More on Irish vote...

(Fr. Angel’s note: I received a long message which was thought provoking and presenting some points of view different from my own. I appreciate this author’s candor and civility. I respond to his concerns in the bold print).

GE:  With regards to the whole Ireland homosexual marriage thing all I can say is that Ireland was the first, but it really is an inevitability that will come to pass in most western countries. Does this mean it is in line with Catholic teaching? Absolutely not, but I do not think getting upset and talking like the sky is falling is going to “produce any fruit.” Fr. Angel—I think whether I protest changes to the law is not based on whether they are “Catholic enough.” I know that we live in a pluralistic society. The law has to enshrine and protect the goods of society and promote justice, and this can be done based on a secular reasoning that looks to Natural Law. That is what guided the Romans and Greeks. The fruit I am hoping will result is 1) That I not suppress my own convictions when I believe they are true and 2) That I contribute as a private citizen to the discussion when I think that unnecessary, and unethical changes, have been made to the law.

GE: If you look at the whole development of marriage from a socio-historical perspective, it has rarely ever has been “the ideal” in the eyes of sacramental theology. Fr. Angel—this is a broad statement, and IMO an over-generalization which paints in broad strokes. Can one even speak of a “socio-historical” development of marriage without citing examples of time period, region, culture, concrete realities and experiences, etc?

GE:  Marriage is a unique sacrament in how it has developed socially because it has become involved with the state and secular life to such a large degree. No other sacrament is tied to the state in this way. We don’t get tax breaks or special dispensation from the state for receiving holy communion, and this is a good thing because communion stays purely sacred. Fr. Angel—Just to clarify, marriage, divorce, family life, etc. were codified in both Greek and Roman law, before Christianity existed and there was a “sacrament of matrimony” to speak of. The legal concerns and the laws passed were based on the vested interest of the State to protect the interests of the family as a building block of society and civilization. Marriage law, for Greeks and Romans, was not passed in order to uphold a particular “theology of sacramental marriage.” Later on, when the Church became a steward and guardian of Western law, there was an interest to pass on the best legal traditions of marriage found in Roman law so that the law honored “natural marriage” or marriage as a legal contract in accord with Natural Law. Yes, sacramental considerations were incorporated in the law, but the law did not take over or interfere with marriage so much as it protected the Church’s interests in marriage and the family.

GE:  The moment this intermingling of sacraments with secular life and secular powers-that-be happened, marriage took on this “dual nature” of being both oriented largely to secular life, and yet also a supposedly holy sacrament. This is why you see arranged marriages in the dark and middle ages. Unions that were not at all about willful and voluntary love or self giving, but instead about securing property within families. Fr. Angel—May I ask what is your source for this idea you present? It is interesting, but not accurate IMO if you look at the historical record. My source is the Jesuit scholar, Theodore Mackin. In his tome “What is Marriage?” he gives a very thorough presentation of early, middle, and late Medieval marriage law. As he presents the facts, marriage was seen as a sacrament, only, with sacred purposes. The Church alone had authority to deal with marriage questions.The law deferred completely to the Church in the judgments and requirements of marriage. In those centuries, marriage did not have a secular orientation, nor secularist principles alongside the religious principles, until after the Englightenment, when governments removed the Church’s authority over marriage law and established “legal marriage” as something distinct from “church marriage.” True, many families arranged marriages for economic or political reasons, but the essential properties of freedom, fidelity, and fecundity had to be present or the Church would not bless the marriage.

GE:  Henry the VIII split from the Catholic church over marriage because marriage is not just about a sacred union between a man and a woman; it is about all these other things that we have tied to it. You’ve now made it the state’s business what the church does, and the state doesn’t really care about the sacramental theology behind marriage. I’m sure many marriages throughout history would be travesty if evaluated from the perspective of sacramental theology. Yet they happened. Fr. Angel—Henry VIII split from the Catholic Church because he believed he was in an invalid union which was not sacramental. When the Church refused to dissolve it, he established himself as the head of the English Church in order to judge his case. But neither Henry VIII of England nor other monarchs said the State “doesn’t really care about the sacramental theology.” They were quite concerned, even after leaving the Catholic Church, that people in their European domains entered into what were Christian marriages where the Protestant guidelines of marriage were to be respected by order of the sovereign. As to whether history would judge most marriages in those centuries to be a travesty, again, I think perhaps you are over-generalizing and painting an image with broad strokes that is not demonstrable from the primary source material we have of marriages in those days.

GE:  Fast-forward to the present. Marriage is not just marriage, it is tied up in legal rights and privileges that the state dispenses to the married for being married. At the same time in many areas, homosexual relationships have become more socially acceptable. In the eyes of the state, which is concerned with only with dispensing rights and privileges, and not sacramental theology, it is no longer sustainable or “fair” to give one type of relationship rights and privileges over another. This is consistent with egalitarian thought. Hence “gay marriage” being legalized, even though in the church’s eyes no such thing could ever really happen because marriage is about pro-creation. Fr. Angel—marriage law, in both England, the 13 Colonies, and later the United States, was concerned with much more than “dispensing rights and privileges.” If you research marriage law up until the 1950’s, you will see that the State had a vested interest in preserving stable families. True, no one can predict that even heterosexual married couples will have children, but for the most part, there was an assumption in the law. 

First, the law was supposed to act as a teacher, a voice of the people at large that marriage was a serious and lifelong commitment for the good of families, which is why even secular law made divorce a difficult undertaking that was granted only when compelling proof was presented that divorce was necessary. Second, the other assumption of secular marriage law was that when men and women entered into marriage and physical intimacy, children came along.

Since gay couples, by human biology and nature were absolutely excluded from the possibility of having children, the law made no provision for calling a homosexual union a marriage. In fact, most states outlawed homosexual unions under the crime of “sodomy” which was seen as a dangerous perversion to stable marriages and families. After all, why legally codify a structure of family where possible children would be deprived of a mother, or a father? Why legalize a union where there is a guarantee that the only way to even conceive children was to go outside the marriage and ask for the help of third parties? 

Instead of just granting rights and privileges to couples, marriage laws in the past (before the coming of quick and easy divorce) focused on “duty” and “responsibility” of the couple to the larger society. Their rights and privileges consisted of the right to have their union protected, their parental obligations safeguarded, and their ability to act with power of attorney on each other’s behalf in all legal questions. There was no legal right to a divorce and no legal privilege to present oneself for marriage with a partner of the same sex.

GE:  What I’m trying to say with all this is that marriage is a strange sacrament in that both the church and the state claim ownership over it, but it means two entirely different things to each. If the Catholic church wanted marriage to stay true to sacramental theology, then it never should have looked to any state to bless or make any marriage valid through legal rights and privileges. It should have kept the sacrament “in house” like it has with all the other sacraments. But even this is complicated because marriage as a social institution pre-dates the other sacraments. Fr. Angel—The Catholic Church does not claim ownership over marriage, which is an institution that comes from biology and nature in order to form families and propagate the species. That a man and woman fall in love and engage in sexual intercourse predates both the Church and even legal codes. Having sexual intimacy using the natural parts of the body for this and having children to be raised in a loving family is the building block of any nation that hopes to survive.

The Church is happy to concede to the State, in a pluralistic society of Catholic and non-Catholic members, a legal and vested interest in the institution of marriage as it has always been defined in law even since the days of the Greeks and Romans. This definition is that it is a union which proceeds from Natural Law and gives rise to children and families in most cases, if the couple is open to new life. 

The issue with legalizing gay marriage has nothing to do with the disruption of the sacrament of matrimony within the Catholic community. That sacrament will continue alive and well. Rather, the issue for the Church is that legal codes are now being employed to redefine marriage in a way that completely denies and dismisses the tenets of the Natural Law, human biology, and the absolutely essential role that both a mother and a father play in the rearing of the children they bore. These are values of the common good of a pluralistic society, and one does not have to be Catholic or even Christian to value these truths.

On secular reasoning alone, the Church is able to make a case to the wider society that codifying gay marriage is aberrant, and the imposition of an unethical structure of family based on judicial or legal fiat. And it was St. Thomas Aquinas who said that bad laws encourage bad conduct in people. Bad laws are also difficult to enforce because of the large numbers of people who pledge to disobey them and undermine them. 

Finally, bad laws which redefine things away from truth and what is right are an imposition on the conscience, and the rights, of those who disagree with them in principle. While they claim to entitle a certain class of people to equality, they deprive another class of people of their equal rights before the law to disagree. That is the ultimate fruit of passing gay marriage laws.

GE:  I’m rambling a bit. But I’m just trying to put this all in the perspective of “how did we get here?” “Why did we get here?” and when you think of it like that, it all makes a good deal of sense. Marriage has always been a battle ground because of it’s dual identity as both a sacred thing one the one hand, and a totally worldly thing on the other. Our times are not any more or less morally depraved than any other times. I refuse to buy into that idea that things are just always getting worse morally. I think what happens is humans get better in some areas and worse in others, and then everything switches again. There is constant flux but it is all kept more or less at equilibrium. Case in point: it’s a bummer that the state gets to dictate to the church what marriage is. But it’s a positive that the overall treatment and dignity that gay people receive in society is generally more humane and better than it has been in awhile, so these two things kind of cancel each other out. Fr. Angel—Well, I never wanted to address whether things are getting “worse morally.” People see the world differently and decide whether they will have hope based on their own criteria. I can only speak for myself and give my honest opinion that gay marriage in Ireland runs counter to past generations of devout Catholics who would never have thought to pass such a referendum. My concern is that Catholics have to witness—not impose their own religious morality in a pluralistic society. 

However, they should and they can witness to their faith based on the logic and reasoning of a philosophy of Natural Law—which is how Greeks and Romans tried to reason in their legal codes as well. But instead we are swept up in slogans like “marriage equality”….whatever that is supposed to mean. Equal dignity does not mean having an equal calling to enter into marriage. 

I see these changes as not even meant to help the gay community—very few gay couple even seek out marriage where it is legal. I think this referendum is part of a political ploy to validate and enforce a certain thinking on the wider populace the gay politics which surround the gay lifestyle. After all, in Ireland, gay couples already had legal unions with all the benefits and rights they would need without insisting on calling such unions a “marriage.”

— ghost–electricity

It is a spiritual hierarchy that is execuror of everything that gets done in
the phenomenal universe.
For example, I am standing here at the podium at the head of the
classroom. I am thirsty and would like a drink of water. I ask a stu-
dent if he would be kind enough to bring me a glass of water. The
kindly student gets up, goes to the water cooler at the back of the
classroom, draws me a glass of water and delivers it to me.
This simple scenario doesn’t seem very magical does it? However,
from my point of view it was a miraculously successful conjuration.
By strength of my will (and with only a few well-chosen magical
words of enchantment) I set into obedient motion an entire hierar-
chy of spiritual beings;

• I, Rabbi Lamed Ben Clifford (the Deity),
• had a need which I defined and named as “thirst” (Divine
Name of a desire formulated by the Deity-Atziluth).
• Activating my unambiguous spiritual authority as your
teacher, I declare the Divine Name (vibrations of sound
declaring my thirst) and inspire an archangel (student-
Briah) to fulfill my desire.
• The archangel then activates an army of angels within
himself (in Yetzirah); angels of the eye to seek out and
locate the water cooler, angels of nerves and muscles and
equilibrium to propel him through space and around
obstacles until he reaches his goal.
• At the water cooler, the angel then employs the
Intelligences and Spirits of gravity and hydrodynamics to
fill the glass with water (Assiah).

This may not be what you think of when you think of magick, but
I assure you it is magick. In fact, most of the spiritual activity that
took place in the above scenario actually occurred on the invisible
plane. No one could see my words of enchantment. No one could
see the internal processes that inspired and propelled the student to
the water cooler, or the invisible force of gravity. For all intents and
purposes, I wanted a drink of water and only seconds after focusing
my will upon that desire, a glass of water traveled through space and
appeared in my hands.

—  Chicken Qabalah

coasta1 asked:

I'm a fan of movies, every genre, but I think its hard to fint a good horror movie. Example: I like hellraiser, but just the first movie, all of the rest (of the saga) just suck from my point of view. Another example: "The cube" I think the idea is brilliant, but the bad performances of the actors ruin it. Hostel is another example of the same situation. I think that happen a lot in the horror genre. The last horror movie that i liked a lot was Blair Witch Project. What do you think about that?

Fair enough, i know what you mean with The Cube, i got a bit bored with it to be honest.

Me personally i don’t really like the Blair Witch Project, every horror ive seen filmed like that i haven’t enjoyed.

I think you just probably haven’t found the film yet that you are meant to get scared by aha ☺

I think everyone has at least one horror they love/hate for scaring them.

According to the post I see on tumblr... Leaders are like this:
  • SNSD:Dorky cute leader
  • EXO-K:The-I-can't-take-care-of-my-kids leader
  • EXO-M:The babysitter leader
  • B2ST :The Dorky Derp leader
  • MBLAQ:The-most-normal-person-In-Mblaq leader
  • Infinite:The leader who always get bullied
  • 2NE1:The leader who is secretly cute
  • Big Bang:The master of troll and derp leader
  • Block B:The YOLO leader
  • Super Junior:One of the best leaders
  • TVXQ:The leader who is afraid of the younger member
  • U-KISS:The leader who speaks ingerish
  • Secret:The Gum-Smile Leader

anonymous asked:

Pls make a text post in your POV? It would be adorable

alright here it goes it gives me a reason to think about it yay so basically we were at the station and i had to go to the loo and he texted me being like “yo i’m going to the loo i need a wee” and i was like “ommmmg i’m at the loos too amazing” and i was with my friends and they saw him before i did and they were like “ISn’T THat JAKE” and their bodies parted like the red sea to try and let me see and guess what? it /was/ jake holllaa and I just looked at him and kinda screamed “jaKE!” and we hugged for a hella long time which i was completely fine with and we literally just started walking out the station like we’ve been going out for years idk it was cute okAY and we just literally just walked anywhere and after a while it started raining so we went under this old bank building or something bc there was a roof and we were getting rained on and i can’t remember if it was now or later but he was like “are you cold” and i was like “a little” and he gave me his jacket (sorry jake i still have it okay it smells nice alright deal with it m8) and yeah so i got my phone to tell us how to get to the globe and we walked and we walked passed it and i was like “yep that’s the globe” and i thought he looked at the right building bc he went “yeah it’s nice” and it TURNS OUT HE WAS LOOKING AT SOME NEW BUILDING THAT WAS LIKE AN OFFICE BUILDING OR SOMETHING AND we WENT BACK LIKE 3 TIMES TO MAKE SURE hE DID ACTUALLY SEE THE GLOBE THEATRE. but anyway yeah idk where it came from but every single time we walked passed a pigeon jake would just go “le pigeon. my friend” evERY SINGLE PIGEON it was actually quite sweet ngl anyway so after a while his foot started hurting and he started limping so we went to the hotel and drunk alcoholic beverages whilst watching what? 4 hours of the big bang theory and we were just sat on the sofa it was cute i enjoyed it and then the big bang theory marathon ended so we got in our pjs and had pizza and i brought the duvet from the bed over and we just sat on the sofa for another 2 hours watching Sanctum and there was a character called josh who was fab and basically we loved him there was a line that the dad said which i won’t say here bc then it will stay as our thing but anyway yeah that movie finished and we went to bed and kissed and yo. the next day was the same thing practically but it was kind of cuter i guess bc now we’re really comfortable with each other and i forgot pads and so he went out to the shops to buy me some AW but anyway yeah it was a really good date and i kind of miss him a lot there I saID IT tHERE aND I MEANT IT

anonymous asked:

So I'm new to Supernatural and the Winchesters, I'm on season 4 and we've just met Castiel. does he get nicer, or do we just always love him because he's a bit mean to the brothers?

Hi there! first of all, let me just tell you, enjoy the show while it’s still good.

As for Cas, I may be a little (extremely) biased, but there are so many different reasons to love him. He may appear “mean” to you if you’re still at the beginning of s4 but trust me, from my point of view, mean wouldn’t even be close to the list of adjectives I’d use to describe Castiel. So yeah, you could say he does get nicer. I’ll take the liberty to briefly sum it up without spoiling stuff for you:

we love Cas because he’s badass

because he’s dorky

because he’s grumpy

because he’s squinty

(and sometimes he does this cute little head tilt)

because he’s awkward

because he’s caring

because he’s sassy

because he’s earnest

because he’s always willing to help

because he’s got cool powers

because he’s so damn adorable

(but also hot)

because he’s got the bluest eyes

and those amazing wings

because he makes us smile

because he breaks our hearts

because this show wouldn’t be what it is without him

aries: they cool or whatever
taurus: loyal and stubborn
gemini: fake
cancer: emotional rollercoaster
leo: cool with everybody
virgo: kind of demanding a lil
libra: argumentative
scorpio: freaky
sagittarius: ???
capricorn: a bit clingy
pisces: cold-hearted/bitter
aquarius: talkative

About the whole debacle with Xivents.

Everyone please, bear with me and stay calm. This actually concerns quite a lot of people, so here’s hoping you’ll read it and try to see things from my point of view. My attempt here is definitely not to “hate” on anyone, but offer you another perspective on things. I will gladly hear any response from respectful CS shippers.

Be warned: I realize this will sound patronizing to a lot of you. It’s not my intention at all, honestly. I’m just addressing a number of issues that I hope you’ll be receptive about.

More under cut because this got really long.

Keep reading

lunarprincessyue asked:

"What happened last night?"

Send me “What happened last night?” and my character will say how drunk yours was.

“So you were talking to Kuvira all night, and you two were really hitting it off. Anyways, one thing lead to another and next thing I knew you two were making out on the couch. The bad news is that you were so drunk that you puked…mid make out…in her mouth….and then she got upset and stormed out shortly after…" 

"But you know what? The good news is, she called you this morning, and not only does she not remember what happened, but wants to see you again tonight…so good job…I think…”

buckywuckywasabear asked:

just a curious American :p. .. what's it like living in Sweden?


  • as soon as it’s more than +10°c swedes bring out the shorts and tan nonstop
  • alcohol is expensive, but we’ve covered that
  • school is free which is nice
  • it’s quite hard making new friends randomly, you usually have to meet new people through mutual friends or school/work/stuff like that. talking to strangers in public places, the buss, whatever is a no-no
  • we dress in black, like a lot
  • we love our melancholy but we’re not all depressed and sad
  • we’re afraid to make a fool of ourselves here in sweden but on vacation abroad, we’re absolutely crazy
  • 5 cups of coffee (black as death) a day is considered unnaturally little
  • we love the snow but at the same time hate it, especially if there is a not-white christmas
  • potatoes
  • we get most movies to the theaters before a lot of other countries (including america) because we’re less likely to spred them illegally online
  • which is weird considering piratebay’s from here and everyone and their mom downloads stuff
  • public transport works great (as long as we don’t mention the trains, we don’t speak of the trains) but if the bus is a min late, hell breaks lose

lol, i’m tired, this is what I could think of right now

Watch on

John Ohh wants his mom. lololol

And to hell with those audience who couldn’t even bare to respect the band as artists and let em finish their set. I know John was a little drunk and he talked much. BJSYK, there are a lot of kids dying to hear and see them live who, in all honesty, are much more deserving of the getting to one of their shows than they are. I am one of those kids and it just pisses me off when anyone tries to insult such great bands. Just let the dudes play and stop ranting. geez

Long distance relationships.

I honestly think long distance relationships are the cutest and strongest type of relationship out there. A long distance relationship can prove how much you love and care about your significant other because you’ll be willing to be committed into your relationship knowing you’ll be dealing with big obstacles throughout your relationship, and if you’re willing to face those obstacles for that one person who makes you most happiest, then that’s true love.

GoT Meta: D&D’s take on Religion

For the record, I’m not and have never been religious, so mayhaps I’m not the best person to be writing this. But even from my point of view, I’ve found the way in which showrunners David Benioff and Dan Weiss portray religion sickening. GRRM, for all his agnosticism, has time and time again gone out of his way to depict religion in his books from a balanced perspective. The institutions feel realistic, and the themes surrounding religion that the reader is encouraged to explore are deep and engaging.

And then we have D&D’s Westeros (Westurdos? Weisseroff?), where religion is depicted in one way: bad. This began in Season 2, when Stannis and Meli-sans-bra are shown burning infidels. And I’m never going to say that Melisandre is free of some questionable calls in the books (like wanting to kill Edric Storm), but at no point did she ever suggest killing someone simply for believing in something else. If there were traitors or people who Melisandre believed the burning of would aid her higher purpose (keep in mind she sees Stannis as Azor Ahai reborn and believes he is going to save the world from the ultimate battle of good and evil), then sure. Her black and white thinking may not be appealing to many, but her perspective is at least understood. What’s more is that the books also introduce us to other Red Priests, fleshing out this religion and also shedding insight into the idea that Melisandre has gone a bit rogue.

But no, in the show, Stannis and Meli-sans-bra burn infidels and that’s it. Even as Mance is about to be burned, Mel reduces it to the terms “we choose good or we choose evil. We choose the true god, or we choose the false.” No talk of power in a king’s blood; no talk of Mance being a deserter of the Night’s Watch.

So that’s D&D’s take on one religion. And then we have The Faith, and after 5x04 I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry at what they did with it. “Cartoonish” doesn’t even begin to describe how ridiculous and over-the-top the Faith Militant scene was.

Keep reading

I need to do a Facebook Friends cleanse.

I am so sick of the rude and insulting statuses. Someone just posted this:

“Christian sisters: yoga pants . Please get them out of your wardrobe . Not good in any context”

First and foremost a man said this. Me being a man who enjoys females in yoga pants first of all was shocked these words came out of a guy’s mouth. Sorry if that sounds bad but come on…Girls tend to look good in yoga pants and many girls I have talked to have told me they wear them because they think they look good in them and because they’re comfortable. Golden. But I digress.

Who is he to say how women are to dress? Because when he sees a girl in yoga pants it gives him lustful feelings? Maybe you instead should change your context and let a woman wear what she wants to wear. It pisses me off that my gender is so misogynistic sometimes because of feelings they aren’t proud of, instead of attempting to change themselves because of it, they blame it on the opposite sex. Screw that. 

I don’t think all White people are racist, I just don’t think most of them understand differences between their opportunities and privileges and ours.

That’s relatively understandable. There are certain things in life that you’ll never fully understand unless you walk a mile in those shoes or educate yourself to them. The problem comes when they’re unwilling or unable to do either. Black people and other minorities are conscious to the facts of why we’re in the situation they we’re in, but given the limits of our “social status” and the fact that white people are the “powers that be”, it’s hard to make them aware of the problems we face and how they can bridge the gap so we can truly be equal.

Takamina relationship

From my POV! Don’t complain!

Atsumina is dating

TakaHaru/KojiTaka is married

Takayuu is bromance

TakaMii is sisters

TakaMari is president and Vice President

TakaYui is father & daughter

TakaTomo is shy love

TakaSasshi is Aki-P heir

TakaMayu is next center and her guardian

TakaYuki is …..?? (Never imagine this pairing, it’s a bit weird, no?)

TakaSayaka is comrades, best friend

TakaSae is 48group forever ikemen

Hmm… This is it for now, I’ll come up with another Takamina pairing list again someday. I’m going to make Yuko pairing next