༺ qualia ༻

downfallofusall17:

foreveralone-lyguy:

Walmart brand Ice Cream Sandwiches don’t melt

Wow. Such value. Much great.

Is this news to anyone, though? I thought people knew this! It’s not just Walmart ice cream, either. Ben and Jerry’s (or at least their chocolate fudge brownie flavor) doesn’t melt. So it has nothing to do with Walmart specifically—just commercial ice cream recipes in general.

(Source: foreveralone-lyguy)

Mood:

digitaltits:

*white kid from 90’s tv show on bed throwing baseball up in the air and catching it while staring at ceiling*

(via black--lamb)

beybad:

nelsan ellis

sbllrn:

caramon:

kawaii-afro-fluff:

thespacewitchjadeharley:

lepetitaquali:

alaynyala:

🌙🌙🌙🌙🌙

g o r g e o u s 

Sailor moooooooon

feeling this

sab-rena
Welp. Changing my otakon cosplay!
caramon

sbllrn:

caramon:

kawaii-afro-fluff:

thespacewitchjadeharley:

lepetitaquali:

alaynyala:

🌙🌙🌙🌙🌙

g o r g e o u s 

Sailor moooooooon

feeling this

sab-rena
Welp. Changing my otakon cosplay!
caramon

(via lovelydyedlocks)

for-science-sake:

A multitude of butterflies and their beautiful wings under the microscope. 

[Source]

(via letsloclips)

ladoniaart: In the strictest sense of the word, by definition god cannot be evil. Unmoral? perhaps. But evil? never.

Hey, thanks for the feedback! I appreciate it!

In Anselm’s terms, God cannot be evil—you’re right. Anselm, inspired by Augustine, was famous for his “ontological proof” for the existence of God. The first premise of the proof was his definition of God: “God is that which nothing greater can be conceived”—i.e., he is perfect.

While this is a popular definition for God, it is not the only definition. So I think there are certainly definitions out there that could allow God to exist with imperfection. However, there is no Judeo-Christian definition that fits that, so with Judeo-Christian discourse, it is a given that God does no evil. 

Despite that, I never said God was evil. But the purpose of the post was to explain how Augustine’s philosophy doesn’t adequately explain away potential responsibilities for evil.

As a side note, though, I don’t think the Judeo-Christian God could canonically be described as an amoral agent. This is because ”The Lord is righteous in all his ways, and kind in all his deeds” (Psalm 145:17; God does not tempt to sin) and “God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace” (1 Corinthians 14:33; God does not confuse). If God’s mysteries included amoral action that may be linked with our conception of the manifestation of sin, I would call that an involvement with confusion, not peace.

So I agree that you are right: For the purposes of discussion God must be considered all-good, and this is the task apologetics must tackle. But my position remains that Augustine’s account was insufficient.

Posted 2 days ago with 1 note

norapturehere replied to your post:

I would love to read that.

I ended up being able to stretch the topic out across five pages, but I’ll try to keep it short here! I’m going to tag jams-world while I’m at it, just because I know he might enjoy this.

________________________

Philosophy of religion talk behind the cut:
Why Augustinian free will doesn’t explain away the problem of evil
________________________

Read More

Posted 2 days ago with 4 notes

raatfashion:

"Show your playful side once in a while".

I’m trying to write a short five-page paper about why Saint Augustine’s account of human free will doesn’t absolve God of responsibility for evil. But I feel like the first paragraph I wrote said all I needed to say.

It’s so frustrating that I have to stretch those main points out across five pages, ahahaaaa. The more explaining I do, the more I get into other theological cans of worms.

Posted 2 days ago with 5 notes
fckyeahprettyafricans:

Somalia

fckyeahprettyafricans:

Somalia

Posted 2 days ago with 360 notes
That Keke Palmer photo reminded me of this sketch I started a few months ago.

That Keke Palmer photo reminded me of this sketch I started a few months ago.

Posted 2 days ago with 17 notes
curvesincolor:

Keke Palmer.

curvesincolor:

Keke Palmer.

Being barefaced makes me wonder, though: How am I gonna present when I meet my boyfriend’s parents in three weeks? Am I gonna take out all my jewelry and braid my hair back like I do for job interviews?

I mean, these are white folks that are older than my grandparents; I don’t wanna traumatize them with my stretched septum, stretched ears, locked hair, and brown skin.

Hrm. “I don’t wanna traumatize them by being myself,” is what that sounds like.

Full steam ahead it is, then. Pandering ain’t worth tucking my real self away.

Posted 2 days ago with 10 notes
I feel naked without my septum rings in, but I’m kinda enjoying how plain I look.
This month I used a bunch of fur from my 15-year-old cat, Clyde Gregory, to make a lock extension. My hair is brown, and his fur is black with grey in it. So while the extension itself looks pretty good, the color match isn’t perfect. I would ideally just like to tint the fur to look more brown, rather than neutral grey.
Does anyone know how to color or dye cat fur?

I feel naked without my septum rings in, but I’m kinda enjoying how plain I look.

This month I used a bunch of fur from my 15-year-old cat, Clyde Gregory, to make a lock extension. My hair is brown, and his fur is black with grey in it. So while the extension itself looks pretty good, the color match isn’t perfect. I would ideally just like to tint the fur to look more brown, rather than neutral grey.

Does anyone know how to color or dye cat fur?

Posted 2 days ago with 10 notes

youngblackandvegan:

the title means

a commitment to effort

when you claim someone as your boyfriend/girlfriend/significant other

you are declaring that you’re committing to taking whatever steps necessary to make this relationship work

if they aren’t claiming you, it can be because they might like you or even want to commit to you, but they aren’t ready to commit to that effort

Posted 2 days ago with 83 notes