fanthem:

benedictervention:

• 1:A song you like with a color in the title
• 2:A song you like with a number in the title
• 3:A song that reminds you of summertime
• 4:A song that reminds you of someone you would rather forget about
• 5:A song that needs to be played LOUD
• 6:A song that makes you want to dance
• 7:A song to drive to
• 8:A song about drugs or alcohol
• 9:A song that makes you happy
• 10:A song that makes you sad
• 11:A song that you never get tired of
• 12:A song from your preteen years
• 13:One of your favorite 80’s songs
• 14:A song that you would love played at your wedding
• 15:A song that is a cover by another artist
• 16:One of your favorite classical songs
• 17:A song that would sing a duet with on karaoke
• 18:A song from the year that you were born
• 19:A song that makes you think about life
• 20:A song that has many meanings to you
• 21:A favorite song with a person’s name in the title
• 22:A song that moves you forward
• 23:A song that you think everybody should listen to
• 24:A song by a band you wish were still together
• 25:A song by an artist no longer living
• 26:A song that makes you want to fall in love
• 27:A song that breaks your heart
• 28:A song by an artist with a voice that you love
• 29:A song that you remember from your childhood
• 30:A song that reminds you of yourself

Ask me – drop me a number

john15-10:

You’re sadly very right

john15-10:

YES! AMEN SISTER!

this is why i am baffled that there are actually Christians who…believe in evolution. i mean, the entire foundation of evolution is natural selection, which requires death in order to function. you cannot reconcile “since by man sin came into the world” with “survival of the fittest” because they are diametrically opposite and mutually exclusive. if “survival of the fittest” is true, then death has always been a part of the way of the world. if “by man sin came into the world”, then the species could not have miraculously adapted into any new form, whether the six days of creation were literally six days long or six million years long

allfrogsarefriends:

professorsparklepants:

Cinderella “plot holes” I am tired of hearing about

1. “Why didn’t her step family recognize her?” Because royal balls were basically the candle lit equivalent of clubbing in terms of both lighting and sheer numbers. Even if they were right next to her, they probably wouldn’t get a good look, especially since it would have started after sundown. Also, she was the help; they probably hadn’t looked at her in years.
2. “Looking for someone based on their shoe size is stupid!” See above.
3. “Was he going to have every size seven in the kingdom try the slipper on?” Prior to industrialization most garments were made by hand to fit the buyer’s measurements, including shoes. It’s why poor people only had one pair. It’s a lot smarter when you consider that they would’ve fit her like a glove.
4. “You can’t run down stairs in heels!” I know this is a misconception resulting from historical revisionism and disneyfication, but high heels were not originally women’s shoes. They were worn by men. Women wore slippers, which were basically ballet flats. So it’s debatable.
5. “Glass shoes don’t make any sense!” Okay first of all, it’s called the suspension of disbelief, and secondly, they’re gold in every other version but Perrault decided to change them to something else expensive.
6. “She just went to the ball to find a man!” I know this isn’t a plot hole but listen. As the daughter of a widower Cinderella would’ve been running the household finances and acting as hostess if he hadn’t remarried. By demoting Cinderella to a servant, her step-mother essentially guaranteed that she would never escape the house, because the only way for her to escape and maintain her status was to marry well, and no one was going to marry a servant. It was essentially the historical equivalent of your mom stealing your college acceptance letters out of the mailbox.

this was not an analysis i was prepared for, i’ll tell you that

john15-10:

Written by men with the Spirit of God.

i love that people use this argument as if that invalidates the Bible. why don’t we dismiss all literary works on the grounds of “being the product of biased old men”? i recommend we start off with Origin of Species and The God Delusion, followed by Thus Spake Zarathustra, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, and the Satanic Bible

i remember something my anthropology teacher used to say the few times she actually bothered teaching class (she always went out after the first day and had a substitute in her place). she would approach the idea of evolution first with sympathy (”evolution was founded by all these christian monks centuries before darwin”) before dropping the mask and showing her true colors (”believe whatever you want, this is the truth” funny how people like anon only ever mock those who claim to have “the only truth” when those people are religious). one of the very leftist things she would say when discussing the founders of evolution was to refer to them as “old dead white dudes.”

the hardest part is when the ones parroting anon’s lies…are christians. they’re the reason sin has crept into the church with such vehemence and will be responsible for the “falling away” that will precede the man of sin when he comes to take back his place of ancient power