliet]

What do you think about the claim that any relationship Jaune could have with Weiss or anyone else her age is creepy now because of his age? A lot of people are trying to say that it doesn't matter that Jaune has his young body back, he's still a 40 year old in a 20 year old's body. I think that's giving those 20 years of his that he spent on his own and stuck in a cycle too much importance and that it takes his aging process too literally to begin with when it was more of a tool to explore a theme - but I dunno, maybe I'm biased because I DO ship him with Weiss.

I'm not surprised people would say this, but I honestly think people who say that are majorly misreading everything and this is without having anything to do with ships.

The point of Jaune aging is precisely that he did not develop the entire time. All those years, he stayed the same mentally. He went to extreme lengths to make sure everything and everyone around him stayed the same as well.

I think I said it in the anima/animus meta, but regardless of shipping, the point is that Jaune is not a 40 year old in a teen's body now, but that he was, in the Ever After, a teen in a 40 year old's body.

Jaune being young again was him being fixed. Jaune got to return to his true self in a parallel to Ruby--and that means being a teenager.

[patrickztump]

patrick stump appreciation post ✧ 16/∞ [✘]

They also talked me into string through the body, which I wouldn’t have thought of myself. But I was very insistent that it meet up with this stripe, you know, that was… that was very important to me. I don’t know what I was thinking, I just kinda– it was something that at the time I thought it was something cool and geometric, and gave the impression of a larger square, I don’t know. I thought there was something neat and irregular about that. My original version was silver with black stripes, which surprisingly never got commented on, I thought it was a very handsome guitar, but no one ever noticed it.

[piosplayhouse]

This artfight "discourse" goes around every year and it's seriously like beating a dead (disk)horse at this point but truly if you get FREE art of your OCs that someone made you in their free time and you purposefully ignore or even worse shittalk it because it's not "quality" enough for you you are truly a miserable person! I would rather take 1 headshot done in crayon by an artist trying their best than a million professionally rendered pieces done by a popular artist drawing with no passion just because they want a ton of free art in return

[isfjmel-phleg]

[

[hexja]

my job is so kind to me ... 🥹

[jacksprostate]

sorry this is once again my monthly 'i'm in love with people and our capacity for compassion even in the face of deep deep cruelty, even though i've seen worse and worse things, come to terms with so much, it's my love of humanity that has let me avoid rotting, encouraged me to grow and chase my own place in helping everyone around me" post

[queenlucythevaliant]

Do you think Behemoth and Leviathan were actually real and happened to be dinosaurs? Behemoth was a huge and formidable land dinosaur while Leviathan was a pleisiosaur. Technically, plesiosaurs weren't dinosaurs, but you get my idea?

So I've been sitting on this ask for a little bit because I honestly didn't know what tone to take in answering it. I don't know your background, and thus don't know whether to be more blunt or delicate. Ultimately, I settled on blunt, simply because I could not figure out how to answer this question delicately. That said, I hope you take this in the gracious spirit in which I have written it.

SO. That's a hard no from me, friend. Let's discuss!

So typically when you hear people say that Behemoth and Leviathan were dinosaurs (or dinosaur adjacent), it's in the context of arguments in favor of young earth creationism. It's a fairly big talking point with the Answers in Genesis crowd. Basically, they make the argument that Biblical texts referencing creatures that superficially resemble dinosaurs are evidence that humans and dinosaurs could have lived at the same time.

This works out if the earth is only 6,000 years old, but not if we take paleontology, geology, or human evolution at all seriously. The writer of Job would have had no way of knowing that dinosaurs and plesiosaurs existed because they had already been extinct for many millions of years. Even if you want to argue that maybe God is describing creatures with which Job was unfamiliar, it still doesn't track. God's address to Job treats these creatures as something for which he has a point of reference. It also just doesn't make sense why God would choose this moment to reveal the existence of dinosaurs. Talk about a tangent!

I don't know where you fall on the spectrum of Christian beliefs regarding origins and the age of the earth, but I've written at length on this blog about the case for theistic (old earth) evolution, so I won't rehash that here. Check out my all truth is God's truth tag or shoot me an ask if you want more on that. Regarding Behemoth and Leviathan, however, I think some of the same exegetical skills involved in reading (or misreading) Genesis are involved in the relevant chapters of Job.

When God addresses Job out of the whirlwind, he uses poetic language. He's talking about a real thing (his sovereignty over the universe), but it's something that transcends human comprehension on an overwhelming scale. Much like we can't ever hope to wrap our heads around deep time, we're simply not capable of grasping the extent of God's sovereignty.

When God describes storehouses of hail reserved for the day of battle, are we supposed to literally think that there is a giant building in heaven where God keeps all his hail? Or is it a picture of God's might as both creator and judge of the universe? If we know our Bibles, we see that hail is frequently used as a tool of judgement against God's enemies: Egypt, the Canaanites, apostate Israel, and ultimately the rebellious earth. So when God describes his storehouses of hail, we see the reality of his total control over the arc of history, his ultimate justice, his orderliness.

Likewise, Behemoth and Leviathan use the established language and symbolism of Scripture to convey truths for which plain language wouldn't suffice. Behemoth's description isn't that of any real animal, living or extinct. God paints a picture of a creature that no man could ever hope to tame and expresses that he, God, can.

Leviathan is the longer and more interesting image; it's a mighty creature of the deep that breathes fire and cannot be controlled. We know that in Biblical parlance, water is frequently associated with chaos (too many places to enumerate, but Psalms, the Prophets, and Revelation are good starting places). Leviathan is a picture of this chaos: mighty, rearing, deadly, uncontrollable, terrifying. Then God says to Job, "Can you draw this creature out with a fishhook? Can you make a covenant with him? Will he serve you? Can you injure him? Do you have any means at all of controlling the chaos monster? I do." It's poetry used to express a truth that we humans cannot hope to grasp otherwise: We cannot control the chaos of the world around us. We can't even try. But God can, and he does it effortlessly.

So no. Not dinosaurs. And I think that arguing that they are, especially trying to pick through the text and figure out which ones they're supposed to be and using that to argue for literalistic interpretations of Genesis, really misses the point and the power of what God is saying here.

I think Job's words back to God at the end of the book actually give us a remarkably important principle when it comes to Biblical interpretation: "I have uttered what I do not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know." The whole Bible is too wonderful for us. God condescended in order to give us his truth, and he had the magnificent grace to give it to us in ways that we can begin to grasp.

I think a lot of really literalistic reads on Scripture (Job, Genesis, Revelation, and elsewhere) are a kind of grasping at control. There's an assumption in it that God gave the ancients an exact accounting of things that humans just aren't equipped to fully comprehend.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try! But it does mean that when we read Scripture concerning the Big Things: the Sovereignty of God, the creation of the universe, the origin of life, eternity, infinity, even spiritual mysteries like the Trinity and the nature of the Incarnation, we have to approach it as something fundamentally beyond our comprehension which God is showing us the edges of. We can see other, different edges of many of those same things through scientific observation (or philosophy, or whatever other disciplines-- not all of the Big Things are scientific in nature.)

It's like Isaac Newton said: "I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."

[0046incognito]

i kinda have a rule about never ever making text posts on this blog but i just want to mention how super super happy it makes me how responsive and open and sweet the wander over yonder fandom is especially considering it’s comprised of like fourteen people, everyone’s so clamoring for anything new that they’ll All swarm and be super receptive to it and nice and sweet and friendly that kinda audience just warms the cockles of my heart

[yappacadaver]

Bg3 fan demands go insane

[maretriarch]

i need to like stand next to a microwave or something and recieve the kind of radiation damage thatll complete the transformation into an authentic actual furry

[andromedasummer]

I hate tourists with my life

[skitskatdacat63]

your trademark is sick AUs (positive, so positive, im obsessed) and vettonso <3

AAAAAAAAHHHHHHH THANK YOU!!!! 💕

I think I've said before but I really did not expect so much interest in what is just really intense historical brainrot for me, so thank you guys so much as always 🥹

Also yep, glad to have reached a point of patron saint of the ship atp 😭 I don't wanna act too egotistical abt it but then I realize how many people associate me with them and I'm like okay ☺️

[blodeuweddschild]

Our current uni assignment is about societal issues and I’m honestly in shock about how little people know about like anything

[frostbitedoesart]

thanks for reblog

No problem!! <3 It's kind of rough on Tumblr for artists who post original, non-fandom artwork, especially if they're just starting out, so we should definitely help each other in any way we can 💗💗💗💗

[camptw1nk]

I wish tumblr was. Easier

[ravenkings]

the other thing about 2005 p&p is that people go on about how much about they’re obsessed with the “i love you...most ardently!” line and like that whole scene with darcy and lizzie reconciling at the end in the misty field but like.....neither of those things were in the book and before you start thinking i’m being pedantic, i do honestly think that those sorts of inclusions bring an energy to the story which, are fine in and of themselves but not necessarily coherent with austen’s ethos. 

austen imo really isn’t into huge displays of emotion and passion (and she is also deeply, deeply ironic.) in fact, i would argue she’s actively suspicious of “passionate” emotions. like, for instance, many of her “rakes”: (willoughby in sense and sensibility, wickham in pride and prejudice, etc.) actively play on these sorts of emotions in a predatory sense to get closer to their targets. austen writes incredible romances, but they work bc all the emotion stays repressed and underneath the surface until it pops its head up just a tiny bit before submerging again.