The only real thing, especially in the child’s world, which the child accepts easily, is precisely joy. We have made our Christianity so adult, so serious, so sad, so solemn that we have almost emptied it of that joy. Yet Christ Himself said, “Unless you become like children, you will not enter the Kingdom of God.” To become as a child in Christ’s terms means to be capable of that spiritual joy of which an adult is almost completely incapable. To enter into that communion with things, with nature, with other people without suspicion of fear or frustration. We often use the term “grace.” But what is grace? Charisma in Greek means not only grace but also joy. “And I will give you the joy that no one will take away from you…”

If I stress this point so much, it is because I am sure that, if we have a message to our own people, it is that message of Easter joy which finds its climax on Easter night. When we stand at the door of the church and the priest has said, “Christ Is Risen,” then the night becomes in the terms of St. Gregory of Nyssa, “lighter than the day.” This is the secret strength, the real root of Christian experience. Only within the framework of this joy can we understand everything else.

Alexander Schmemann, Easter in the Liturgical Year (via invisibleforeigner)

And that’s why candy. 

(via galesofnovember)

I think that’s also an answer to the question I’ve been asking lately — to wit, why does Christmas get emphasized over Easter. I mean, his birth is pretty damn important, but the central mystery of the faith is his sacrifice and resurrection.

But it’s a lot easier to convey spiritual joy through “unto you a Savior is born, full of hope for the future and love for mankind, and incidentally, he’s an adorable baby surrounded by adorable farm animals.” Trying to work with “So Jesus was executed in an extremely unpleasant fashion, and he went to Hell to do some housecleaning, and then he came back but by that time his friends were pretending they never knew him” is somewhat more difficult.

icecreamsocialistslut:

wildlifecollective:

Dinosaur Feathers Discovered in Canadian Amber

Today a group of paleontologists announced the results of an extensive study of several well-preserved dinosaur feathers encased in amber. Their work, which included samples from many stages in the evolution of feathers, bolstered the findings of other scientists who’ve suggested that dinosaurs (winged and otherwise) had multicolored and transparent feathers of the sort you might see on birds today. The researchers also presented evidence, based on the feathers’ pigmentation and structures, that today’s bird feathers could have evolved from dinosaur feathers.

Read More | Photos © Science/AAAS

omgomgomg.

So, ah, I would avoid any junkets involving private islands, for the foreseeable future. Just a thought.

Que lindo eres…

talldarkbishoujo:

bowtiesandjamjars:

ethiopienne:

talldarkbishoujo:

Let’s Jam and Queen Helene cocoa butter lotion are the two items every black person is legally required to have in their house.

you forgot something

Imma just leave this here.

*runs*

ragingbitchfest:

fairy-wren:

griffon vulture

Creepers gonna creep.

ALWAYS REBLOG VULTURES

ragingbitchfest:

fairy-wren:

griffon vulture

Creepers gonna creep.

ALWAYS REBLOG VULTURES

undoherdamage:

rainbowbarnacle:

kavinskyout:

poorhornycat:

sunscorchx:

Somebody tried to stump this squid by putting it in front of a background that its camouflage mechanisms could never hope to imitate…
So it turned itself transparent.

stick it to the man, Squid.



<3

can’t be tamed

always reblog cephalopods especially HOLY CRAP THIS SQUID

undoherdamage:

rainbowbarnacle:

kavinskyout:

poorhornycat:

sunscorchx:

Somebody tried to stump this squid by putting it in front of a background that its camouflage mechanisms could never hope to imitate…

So it turned itself transparent.

stick it to the man, Squid.

<3

can’t be tamed

always reblog cephalopods especially HOLY CRAP THIS SQUID

ragingbitchfest:

easyecofriendly:

#34. Get an e-reader!These nifty devices can save more than just paper; you save gas that you would spend to get to a book store, or gas that a shipping truck would use. You save energy that manufactures the book. (It does use energy to charge but still less in the long-run if you make a total switch).  Also, you save space on your bookshelf, and money!  Going paperless goes beyond just saving trees, remember that.

This is not what I would consider eco-friendly. Because devices such as these are made to break, so that you have to buy a new one every year. This means more waste in landfills. Books, on the other hand, can last you a lifetime.
Additionally, the materials used to make these have to be produced somehow, and a lot of the materials in computer chips have to be mined. Trees are a renewable resource. Plastic and metals are not. 

Yeah, I believe the actual eco-friendly answer is buying used books.
I love my Kindle, but I&#8217;m not trying to fool myself that it&#8217;s &#8220;green.&#8221;

ragingbitchfest:

easyecofriendly:

#34. Get an e-reader!
These nifty devices can save more than just paper; you save gas that you would spend to get to a book store, or gas that a shipping truck would use. You save energy that manufactures the book. (It does use energy to charge but still less in the long-run if you make a total switch).  Also, you save space on your bookshelf, and money!  Going paperless goes beyond just saving trees, remember that.

This is not what I would consider eco-friendly. Because devices such as these are made to break, so that you have to buy a new one every year. This means more waste in landfills. Books, on the other hand, can last you a lifetime.

Additionally, the materials used to make these have to be produced somehow, and a lot of the materials in computer chips have to be mined. Trees are a renewable resource. Plastic and metals are not. 

Yeah, I believe the actual eco-friendly answer is buying used books.

I love my Kindle, but I’m not trying to fool myself that it’s “green.”

Bets, please, on what Rick Santorum will say he meant to say when he just about called Obama the N-word.

A hundred motherfuckas can’t tell me nothin’

galesofnovember:

bb-goose:

It’s completely rational that I just unfollowed someone for bashing Nicki Minaj, right?

Right.

It’s important to have death hills around pop stars. 

Do you have anything that isn’ta death hill?

When people talk about their pets, one of the first things they mention is the color. There are all kinds of elaborate and non-judgment inducing names for the colors of pets: tabby, smoke, calico, brindle, fawn, grizzle, merele, chinchilla, tortie, and of course any combination of the above.

It doesn’t stop there: in addition to the basic black, white, and brown that people come in, cats and dogs also come in blue, orange, lilac, pewter, apricot, cinnamon, chocolate and golden. It’s really quite a lively range of descriptors. People unapologetically choose their pets by their colors. “I really want a black lab.” We’ve all heard it.

We’re not as comfortable when it comes to people. A popular complaint about identifying people of color is this, “I don’t know what to call them. They keep changing what they want to be called, and if the I say the wrong thing, I’m going to offend someone, and I’ll be called a racist.” In an effort to curb this fear and potential offense people often modify racial descriptors with flattering adjectives to soften the blow of identifying race in the first place. People fear that pointing out race makes them racist. They forget to consider that it is their intention in pointing out the race that matters.

My gallerist did this just the other day. He said, “My daughter is getting a place with…(pause) one of her nicest, (pause) African American friends.” I’m sure he didn’t mention his daughter’s roommate’s race to everyone. He made a point of telling me this because I, like the roommate, am black. To cover up for the obvious “connecting two black people is fun” game, he added how nice this roommate is, as if this was the most important part of his sentence.

Alternatively people will insert the phrase “who just happens to be” in front of the racial identifier: “My daughter is moving in with a really nice woman who just happens to be African American.” This strikes me as odd. Did the roommate accidentally turn black? Now that’s a story. Tell me about that. How did they “just happen” to be this race?

Why is it that we describe pet colors and breeds so easily but when we talk about people we stumble, stutter, and prepare for battle? Is it because dogs never fought for their rights in our society? Is it because cats never asked to be called one thing or another? Is it because we choose their descriptors for them, and they have no say at all in the labels we assign them?

If you apply a biological approach, the color of pets and the race of people is pretty much determined by the same mechanism: genetics. So what makes race such a drastically different and difficult conversation among humans? We have to admit, finally, that race is not just a matter of genetics, it includes our historical interactions.

Facing a person’s race means facing the history you have with them and their group, not just facing a difference in “skin color” as people often try to oversimplify it. We carry our collective history with us everywhere, and the first reminder of that is our skin. It is our discomfort with and denial of our history that tensions around race invariably arises.

Guest contributor damali ayo made me holler-laugh with this post on the R today on how easy it is to talk about dog breeds yet we can form our mouths right to talk about people’s races and ethnicity.

And can I get an “amen” on that pseudo-liberal irritant of a phrase, “just happens to be?”

(via racialicious)

Oh, but people do describe PoC by their actual color sometimes: it’s just that the color choices are chocolate, mocha, and honey. That’s it.

“Stylized lighting”.

maevele:

alexandraerin:

dumbthingswhitepplsay:

If white washing was really just “stylized lighting”, how come no white characters ever look ridiculously black with that “stylized lighting”?

Oh, because it’s just WHITE WASHING.

It’s true, though. I can’t have my picture taken without direct lighting on my face or I come out looking just like Blade. I have a whole shoebox full of cease-and-desist letters from Marvel Comics and now I have to pay a professional lighting crew to follow me around whenever I go out in public.

Sometimes I just love you too much, woman.

Ha!

Someone who’s good at photography should take some pictures of various models with various skin colors and various lighting, and one thing they need to do is try to make a pale white person look really dark just with lighting.

I mean, of course some bright lights can wash out skin tones, but then why would you use them for everyone darker than a paper bag?