listen, i’m gonna be honest here, on a flawed and strictly personal level: if the events of the mcu were happening in our world, i would be fucking Terrified of the avengers 

as a civilian in the mcu i wouldn’t have access to a ton of info about Bucky Barnes’ Super Tragic Life Situation? i would just know about the apocalyptic shit that happened in sokovia and i’d be seeing news stories about the avengers just Showing Up in countries they had no right to be in, causing damage, and leaving patting themselves on the back. i get upset hearing about local police misconduct. i wouldn’t be chill in this situation

this straight white 25-30 year old american dude from the 40s marching around the globe with a group of superpowered vigilantes (some ex-military, some enhanced with dangerous superpowers, all heavily armed with nearly unlimited resources) fighting people, possibly without working with local law enforcement or emergency services, without being held responsible by any higher-ups because the secret government organization he was working for turned out to be hydra so he burned that to the ground (making more apocalyptic-looking shit happen in the states) and then decided that he should still get to do that job anywhere he chooses without any systems of accountability or communication with the public in place (short of an eccentric billionaire with a shaky reputation making some statements to the press)

like. would i be on tumblr and twitter and facebook seeing people asking for a donation to their kickstarter to fix their car or their house or pay hospital bills or something because of the events of the avengers, and catws, and aou, and cacw,,,, like would the avengers be paying for that? they’re not working for anyone. they don’t have people they answer to. there’s probably not a complaints department or a number you can call. do i have to personally contact and/or sue tony stark to unfuck my financial situation. how exactly do you handle this? how does this work? who’s paying for damages this would be a mess

and then 117 countries around the world start getting together to say “okay this needs to stop”, so there’s probably some Not Great Press re: the avengers circulating around the world. natasha was a russian spy/assassin and all of her Red Ledger Baggage got dumped onto the internet. + also press re: the Event In Lagos™…and then bucky barnes attacks the people trying to hold the avengers accountable. holy shit. the leader of a nation who was leading the charge re: Avengers & Accountability is murdered by captain america’s best friend. 

i mean, steve knows that bucky is innocent, you and me know that bucky is innocent, but your average citizen probably wouldn’t. then steve goes and physically fights off the people who have been sent to arrest bucky for this–you think those people and the families of those people wouldn’t be publicly not okay with that? there’s a dramatic car chase fight situation involving bucky, steve, sam, And The Son Of The Recently Murdered King of Wakanda, and they’re arrested, and maybe you think the drama is probably over, it’s being dealt with, bUT NO, bucky barnes attacks a bunch of people and escapes and there’s a dramatic helicopter crash and holy shit this is like maybe half of the movie’s plot and things would already be So Tense

like even people who were pro-avengers would probably be like  “holy shit okay but What Is Going On” and this is all Before the fight at the airport in germany and hearing on the news that captain america broke his team of vigilantes out of prison and they are now Hiding Somewhere Among Us…like, we know these people and can empathize with them because we see their stories in a way that prioritizes them and their relationships over the collateral damage but like. this would be such a mess this would be so tense to live through as a civilian and i would be Afraid

anonymous asked:

please talk about venezuela, the government is killing us for protesting against them. Yesterday (05/03/2017) my friend's brother was killed for protesting.

I am so sorry to hear about your friend’s brother. My heart goes out to you, your friend, and their family. 

As far as Venezuela goes, I think that the first thing needed here is exposure. Why aren’t we seeing this on the news? We are ignoring a genocide that is taking place right under our noses. And mere awareness isn’t going to save the country, that’s not enough. It’s time to hold leaders accountable, freeze their power, make solid moves to a stable economy, and build back the surplus that will bring Venezuela back to its once prosperous state. There is no plan of action, the big wigs claim to be working on rewriting their constitution, but what is that going to do? They’ve tried reforming via paper and here we are now. Venezuela doesn’t want words on a sheet of paper, Venezuela wants action.

Venezuela is hungry.

And all we’re doing here in the states is complaining about a shit for brains president and the number of times he’s played golf on the weekends. Completely unacceptable. 

‘Yes! Which is what I do, on account of being the leader. It’s my responsibility–’
   ’–to make bad decisions? That’s right, I suppose it is.’
   We stood there, arms folded, glowering at each other across the darkened landing of a haunted house. Then, like a sun coming out, Lockwood’s glare softened to a grin.
   'So…’ he said. 'How’s your anger management going, Luce?’

Lockwood and Lucy, The Screaming Staircase

-Jonathan Stroud

Now that that 24-hour news cycle has moved on to other shiny objects, and now that we know that visibility in mainstream media does not equate to change, how do we as a community move forward? How do we turn this feeling of being at the precipice of change into a reality? I’d like to see queer Muslims build a movement that isn’t reactionary or centered around acceptance from the mainstream. I’d like to see us build with other marginalized communities around issues we collectively face: the queer Latinx community, for example, around immigration and worker’s rights; with Black Lives Matter around police brutality; with growing movements demanding the release of unfairly detained Muslims. I’d like to see self-reflexivity in our organizing. I’d like to see us take on anti-blackness in our own spaces, to ensure the inclusion of minority sects in our organizing.

I would also like to see us challenge homophobia in mainstream Muslim communities — a homophobia that cannot be extricated from the misogyny and racism that also affects our lives. Can we build with women’s mosque movements and Muslim anti-racist organizations to hold accountable the Muslim leaders, imams and scholars who issued statements after Orlando, who went to vigils and who said that they stood by their LGBTQ siblings and who also said that Omar Mateen didn’t represent Islam? How do we ensure that the words of these leaders translate into actions? How can we make sure that they offer support not just for the dead, but also for the living queers in their congregations? We want active support, affirmation and love, not just toleration, not just empty claims of being “progressive” because we’re not turned away. Because tolerance is not enough in the homophobic world that we live in: silence is not enough.

Colossians 3:18
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

When God created woman from man He said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” God created woman to be a perfectly suitable helper to the man. This means God gave the plan and agenda to Adam, and he and the woman together work to fulfill it. God gives to man the responsibility (and the accountability) to be the leader in the home and Church and gives to the woman the responsibility and the accountability to help him. We only see “helping” as a position of inferiority when we think like the world thinks. God considers positions of service as most important in His sight (Matthew 20:25-28). Not only was the woman to be a helper, but also she was made comparable to the man. She should be considered and honored as such. A woman or wife cannot be regarded as a mere tool or worker, but as an equal partner in God’s grace and an equal human being.

The apostle Paul wrote in both Ephesians and Colossians, “Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord” and without proper context and study that would seem to pretty much make women inferior but as everything in life, context is key. Sadly, it’s hard to find those who really care to understand the context of passage or to study the original language in which the text was written.

The ancient Greek word translated as submit is essentially a word borrowed from the military. It literally means “to be under in rank.” It speaks of the way that an army is organized among levels of rank, with generals and colonels and majors and captains and sergeants and privates. There are levels of rank, and one is obligated to respect those in higher rank.

We know that as a person, a private can be smarter, more talented, and be a better person than a general. But he is still under rank to the general. He isn’t submitted to the general so much as a person as he is to the general as a general. In the same way, the wife doesn’t submit to her husband because he deserves it. She submits because he is her husband.

The idea of submission doesn’t have anything to do with someone being smarter or better or more talented. It has to do with a God-appointed order. Anyone who has served in the armed forces knows that rank has to do with order and authority, not with value or ability.

Therefore, submission means you are part of a team. If the family is a team, then the husband is “captain” of the team. The wife has her place in relation to the “captain,” and the children have their place in relation to the “captain” and the wife.

The form of the verb shows that the submission is to be voluntary. The wife’s submission is never to be forced on her by a demanding husband; it is the deference that a loving wife, conscious that her home (just as any other institution) must have a head.

The phrase “submit to your own husbands” defines the sphere of a wife’s submission. The Bible never commands nor recommends a general submission of women unto men. It is commanded only in the spheres of the home and in the Church (and one of the reasons why women can’t be leading pastors in the Church). God does not command that men have exclusive authority in the areas of politics, business, education, and so on.

The phrase “as is fitting in the Lord” is absolutely crucial. It colors everything else we understand about this passage. There have been two main “wrong” interpretations of this phrase, each favoring a certain position:

  1. The interpretation that “favors” the husband says that as is fitting in the Lord means that a wife should submit to her husband as if he were God himself. The idea is “you submit to God in absolutely everything without question, so you must submit to your husband in the same absolute way.” This thinks that as is fitting in the Lord defines the extent of submission. But this is wrong. Simply put, in no place does the Scripture say that a person should submit to another in that way. There are limits to the submission your employer can expect of you. There are limits to the submission the government can expect of you. There are limits to the submission parents can expect of children. In no place does the Scripture teach an unqualified, without exception, submission - except to God and God alone. To violate this is to commit the sin of idolatry.
  2. The interpretation that “favors” the wife says that as is fitting in the Lord means “I’ll submit to him as long as he does what the Lord wants.” And then it is the wife’s job to decide what the Lord wants. This thinks that as is fitting in the Lord defines the limit of submission. This is also wrong. It is true that there are limits to a wife’s submission, but when the wife approaches as is fitting in the Lord in this way, then it degenerates into a case of “I’ll submit to my husband when I agree with him. I’ll submit to him when he makes the right decisions and carries them out the right way. When he makes a wrong decision, he isn’t in the Lord, so I shouldn’t submit to him then. It isn’t fitting to do so.” Simply put, that is not submission at all. Except for those who are just plain cantankerous and argumentative, everyone submits to others when they are in agreement. It is only when there is a disagreement that submission is tested.

As is fitting in the Lord does not define the extent of a wife’s submission. It does not define the limit of a wife’s submission. It defines the motive of a wife’s submission. It means, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands because it is a part of your duty to the Lord, because it is an expression of your submission to the Lord.” They submit simply because it is fitting in the Lord to do it. It honors God’s Word and His order of authority. It is part of their Christian duty and discipleship.

Therefore, as is fitting in the Lord means:

• For wives, submission to their husband is part of their Christian life.
• When a wife doesn’t obey this word to submit to your own husband as is fitting in the Lord, she doesn’t just fall short as a wife. She falls short as a follower of Jesus Christ.
• This means that the command to submit is completely out of the realm of “my nature” or “my personality.” Wives aren’t expected to submit because they are the “submissive type.” They are expected to submit because it is fitting in the Lord.
• This has nothing to do with your husband’s intelligence or giftedness or capability. It has to do with honoring the Lord Jesus Christ.
• This has nothing to do with whether or not your husband is “right” on a particular issue. It has to do with Jesus being right.
• This means that a woman should take great care in how she chooses her husband. Remember, ladies: this is what God requires of you in marriage. This is His expectation of you. Instead of looking for an attractive man, instead of looking for a wealthy man, you better first look for a man you can respect.

As is the case in every human relationship, the command to submit is not absolute. There are exceptions to this command for a wife to submit to her own husband:

• When the husband asks the wife to sin, she must not submit.
• When the husband is medically incapacitated, insane, or under the influence of mind altering substances, the wife may not submit.
• When the husband is violent and physically threatening, the wife may not submit.
• When the husband breaks the marriage bond by adultery, the wife does not need to submit to her husband being in an adulterous relationship.

And finally, Paul finishes that verse in Colossians by saying, “Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them.

Paul’s words to husbands safeguards his words to wives. Though wives are to submit to their husbands, it never excuses husbands acting as tyrants over their wives. Instead, a husband must love his wife, and the ancient Greek word translated as love here is agape.

Significantly, this puts an obligation upon the husbands in here. In the ancient world - under Jewish, Greek, and Roman customs, all power and privileges belonged to husbands in regard to wives, to fathers in regard to children, and to masters in regard to slaves. There were no complimentary powers or privileges on the part of wives, children, or slaves.

The verb agapao does not denote affection or romantic attachment; it rather denotes caring love, a deliberate attitude of mind that concerns itself with the well-being of the one loved.

Strictly speaking, agape can’t be defined as “God’s love,” because men are said to agape sin and the world (John 3:191 John 2:15). But it can be defined as a sacrificial, giving, absorbing, love. The word has little to do with emotion; it has much to do with self-denial for the sake of another.

Some can read this passage and think that Paul means, “Husband, be kind to your wife.” Or “Husband, be nice to your wife.” There is no doubt that for many marriages, this would be a huge improvement. But that isn’t what Paul writes about. What he really means is, “Husband, continually practice self-denial for the sake of your wife.”

Of course, this agape love is the kind of love Jesus has for His people and this is the love husbands should imitate towards their wives (Ephesians 5:25).

The implication of “And do not be bitter toward them” is perhaps the wife has given the husband some reason to be bitter. Paul says, “That doesn’t matter, husband.” The husband may feel perfectly justified in his harsh or unloving attitude and actions towards his wife, but he is not justified - no matter how the wife has been towards the husband.

Agape loves even when there are obvious and glaring deficiencies, even when the receiver is unworthy of the love.

Ephesians 5:25
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her

Paul’s words to Christian husbands safeguards his previous words to wives. Though wives are to submit to their husbands, it never excuses husbands acting as tyrants over their wives.

As Martyn Lloyd-Jones put it, "It is not naked power, it is not the power of a dictator or a little tyrant, it is not the idea of a man who arrogates to himself certain rights, and tramples upon his wife’s feelings and so on, and sits in the home as a dictator. No husband is entitled to say that he is the head of the wife unless he loves his wife. So the reign of the husband is to be a reign and a rule of love; it is a leadership of love.”

Jesus’ attitude towards the church is a pattern for the Christian husband’s love to his wife. This shows that the loveless marriage doesn’t please God and does not fulfill His purpose. This is love given to the undeserving. This is love given first. This is love that may be rejected, but still loves.

Charles Spurgeon said this, “It is possible that some husbands might say, ‘How can I love such a wife as I have?’ It might be a supposable case that some Christian was unequally yoked together with an unbeliever, and found himself for ever bound with a fetter to one possessed of a morose disposition, of a forward temper, of a bitter spirit. He might therefore say, 'Surely I am excused from loving in such a case as this. It cannot be expected that I should love that which is in itself so unlovely.’ But mark, beloved, the wisdom of the apostle. He silences that excuse, which may possibly have occurred to his mind while writing the passage, by taking the example of the Savior, who loved, not because there was loveliness in his Church, but in order to make her lovely.”

We might say that Paul taught two things at once here. He taught about the nature of the relationship between husband and wife, and he taught about the relationship between Christ and His Church. Each illustrates important principles about the other.

Jesus’ action towards the church is a pattern. This helps us define what agape love is all about: it is self-sacrificing love. How should a husband love his wife? As Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it. What did that involve? Perhaps the best statement concerning that matter is in Philippians 2:5-8, where it shows that the focus of Jesus was on the church. It was for the church that He did what He did, not for Himself.

This word is especially needful for husbands who see headship in submission with worldly understanding instead of godly understanding. Some husbands think that because God said they are the head of the home and the wife is obligated to submit to them that they do not have to be humble, lay down their lives, and sacrifice for the benefit of their wife. They need to understand the difference in thinking between worldly headship and godly headship.

  • Worldly headship says, “I am your head, so you take your orders from me and must do whatever I want.”
  • Godly headship says, “I am your head, so I must care for you and serve you.”
  • Worldly submission says, “You must submit to me, so here are the things I want you to do for me.”
  • Godly submission says, “You must submit to me, so I am accountable before God for you. I must care for you and serve you.”

This is not the height of romantic love as the world knows it. This isn’t love based on looks, image, the ability to be suave and cutting-edge cool. This is love expressed through sacrifice.


In today’s episode of “things that should make you fucking livid” we have the Turkish president’s guards (in the suits in the video.) attacking protesters in WASHINGTON GODDAMNED D FUCKING C while the protesters are the ones who get arrested because protect and serve, amirite? 

Here’s Phillip Defranco talking about it, and his feelings line up well with mine: 

This dictator brought his thugs to American soil (at the invitation of our corrupt as hell manchild in chief.) and let them beat up American citizens and our government is letting them get away with it.  There should be protests over this.  We should be surrounding the Turkish embassy and screaming till they can’t hear anything else.  Fuck them, fuck their president, and their authoritarian bullshit.  How dare they come here and bring this with them and do this to our people in our country? HOW DARE THEY? And that said, HOW IS THIS NOT A BIGGER DEAL???  If you were looking for a watershed moment, a match for the fire, this is it.  Our gov’t, our police force, is LETTING an authoritarian Turkish dictator’s bodyguards beat up our citizens with no punishment at all.  *Everyone* should know about this.  Everyone should be angry.  Everyone should be holding our leaders accountable for this, and I don’t care that diplomatic immunity means they can’t be tried.  They can be kicked out, they officially represent their gov’t, their gov’t can be punished.  


Also, for those who don’t like video or think I’m exaggerating, here’s an NYT article:

american history books and american news outlets really do pretend the AIDS crisis never happened… i didn’t know a god damn thing about the AIDS crisis before i started reading articles online. the mainstream public tries very hard to pretend it did not happen

i just read a NYT article reassuring the american people that we “felt the way we feel about trump towards reagan too” and how “he ended up greatly improving the country”

and i’m like…. are you fucking serious? is 80,000+ deaths from AIDS by the end of his presidency alone not enough of a fucking failure to count?

this country has always turned a blind eye to our worst mistakes and refused to hold our leaders accountable and now that i’m older and i’m gay myself it burns me to think that society at large really just doesn’t care that reagan’s homophobia wiped out an entire generation of gay men & trans women and set the LGBT rights movement very, very far back

like that’s apparently just not relevant enough for them to criticize him for

anonymous asked:

I see you complaining about Scott Lobdell's mischaracterization of Jason a lot, but what exactly don't you like about it?

*cracks knuckles*

i am so glad you asked, anon.

okay. first of all: lobdell’s characterisation of jason isn’t my least favourite characterisation. that dubious honour goes to fabian nicieza’s jason in robin v2, as broken down by luka over here. but god, does it irritate me. bear in mind that i didn’t read all of rhato, because i couldn’t read too many issues before i just gave up. (warning: major saltiness beneath the cut.)

Keep reading

anonymous asked:

I wouldn't call lawyers, scientists, doctors, nurses, authors, accountants, business leaders, students, etc. idiots. That's the problem w/SC and whoever else is running this shitshow. They've underestimated and sold short this part of the fandom. Do any of these trolls, actors or not have this kind of brainpower? I'm gonna say no. Big mistake. Huge.


Why we need to stand up for science...

There is no denying that we have entered a new era. The last week has brought a whirlwind of concerning announcements, statements, and revelations with wide-ranging consequence. To be honest, it’s hard to know exactly where to focus, with so much at stake in so many areas.

Personally, the seeming attack on science has affected me deeply. So many of the positive things in our world society are dependent on the advances in science and technology, based on following the evidence and rejecting what doesn’t hold water.

I was reminded the other day what can happen when science is pushed to the side by powerful people for whom its message is inconvenient. In Stalin’s Soviet Union, a biologist named Trofim Lysenko rejected Mendelian genetics in favor of his pseudoscientific principles for increasing agricultural yields. For example, he believed that acquired characteristics could be passed on to offspring, and hoped to use those principles to develop crops that could better withstand the harsh Russian climate. 

He introduced new processes and ideas so quickly, there wasn’t time for legitimate biologists to conduct experiments to counter his false viewpoints. Following a period of famine during the 1930s, he managed to convince leaders to put him in charge of agricultural affairs. Once there, he put down legitimate geneticists and biologists, gaining Stalin’s attention and favor by painting them as enemies of Marxism. 

By 1948, traditional genetics was officially banned in favor of Lysenkoism. Over 3,000 mainstream biologists who failed to get on board were fired, imprisoned, or even executed. Not until the mid-1960s did the Soviet Union manage to shake off Lysenko’s radical pseudoscience and resume legitimate evidence-based progress in biology.

I understand the political conditions in the US are nowhere near the same as Stalinist Russia. Our system of checks and balances is far more robust, not only in the structure of our government, but in the wide availability of information. Journalists, at least the good ones, try to hold our leaders accountable with some degree of success. Thankfully, there’s no sign they are going to let up anytime soon. Beyond that, myriad social media platforms allow us to organize as scientists and present clear, accurate information directly to the public.

I’ve always been an optimist, so I’m hopeful we can pull this one off. With one voice, we need to let our leaders know that we won’t stand for the suppression of evidence-based science. Even if your science isn’t on the endangered list today, that doesn’t mean you are safe in the future. When leaders get in the habit of inventing “science” to fit desired policy, rather than the other way around, we’re all in trouble–not just in the US, but throughout the world.

3 ways Senate Republicans can pass Obamacare repeal
Whatever health care bill Senate Republicans produce in secret will have to solve a very basic math problem: Can it add up to 50? By all accounts, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is agnostic about the actual policy of the bill his chamber is drafting. The secretive drafting of the Senate’s plan has allowed speculation to flourish. Read more

It’s that spirit – of faith in reason and enterprise and the primacy of right over might that allowed us to resist the the lure of fascism and tyranny during the Great Depression.  That allowed us to build a post-World War II order with other democracies.  An order based not just on military or national affiliations, but built on the rule of law, human rights, freedom of religion and speech and assembly and freedom of the press.  That order is now being challenged, first by violent fanatics who claim to speak for Islam; more recently by autocrats in foreign capitals who see free markets and open democracies and civil society itself as threats to their power.

The peril each poses to our democracy is more far-reaching than a car bomb or a missile.  They represent the fear of change.  The fear of people who look or speak or pray different.  A contempt for the rule of law that holds leaders accountable.  An intolerance of dissent and free thought.  A belief that the sword or the gun or the bomb or the propaganda machine is the ultimate arbiter of what’s right.

Bellamy x Reader

Part 1-
Part 2-
Part 3-
Part 4-
Part 5-
Part 6-
Part 7-

Part 8-

You realize there was nothing you could do to help yourself at this point, so you decided to go to sleep. When you woke up, you were blindfolded and gagged, but you felt yourself on flat ground now. Voices spoke indistinctly in the background. Then someone yanked you up by your arm and chain your hands to something. You kicked and thrashed but the person punched you in the stomach. Stop being so fucking weak, you thought. Voices came closer and the blindfold was taken off but you were still gagged. You saw that you were in a clearing in the forest tied up to a wooden pole in the ground. There were a series of official looking grounders discussing feverishly while two guards stood by you. A girl with black war paint smeared across her eyes said something in grounder to the guards and they took out your gag. You glared at her. She said in English, “I am Commander Lexa,” she said. “Why did you take me? What do you want?” you asked. “We took you because you will be valuable to us. What do we want? We want your leaders. It’s been taken into account that your male leader has particular over protectiveness of you.” she said calmly. “I WAS IN THE WOODS ALONE TRYING TO GET AWAAAY FROM HIM!” you yelled. “He…he doesn’t love me,” you whispered but mainly to yourself. The commander looked apprehensively at one of the guards then said something in grounder and everyone including her left.
“Where the hell is (Y/N)!” Bellamy shouted to everyone in the camp. Suddenly Jasper came running through the gate. “Bellamy!” he said frantically waving a note in the air. Bellamy read the note aloud, “We have a girl from your camp. Meet us at dusk on the bridge if you want her alive longer. Send your two leaders. No weapons.” A tear fell from Bellamy’s eye. “CLARKE!” he shouted. She emerged from the dropship and read the letter. “We have to get her back.” she said. Bellamy sent out 10 people with guns ahead so they could hide by the bridge as backup in case it was needed. Then Bellamy hid a small gun in his jacket and Clarke put a knife up her sleeve. Finn, Jasper, and Miller followed behind them with more concealed weapons. They set out to the bridge to make it there by dusk.
When they arrived at the bridge, two grounder women stood at the end of the bridge. Bellamy and Clarke met them at the center while Finn, Jasper, and Miller remained at the end. “I am the Commander, Lexa,"said the one with more black war paint smeared across her eyes. "This is the leader of the clan closest to you, Anya,” she said gesturing to the other woman. “Where is she?” Bellamy asked. “We have the girl captive,” said the commander. “What do you want from us?” Clarke asked. “We need your help,” Anya said to Clarke. “With what?” Anya breathed in, “The two of you come with us or we will kill the girl.” Bellamy and Clarke exchanged eyes, “F-fine,” he said. Bellamy nodded to Miller to indicate it was okay.
There was blood dripping from your forehead and you groaned. Suddenly you saw the commander emerge from the trees followed by, could it be true? “BELLAMY! CLARKE!” you shrieked and the guard took his knife and made a vertical cut down your arm to shut you up but you only wailed in pain. “(Y/N)! What are you doing to her!” Bellamy shouted as he tried to run towards you, but he was stopped by the Commander. A body was brought out on a stretcher. “Clarke, if you want to leave here unscathed, save this girl. Otherwise we will force Bellamy to kill this girl,” she said gesturing to you. “I don’t have any medical supplies,” Clarke said. “We will provide you with what we can,” said Anya.
Clarke worked as quickly as she could. She injected different antidotes into the injured boy’s stomach. She made incisions and stitched up cuts. Hours passed, but then all of a sudden, his breathing quickened and started to become uneven. Blood streamed from his eyes. After furious attempts at saving his life, his eyes fluttered close and Clarke saw he was no longer breathing. “He’s dead,” she whispered. “Clarke your job here is done. Take the girl to Tondc. That is where she will die.” Lexa said to the guard. “NO!” Bellamy shouted. He began to make his way towards you. Guards began to attack him. He slashed his knife at everyone that came in his way. Clarke began to help him. She cut the throats of 2 guards. Bellamy began to untie you. “We…we have to…have to…g-go,” you mumbled. When you began to take a step you had to hold onto Bellamy so you wouldn’t fall. “Are you okay?” Clarke asked. “I’m fine but we should run,” you groaned. “You’re too weak,” Bellamy said. “He’s right it looks like you lost a lot of blood,” Clarke added. “No really I’m-” but Bellamy had already picked you up and was carrying you now. “Seems like this is routine now,” you said. “Why break tradition?” he replied.

I apologize for my shitty writing. If you have suggestions I would REALLY appreciate them. There’s two more parts and I want to know what you guys want to read. (And to the anon that made the kidnap/rescue request I hope this satisfies!)

This is a post which was published along with Pastor’s John MacArthur’s video:

God may not be “a God of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33), but there are scores of biblical scholars, theologians, and pastors who insert plenty of it into the first few chapters of Genesis.

Evangelicalism abounds with theologians who don’t know what the meaning of the word “day” is. The Hebrew word for day, yom, appears more than two thousand times in the Old Testament and would attract virtually no debate were it not for six specific appearances in Genesis 1. But those six days of creation are now at loggerheads with modern scientific dating methods. Rather than stand firm on the biblical account, church leaders acquiesce to unprovable theories and confuse the clear and consistent biblical teaching on origins.

A History of Skepticism

A French naturalist of the 1700s, Comte de Buffon, scoffed at the six days of creation and the straightforward biblical genealogies that dated the earth around six thousand years old. He said it had to be much older—about seventy-five thousand years old. Since that day, scientific dating results have followed the same trajectory as the American debt ceiling. By 1862 it was 100 million years; by 1913, 1.6 billion years. Today the estimate sits at 4.5 billion, but it will surely change again as soon as someone comes up with a better, more convincing guess.

The truth is, science can’t offer us one, comprehensive answer for how we got here. There are lots of acceptable theories—except, of course, the plain reading of the Genesis account.

The Mythical Middle Ground

Regardless of historical science’s inability to get its story straight, its various conjectures are given unquestioned authority and exert enormous academic and ideological pressure. And in the face of that pressure, many theologians and biblical scholars attempt to harmonize creation and evolution in hopes of maintaining both their academic credibility and their orthodoxy.

Popular author and theologian Tim Keller is a good example. Keller uses a false dichotomy to justify his attempt to harmonize evolutionary theory with the biblical text, saying that we shouldn’t have to “choose between an anti-science religion or an anti-religious science.”

It’s worth remembering that true empirical science is measurable, testable, repeatable, and observable. Therefore evolutionary theories require at least as much blind faith as the Genesis account, if not more. And yet the wonky religions of Big Bang Cosmology and Darwinian Evolution have done an amazing job of frightening theologians with their façade of pseudo-scientific evidence.

Theologians who refuse to compromise and cave to that façade are not “anti-science.” They are against bad science. If a scientific theory conflicts with God’s inerrant Word, it is the theory that requires revision; not Scripture. True biblical scholarship seeks to arrive at exegetical conclusions in conformity with the biblical text, not impose humanistic conclusions upon the text, thus changing its meaning. Those who insist on mixing oil with water combine pseudo-science with pseudo-exegesis and come up with convoluted solutions that neither scientists nor scholars can agree on.

Accommodating Lies

Celebrated theologian N.T. Wright actually claims that he sees “emerging hominids” when he reads the opening chapters of Genesis:

Genesis one, two, and three is wonderful picture language, but I do think there was a primal pair in a world of emerging hominids, that’s the way I read that. … the way that I see it is that God called one pair of hominids and said “OK, this place is a bit chaotic, you and I together, we’re going to have a project. We’re going to plant this garden and we’re going to go out from here and this is how it’s going to be.”

N.T. Wright is a proud supporter of BioLogos, an organization Phil Johnson has aptly renamed “Evangelicals and Atheists Together.” BioLogos is an organization with the mission of inviting “the church and the world to see the harmony between science and biblical faith as we present an evolutionary understanding of God’s creation.” That’s like being on a mission to draw a round square. They’re trying to make evolution compatible with the Bible when it’s not even compatible with science.

Phil Johnson points out that BioLogos is evangelical syncretism taken to a whole other level, labelling them an “evangelical trojan horse”:

In every conflict that pits contemporary “scientific” skepticism against the historic faith of the church, BioLogos has defended the skeptical point of view. BioLogos’s contributors consistently give preference to modern ideology over biblical revelation. Although the BioLogos PR machine relentlessly portrays the organization as equally committed to science and the Scriptures (and there’s a lot of talk about “bridge-building” and reconciliation), the drift of the organization is decidedly just one way. That should be obvious to anyone who ignores the organization’s own carefully-crafted PR and simply pays attention to what the BioLogos staff and contributors actually blog about.

Tim Keller, while remaining ambiguous as to his own views, is a willing spokesman for BioLogos. On their website, Keller professes his openness to Derek Kidner’s theory that God forming man from the dust of the ground could be a description of evolution:

“The intelligent beings of a remote past, whose bodily and cultural remains give them the clear status of ‘modern man’ to the anthropologist, may yet have been decisively below the plane of life which was established in the creation of Adam… Nothing requires that the creature into which God breathed human life should not have been of a species prepared in every way for humanity.”

So in this model there was a place in the evolution of human beings when God took one out of the population of tool-makers and endowed him with ‘the image of God.’ This would have lifted him up to a whole new ‘plane of life.’

Renowned Hebrew scholar Bruce Waltke believes the church must accept evolution’s terms of surrender to preserve its credibility:

I think that if the data is overwhelming in favor, in favor of evolution, to deny that reality will make us a cult, some odd group that’s not really interacting with the real world… . And to deny the reality would be to deny the truth of God in the world and would be to deny truth. So I think it would be our spiritual death if we stopped loving God with all of our minds and thinking about it, I think it’s our spiritual death. It’s also our spiritual death in witness to the world that we’re not credible, that we are bigoted, we have a blind faith and this is what we’re accused of… . And I think it is essential to us or we’ll end up like some small sect somewhere that retained a certain dress or a certain language. And they end up so … marginalized, totally marginalized, and I think that would be a great tragedy for the church, for us to become marginalized in that way.

The doctrine of inerrancy becomes useless when men like Wright, Keller, and Waltke let atheists weigh in on what parts of the Bible are acceptable to believe. And while they don’t explicitly deny Scripture, their reinterpretation relegates it to a meaningless text. It is true that not all scholars who take such positions call themselves evangelicals, but they wield great authority in evangelical circles, and their capitulation is spreading like a disease.

Clarity vs. Confusion

Genesis 1 could not be a more straightforward biblical narrative describing God’s creation week, as John MacArthur explains:

The simple, rather obvious fact is that no one would ever think the timeframe for creation was anything other than a normal week of seven days from reading the Bible and allowing it to interpret itself. The Fourth Commandment makes no sense whatsoever apart from an understanding that the days of God’s creative work parallel a normal human work week.

MacArthur adds:

If the Lord wanted to teach us that creation took place in six literal days, how could He have stated it more plainly than Genesis does? The length of the days is defined by periods of day and night that are governed after day four by the sun and moon. The week itself defines the pattern of human labor and rest. The days are marked by the passage of morning and evening. How could these not signify the chronological progression of God’s creative work?

There are only two ways to deny a six-day creation: ignore the text or reject the text. Scholars ignore the actual text by blinding themselves to the genre, grammar, and layout in order to insert their own. Skeptics simply reject the text as erroneous. Either way, the result is the same—a clear text becomes a confused text.

Why It Matters

Some people like to dismiss this debate as a secondary issue, not directly related to the gospel. But it is clearly an issue that goes to the authority of Scripture. And furthermore, as MacArthur rightly points out, it has massive repercussions for the gospel:

If Adam was not the literal ancestor of the entire human race, then the Bible’s explanation of how sin entered the world makes no sense. Moreover, if we didn’t fall in Adam, we cannot be redeemed in Christ, because Christ’s position as the Head of the redeemed race exactly parallels Adam’s position as the head of the fallen race: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22). “Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:18–19). “And so it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being.’ The last Adam became a life–giving spirit” (1 Corinthians 15:45; cf. 1 Timothy 2:13–14; Jude 14).

So in an important sense, everything Scripture says about our salvation through Jesus Christ hinges on the literal truth of what Genesis 1–3 teaches about Adam’s creation and fall. There is no more pivotal passage of Scripture.

The opening chapters of Genesis are not up for debate, nor are they negotiable. The academic credibility of our faith is meaningless if we’re so quick to sacrifice the meaning of Scripture at the altar of public opinion. Better to be counted a fool for the sake of God’s Word than to be embraced for our willingness to compromise it.

soulmate au where it’s a clock counting down on your wrist and grantaire’s clock is nearing zero. he tries not to pay much attention to it because whatever it’s just a number and he’s not even sure if he believes in it anyway (but god, does he want to believe)

then jehan invites him to an amis meeting like he does every other week and grantaire decides to finally go

and the very moment he steps into the room, filled with all the other amis, his clock hits zero. and he’s looking around like “great now i gotta figure out which one of these goons my heart apparently belongs to”

he spends the meeting stealthily looking and each and every one of their wrists. some have time left, a few don’t, but he can tell that those few are all already paired and that their clocks ran out a long time ago (they don’t have the slightly panicked look of someone who has just reached zero–grantaire knows that look)

by the end of the evening he’s checked everyone in the cafe and nobody matches him. his clock has run out, but he’s still alone. he settles for a drink, maybe alcohol is his soulmate after all, maybe it’s the only soulmate he truly deserves

he didn’t take into account the startlingly beautiful leader of the student revolutionaries, who, unbeknownst to grantaire, wears a bandanna around his wrist to cover his clock in protest to the whole idea.

grantaire continues to hang out with les amis, and it dawns on him that he is falling for enjolras, but he doesn’t even consider him as an option because have you seen him? he’s perfect, everything grantaire isn’t, and he refuses to look at enjolras’ wrist, to spare himself the pain.

meanwhile enjolras is falling for grantaire, but grantaire doesn’t seem to want him and god, it’s breaking his heart. then, in the shower, he accidentally glances and (shit) his clock is at zero. and enjolras, though he has never wanted to buy into all of that, suddenly realizes that he totally, totally believes and he knows and he has to be sure–

cue enjolras showing up at grantaire’s apartment with wet hair and wild eyes just wordlessly grabbing grantaire’s wrist. and it’s zero and he shows his own bare wrist to grantaire and it all makes sense

and enjolras is falling all over himself apologizing for the confusion and the hurt but grantaire just starts laughing until he cries because goddamn, he’s so relieved and when their lips find each other, they know.


Guess who finally has a stats sheet?

-Senior Councilor Emerald-
Gem: Emerald
Gem Placement: Right Eye
Gender: Genderless
Pronouns: she/her
Romantic Orientation: Aromantic
Height: 12′
Weapon: Fountain Pen
Ability: She has limited telekinetic ability, which only applies to herself and her weapon - she can not telekinetically move anything else. She also has the ability to stop time temporarily and move ‘outside the bounds of time’, but it requires quite a bit of concentration and energy, so she uses it sparingly.
Likes: Working, her job, teasing, loyalty, numbers, success, academics, progress, efficiency, getting things done
Dislikes: Not working, disloyalty, rebellion, Rose Quartz, errors
Hobbies: Filing paperwork, investigating problems, researching, reading reports, studying, sharpening the mind, being of value to country and leader(s), accounting, fixing things
Relationships:   None: “Work is of more importance.” - Emerald (probably, at some point)
Personality:  “the pen is mightier than the sword, but it is the tongue that wages true war.” - Emerald.

(More information below the cut)

Keep reading