You Probably Won't Agree With Me

nevver: 365 Days of Hand Lettering

Mon, 02 Jul 2012 21:09:49 -0400

nevver:

365 Days of Hand Lettering

Photo

Sat, 02 Jun 2012 19:57:30 -0400

Photo

Sat, 02 Jun 2012 19:56:11 -0400

theburiedlife: #100: Go To Space

Sat, 02 Jun 2012 19:55:11 -0400

theburiedlife:

#100: Go To Space

Photo

Sat, 02 Jun 2012 19:54:30 -0400

nextyearsgirl: This is an enormous chain and I’m sorry, but I...

Fri, 25 May 2012 18:37:13 -0400

nextyearsgirl:

This is an enormous chain and I’m sorry, but I need to say this:

The laws in the Old Testament were set forth by god as the rules the Hebrews needed to follow in order to be righteous, to atone for the sin of Adam and Eve and to be able to get into Heaven. That is also why they were required to make sacrifices, because it was part of the appeasement for Original Sin.

According to Christian theology, when Jesus came from Heaven, it was for the express purpose of sacrificing himself on the cross so that our sins may be forgiven. His sacrifice was supposed to be the ultimate act that would free us from the former laws and regulations and allow us to enter Heaven by acting in his image. That is why he said “it is finished” when he died on the cross. That is why Christians don’t have to circumcise their sons (god’s covenant with Jacob), that is why they don’t have to perform animal sacrifice, or grow out their forelocks, or follow any of the other laws of Leviticus.

When you quote Leviticus as god’s law and say they are rules we must follow because they are what god or Jesus wants us to do, what you are really saying, as a Christian, is that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was invalid. He died in vain because you believe we are still beholden to the old laws. That is what you, a self-professed good Christian, are saying to your god and his son, that their plan for your salvation wasn’t good enough for you.

So maybe actually read the thing before you start quoting it, because the implications of your actions go a lot deeper than you think.

/An atheist who understands Christian theology better than Bible-thumpers do.

nextyearsgirl: This is an enormous chain and I’m sorry, but I...

Fri, 25 May 2012 18:37:04 -0400

nextyearsgirl:

This is an enormous chain and I’m sorry, but I need to say this:

The laws in the Old Testament were set forth by god as the rules the Hebrews needed to follow in order to be righteous, to atone for the sin of Adam and Eve and to be able to get into Heaven. That is also why they were required to make sacrifices, because it was part of the appeasement for Original Sin.

According to Christian theology, when Jesus came from Heaven, it was for the express purpose of sacrificing himself on the cross so that our sins may be forgiven. His sacrifice was supposed to be the ultimate act that would free us from the former laws and regulations and allow us to enter Heaven by acting in his image. That is why he said “it is finished” when he died on the cross. That is why Christians don’t have to circumcise their sons (god’s covenant with Jacob), that is why they don’t have to perform animal sacrifice, or grow out their forelocks, or follow any of the other laws of Leviticus.

When you quote Leviticus as god’s law and say they are rules we must follow because they are what god or Jesus wants us to do, what you are really saying, as a Christian, is that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was invalid. He died in vain because you believe we are still beholden to the old laws. That is what you, a self-professed good Christian, are saying to your god and his son, that their plan for your salvation wasn’t good enough for you.

So maybe actually read the thing before you start quoting it, because the implications of your actions go a lot deeper than you think.

/An atheist who understands Christian theology better than Bible-thumpers do.

"[A]s a public political philosophy libertarianism is morally inadequate. In practice, it will..."

Fri, 25 May 2012 18:22:30 -0400

“

[A]s a public political philosophy libertarianism is morally inadequate. In practice, it will produce minus-sum consequences…

Libertarian doctrine drops the cooperation criterion of gamesmanship in favor of “YOYO” – “you’re on your own.” The libertarian dogma of “the invisible hand” decrees that a collection of self-serving individuals seeking only to maximize their own personal freedom and wealth, will somehow, by “spontaneous generation,” evolve into an optimum social arrangement. No explicit rules and regulations are required apart from those laws designed to achieve the goal of the protection of the lives, liberties and property of each individual.

It is a neat and simple belief system which, unfortunately, neither history nor practical experience will validate. Instead, history has taught us that when a society officially embraces what Ayn Rand calls “the virtue of selfishness” and greed becomes the controlling force in community life, wealth and power do not “trickle down” to the masses, they “percolate up” to those in control, leaving those masses impoverished and disenfranchised. Government, having been “drowned in a bathtub,” offers no relief to the oppressed. “The free market” and “competitive enterprise,” extolled by the libertarians in theory, are set aside in practice. The prevailing capitalists regard competition as inefficient and inconvenient, and still worse, the constant competitive pressure to improve and innovate erodes profits…

How, then, are diversity, free markets and competition to be preserved? How else than through the intervention of anti-trust laws, which means an activist government, which, of course, is anathema to the libertarian.

”

- Morality as a Plus-Sum Game - Why Libertarianism Fails as a Social Policy (via ryking)

"When you decide it’s time for change to happen, you know what? Change happens." —President Obama

Fri, 25 May 2012 18:22:16 -0400

"When you decide it’s time for change to happen, you know what? Change happens." —President Obama

aseaofquotes: Christopher Paolini, Inheritance

Thu, 10 May 2012 16:00:04 -0400

aseaofquotes:

Christopher Paolini, Inheritance

aseaofquotes: Hermann Hesse, Siddhartha Submitted by bojana24.

Thu, 10 May 2012 15:59:29 -0400

aseaofquotes:

Hermann Hesse, Siddhartha

Submitted by bojana24.

aseaofquotes: — Julia Cameron

Thu, 10 May 2012 15:57:52 -0400

aseaofquotes:

— Julia Cameron

aseaofquotes: Henry Adams, The Education of Henry Adams

Thu, 10 May 2012 15:56:05 -0400

aseaofquotes:

Henry Adams, The Education of Henry Adams

aseaofquotes: Jonathan Franzen, How to Be Alone

Thu, 10 May 2012 15:54:58 -0400

aseaofquotes:

Jonathan Franzen, How to Be Alone

aseaofquotes: Sarah Dessen, Lock and Key

Tue, 08 May 2012 13:05:09 -0400

aseaofquotes:

Sarah Dessen, Lock and Key

aseaofquotes: Laura Pritchett, Sky Bridge

Tue, 08 May 2012 13:04:33 -0400

aseaofquotes:

Laura Pritchett, Sky Bridge

aseaofquotes: Jeanette Winterson, Gut Symmetries

Tue, 08 May 2012 13:02:54 -0400

aseaofquotes:

Jeanette Winterson, Gut Symmetries

aseaofquotes: Donna Tartt, The Secret History

Tue, 08 May 2012 13:02:36 -0400

aseaofquotes:

Donna Tartt, The Secret History

"The super PAC supporting Mitt Romney’s presidential bid has accepted more than $1.2 million from..."

Tue, 08 May 2012 12:59:52 -0400

“

The super PAC supporting Mitt Romney’s presidential bid has accepted more than $1.2 million from federal government contractors, in apparent defiance of campaign-finance regulators.

The contributions, reported by the Restore Our Future political action committee over a nine-month stretch ending in February, came from firms in fields such as energy, engineering, and health care. They represent businesses with federal contracts totaling more than $244 million, according to government records.

The ban on political giving by such contractors has existed since the 1940s. Even so, several of the donors stand by their contributions.

”

- Super PAC backing Romney accepting federal contractors’ funds (via ryking)

aseaofquotes: — Katherine Mansfield

Tue, 08 May 2012 12:59:28 -0400

aseaofquotes:

— Katherine Mansfield