mydemonsaremyfriends:

So I was in a nostalgic mood about past vma’s and I think for me there was something particularly special about 2005

because like there was themimageand these guysimagebut alsoimageand of course I could NEVER forgetimage

which also gave us this picture image

and these

image

image

image

and of course

image

and let’s not forget how mcr arrived

image

in a friggin bank fault

image

also bonus for fall out boy winning for the iconic “Sugar We’re Going Down”

image

So yeah 2005 was the year the emo invaded and no one can tell me different


flightlesscroatoan:

dalekplz:

k-barr:

carryonmy-assbutt:

winterlucifer:

I think what really kills me about what happened to Adam is this:

image

He wanted to escape. He didn’t want to be Michael’s vessel. He was screaming for his big brother to help him.

He was just a kid.

And now he’s locked in hell for eternity.

why

Internally crying

Externality crying

Eternally crying


supernaturalismykryptonite:

When you realize these aren’t edited at all and they ACTUALLY touch each other this much! Pt. 2


geopunk:

sloth-grunge:

geopunk:

geopunk:

what is it called when u kill a friend

homiecide

murder

homiecide


"If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also"
Matt 5:39

This specifically refers to a hand striking the side of a person’s face, tells quite a different story when placed in it’s proper historical context. In Jesus’s time, striking someone of a lower class ( a servant) with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. Another alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect putting an end to the behavior or if the slapping continued the person would lawfully be deemed equal and have to be released as a servant/slave.   

(via thefullnessofthefaith)

THAT makes a lot more sense, now, thank you. 

(via guardianrock)

I can attest to the original poster’s comments. A few years back I took an intensive seminar on faith-based progressive activism, and we spent an entire unit discussing how many of Jesus’ instructions and stories were performative protests designed to shed light on and ridicule the oppressions of that time period as a way to emphasize the absurdity of the social hierarchy and give people the will and motivation to make changes for a more free and equal society.

For example, the next verse (Matthew 5:40) states “And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.” In that time period, men traditionally wore a shirt and a coat-like garment as their daily wear. To sue someone for their shirt was to put them in their place - suing was generally only performed to take care of outstanding debts, and to be sued for one’s shirt meant that the person was so destitute the only valuable thing they could repay with was their own clothing. However, many cultures at that time (including Hebrew peoples) had prohibitions bordering on taboo against public nudity, so for a sued man to surrender both his shirt and his coat was to turn the system on its head and symbolically state, in a very public forum, that “I have no money with which to repay this person, but they are so insistent on taking advantage of my poverty that I am leaving this hearing buck-ass naked. His greed is the cause of a shameful public spectacle.”

All of a sudden an action of power (suing someone for their shirt) becomes a powerful symbol of subversion and mockery, as the suing patron either accepts the coat (and therefore full responsibility as the cause of the other man’s shameful display) or desperately chases the protester around trying to return his clothes to him, making a fool of himself in front of his peers and the entire gathered community.

Additionally, the next verse (Matthew 5:41; “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.”) was a big middle finger to the Romans who had taken over Judea and were not seen as legitimate authority by the majority of the population there. Roman law stated that a centurion on the march could require a Jew (and possibly other civilians as well, although I don’t remember explicitly) to carry his pack at any time and for any reason for one mile along the road (and because of the importance of the Roman highway system in maintaining rule over the expansive empire, the roads tended to be very well ordered and marked), however hecould not require any service beyond the next mile marker. For a Jewish civilian to carry a centurion’s pack for an entire second mile was a way to subvert the authority of the occupying forces. If the civilian wouldn’t give the pack back at the end of the first mile, the centurion would either have to forcibly take it back or report the civilian to his commanding officer (both of which would result in discipline being taken against the soldier for breaking Roman law) or wait until the civilian volunteered to return the pack, giving the Judean native implicit power over the occupying Roman and completely subverting the power structure of the Empire. Can you imagine how demoralizing that must have been for the highly ordered Roman armies that patrolled the region?

Jesus was a pacifist, but his teachings were in no way passive. There’s a reason he was practically considered a terrorist by the reigning powers, and it wasn’t because he healed the sick and fed the hungry.

(via central-avenue)


yall-mothafuckas-need-misha:

badassbitchfromhades:

freckledtrekkie:

doctorsherlocklokison:

captainmjolnir:

I’ve never understood the stereotype that women are more likely to faint at blood

I mean seriously

what do you think we do every month

THEY WEREN’T SUPPOSED TO KNOW ABOUT THE WEREWOLF THING

AWH COME ON GUYS THAT WAS A SECRET FOR A REASON

I guess we have to come clean about the cult sacrafices too huh

image

Well now we do


Dean Winchester (1x07 Hook man)



d0nn0:

d0nn0:

reblog if you like pasta

image

what are you trying to pull here dominos


tatianaception:

the idea of being right-handed or left-handed is so fucked up. like how in the hell is it evolutionarily advantageous to have one hand that’s good at everything and one that’s fucking useless. why aren’t we all dead.


"What is this tweeting you speak of?" [x]



"I think everything in life is art. What you do. How you dress. The way you love someone, and how you talk. Your smile and your personality. What you believe in, and all your dreams. The way you drink your tea. How you decorate your home. Or party. Your grocery list. The food you make. How your writing looks. And the way you feel. Life is art."
Helena Bonham Carter (via unmaiden)