the-kiibo-anon

[the-kiibo-anon]

“its a bathroom for feminine presenting-” i have literally never voluntarily been feminine in my entire life but guess what i still need a trash can in the stall for used pads while my uterus is shedding its lining because thats part of being an adult woman and it isn’t an optional choice like putting on lipstick or whatever. its not something you get to choose.

[the-kiibo-anon]

This “Pride Month,” we as Christians should strive to ignore it all entirely. Attention (negative as much as positive) is what these people are seeking, so you’re feeding their egos and fueling their persecution complex by making memes about how all gays are going to Hell or virtue signaling about how much you hate rainbow-encrusted merch. A lot of the “appeal” of Pride Month comes from the controversy that makes its rounds in Christian and conservative media outlets each year; it’s practically part of the LGBT holiday tradition to cry about da evil homophobes, and it’s not Pride Month without having a “struggle” of some kind for activists to “fight” against. Just don’t give them any attention.

[the-kiibo-anon]

It’s so funny when religious people are like “I can’t do/say/wear/eat XYZ because god told me not to” and you just have to be like. Ok.

[the-kiibo-anon]

People get mad that Christians find Christian messages in secular work and I'm just like... if you didn't want us associating the story with the truth, you shouldn't have made the message so true.

[the-kiibo-anon]

*me watching any piece of media* maybe these characters would be less miserable if they stopped having sex with strangers

[the-kiibo-anon]

Like just stop for a second with the “grey ace” and “demisexual” and “sapiosexual” labels and think about what it says about our pornofied, oversexualized society that “wanting to get to know people before having sex with them” and “wanting your sexual partner to have a good, compatible personality” and “not wanting to fuck everyone you meet” are now considered atypical sexual orientations instead of common fucking sense.

[the-kiibo-anon]

[the-kiibo-anon]

Failure is inevitable, but so is God.

Salvation is unobtainable by my own hands and heart, but God made a way.

If He knew me from the beginning, if He has called me...then He KNEW. He KNEW and loves me ANYWAY.

This is not excuse to sin, but I need to remember what I am and am not to fear.

I am also looking up Scrupulosity.

[the-kiibo-anon]

I made an "It's Christiiaaaaaaaannn" reaction gif for all your needs

[the-kiibo-anon]

Listen, doubt doesn't have to be a bad thing. Doubt is a step up into strong faith. Think about it.

Accepting what those who know more than you say because you're humble and willing is good. But when you start to ask questions, that's not bad. That just means you want to know the answers, and know them for sure, whether your parents and your community are there to give them to you or not.

See? When you "doubt" something, you start examining the thing you're doubting. You start testing your weight to it. You start considering yourself, and it, in a new light. How else would you approach something you've been hearing all your life with this new, independent interest, seeing it with your own eyes, unless doubt made you approach it, fresh?

The good news is, when it comes to Christianity and the God of the Bible, there are strong, solid answers to those questions. The fact that you're asking them is good, because you'll see for yourself that there are answers. And then you'll get to decide, just between you and God, not "what will my community/parents/friends think," what to do with those answers. If you don't start asking questions you wouldn't get that fresh, "making my faith my own" vibe. The Bible says "come and see." It says "seek and find." It says, "put to test the things you have heard." Asking questions is not bad, as long as you're genuinely looking for answers.

What's bad is when you're asking questions and behind it all you actually already won't be satisfied with ANY answers...because you're in love with the idea of your own "skepticism" and "reasoning." There's answers, but you've gotten to a place where no answers are "good enough" for you. That's not the kind of doubt I'm talking about; that's the kind of doubt that's bad and nonsensical.

There's another kind of doubt, too, that just sits in uncertainty and doesn't look for answers. Because there's some twisted romance in being unsure and unsteady and halting in place, all tortured and anxious, and wanting "special revelation" and feeling cast out because you didn't get it. That's bad. That's not the kind of doubt I'm talking about. Again, there are answers. Be humble enough to go find them.

And finally, be careful that you're not just asking questions because you really just wanna live a certain way or do a certain thing that the Bible 100% says not to do. Because doubt is a quick way to get to shrug off that whole "Christianity" thing so you can do whatever you want.

Doubt can make faith stronger, but only because you're looking to put that faith in answers, not your own reasoning.

[the-kiibo-anon]

As a Christian, does it ever feel conflicting to like works of fiction that feature some things that go against Christian beliefs? (Such as Stranger Things and a few others I've seen on your page)? If someone were to confront you about it, what would you say?

So my answer to that is it simply all comes down to personal conviction.

Every Christians relationship with God is unique, and the lives we have all lived up to that point and during it are unique. So for myself, Stranger Things doesn't do anything to harm my relationship with God. For someone who may have dabbled in witchcraft, or satanic worship before salvation, it could be harmful to their relationship with God.

It comes down to the individual. If your spirit is unsettled while consuming a form of media, its best to pause and pray about it to see if God is telling you to cut it out of your life. I know Christians who are strongly against gore and horror (my husband lol) and those who enjoy it as I do.

When it comes to media that features things like LGBTQ, my husband and I have agreed that its not going anywhere anytime soon, and its also the world we live in. So we take it as a case by case basis. We enjoy the over all plot of TOH, but will not be watching Lightyear for the time being. (which is a shame because I was really excited for that movie)

For anime, I have been watching since the 5th grade, so I am a little too used to certain tropes you could say. But we follow the same process for that as we do most things. If its too much for us, we stop watching. If we can watch it without harming our convictions and relationship to God and each other, then we don't.

I grew up in a very loose Christian home, while my husband grew up in a very strict one, so our approaches to media is very different. Just pray to God, examine yourself regularly, and ensure you're doing what's best for your relationship with God. I am especially careful because of my difficulties with porn, not wanting to consume anything that causes me to stumble.

And they are sins being portrayed in media, but I think shying away from them and treating it as a taboo subject can make it difficult to discuss in a healthy manner with unbelievers (like sex is with many Christians). They are a reality in our world, and I am not celebrating them, but understanding so I can approach in love.

[the-kiibo-anon]

[the-kiibo-anon]

A long time ago when gay marriage was legalized, and the whole pride festival stuff started getting more and more raunchy, I told my husband this would be a slippery slope to eventually leading people to categorize pedophiles as part of the LGBT community. I hate that the gut feeling I had then was so right. MAP’s(minor attracted people) put themselves in the LGBT community. Many people in said community show children pornographic books and images constantly today. Adult men are obsessed with children’s genitals. Pedophillia is becoming the new normal because people were always so quick to say that it would never happen, and that it was just a homophobic conspiracy.

Hmm.

[the-kiibo-anon]

Hey, I'm stumped on this objection, if it's alright, I want your input on this

"For these types of people I always give them a hypothetical situation for them answer So if you knew your wife was going to die by giving birth to the child would you let Your wife get an abortion or would you let your wife die in the child grow up without a mother?"

What do you think?

I would answer that the choice is never actually that simple. We imagine this cinematic moment where the doctor comes out to talk to the anxious husband in the waiting room and says “Sir, we can only save one of them. Should we save your wife or your child?” and he has to make that choice.

That makes a very dramatic movie scene, but it’s not real.

There are three categories of “life of the mother” situations:

1. Very early pregnancy. Mother has a life threatening condition and cannot be kept stable until the child reaches viability (now around 22 weeks with evidence-based best practices). Even in these situations, a direct abortion isn’t the life-saving care. Usually we’re talking about the mother needing a treatment for her life-threatening condition that risks the life of the baby. Most ethical choice is to treat the mother. If the baby dies as a result of the treatment, that is a tragic loss. If the baby doesn’t die, awesome! In this category, there is no way to save the baby without saving the mother, because if the mother died, the baby would too. Ectopic pregnancies fall in this category because there is currently no way to save the baby. If we developed the ability to get ectopic embryos to successfully re-implant in the uterus, that would become the ethical option.

2. Late-term complications. I’m going out of order here for a reason. This is anything where the mother’s life-threatening health issue starts after viability, but especially when we’re talking 30 weeks and on. Baby’s chance of survival with an early delivery goes up rapidly as baby approaches full term. In these cases, if the mother needs immediate treatment for a life threatening issue, she doesn’t actually need her baby to die. There is no reason to choose between the mother and child. A C-section is actually safer than a late-term abortion, since third trimester abortions usually still involve the mother laboring and delivering a dead baby. If the concern, as posed in the original hypothetical, is that she would “die by giving birth,” then she probably just needs a C-section (or a better doctor).

3. The third category is the most complex one. This is when the life threatening issue for the other begins when the child cannot yet survive outside the womb, but may be able to in a few weeks. This is where the difficult decisions are made. This category includes women diagnosed with cancer who might decide to delay treatment to protect their child until their child can be safely delivered. However, even here we can see examples of mothers who choose to receive treatment without first killing their child, and doctors who find innovative ways to treat life-threatening illnesses without harming preborn children.

The true answer is “save them both.” We can’t always - just as any doctor knows in a triage situation they can’t always save all the patients. The decision of who to save is never based on which patient is more human, more valuable, or more worth saving. The answer is instead based on how the doctor can save the greatest number of patients. If the doctor can save everyone, they do. If the doctor knows a course of action means for sure saving one patient, while mother might not make it, but the alternative is losing both, then they will choose to save at least one. We almost never see a situation where the doctor has to arbitrarily choose between two patients - the decision is always based on the condition of each patient, the resources available, how much time there is, etc. There are algorithms for this kind of thing.

Basically I refuse to let unrealistic hypotheticals dictate actual policy on saving children.

Because people believe in the “we can only save one, choose!” scenario, we get doctors telling women that they will die if they don’t get an abortion, and then they cry to the media that they had to go to Colorado or California to get their “life-saving procedure.” The reality is that either the doctor could have treated the mother without first killing the baby and given the baby a chance to survive, or they could have delivered the baby and then treated the mother.

Anyone who says they couldn’t do the first option under ____ state abortion law is either lying or ignorant. If the mother’s condition is actually life-threatening, every state allows doctors to treat the mother. Killing a child doesn’t cure any illness.

[the-kiibo-anon]

"no one's saying stop being religious, just if it comes down to your religion or me you need to agree with me" do you hear yourself

[the-kiibo-anon]

Why are death threats and suicide baiting a thing on this site? A left leaning friend of mine is no longer on tumblr because, in her words, a transphobe kept sending her death threats.

I see far leftists suicide baiting and sending death threats to Jews and zionists. I see right wingers send people death threats for being liberal. I had someone tell me the world would be better if i killed myself because I tagged a post as pro life.

What the fuck, guys?

You can disagree with someone without sending them death threats or telling them to kill themselves. It's not that hard to ignore someone you hate, block them, and then never interact with them again.

Can we please do that, as a community? Just block someone instead of suicide baiting or sending death threats?

[the-kiibo-anon]

modern 7 deadly sins that are super boring and unsexy

pride: reddit mods

greed: funkopop collectors

lust: hentai addicts

envy: influencer stans

gluttony: mukbangers

wrath: 4channers

sloth: NEETs