essayofthoughts:

indigoumbrella:

essayofthoughts:

indigoumbrella:

huffpostarts:

In The Not So Distant Future, Glow-In-The-Dark Trees Could Replace Street Lights

Is that… is that even healthy?

There are sea organisms and fungi which glow in the dark and there’s fireflies and jellyfish which glow in the dark. It doesn’t do them any harm nor does it do the people around them any harm. I would say its pretty healthy, as well as it would mean more photosynthesis happening in cities which mean cleaner air.

I was just curious about how they were doing it and for some reason I didn’t think to click the link. But thanks! It makes more sense now. I was afraid it was some kind of chemical thing.

nah just genetic modification using existing bioluminescent genes. Genetics is really cool, and so is bioluminescence. I mean they’ve already made pigs glow using jellyfish genes and pigs are waaay more complicated than trees iirc. So they’re actually (i think) less likely to muck it up with trees.

In which case

GLOWY

FORESTS

GLOWY

TREES

GLOWY

EVERYTHING

(I like glowy things)

(Reblogged from hannielove)

cjwho:

Rabot Tourist Cabin, Okstindan, Norway by JVA | via

The Rabot Tourist Cabin is one of many DNT (Norwegian Trekking Association) lodging facilities throughout Norway. It is located at 1200 meters above sea level, close to the glacier at Okstindan in northern Norway. The site is spectacular and the mountains and glaciers are in close proximity. The weather can be extremely harsh and the structure is constructed for heavy winds and storm.

A secondary rescue hut is placed 50 meters away from the main cabin as a safe shelter in case of destruction of the main cabin. The site inaccessible by road and is only reachable on foot or on skis. The cabin is named after the French glaciologist and geographer Charles Rabot who thoroughly explored the mountain areas in the province of Nordland. It is planned and built with local materials and with great local commitment.

The main cabin is an eye catching yet neutral volume in the landscape with a diagonal programmatic and spatial concept. The behavior of snow and heavy winds at the site, have generated the simple shape of the cabin, without protruding elements. The shape of the two chimneys mimic the topography of the mountain tops and acts as protecting structures to avoid the use of tension cables.

Photography: Svein Arne Brygfjeld, Jan Inge Larsen, Einar Aslaksen

CJWHO: facebook | instagram | twitter | pinterest | subscribe

(Reblogged from cjwho)

(Source: arsenall)

(Reblogged from vincecarters)

thesylverlining:

winterwombat:

the-enchanted-mermaid:

Meet the World’s Smallest Rabbit.

Columbia Basin Pygmy Rabbits are the world’s smallest and among the rarest. 

Miniature bunnies with iridescent ears. Happiness, embodied as a tiny ball of fluff and cute.

TINY BUN WITH COLORFUL EARS ;____;

(Reblogged from vincecarters)

klowncar:

major turn ons : good animation

(Reblogged from fancymarquis)

(Source: thisismyplacetobe)

(Reblogged from teatimeposts)

octoberspirit:

concept art - the prince of egypt, 1998, dreamworks animation

(Reblogged from teatimeposts)

(Source: Flickr / miaki)

(Reblogged from enbycrocker)

nathanael-platier:

noshamejustlove:

zorobro:

shota-purinsu:

zorobro:

linzthenerd:

theguilteaparty:

crippledcuriosity:

itsfondue:

Isn’t it nice how people twist their religious scripture to suit their weds but when it’s used against them it’s suddenly not okay

I talked to a monk about this quote once (we have mutual friends, and he came to a New Year’s Eve party at my shared art studio). He said this isn’t even talking about homosexuality. That the bible never actually says homosexuality is wrong. What that passage means is this:

Women were treated as subservient and it that you shouldn’t treat other men as subservient, like they are beneath you. It is not talking about homosexuality. If it was, it would say it outright since the bible lists other things outright.

I take the word of a monk who have studied the bible extensively more than a self proclaimed Christian.

The above text, I would like to point out is from the point of view of this translation of the original Hebrew. I spoke with my cousin’s rabbi on the matter and his response was different, saying that it was a mistranslation. See, the true translation says that a man shall not lie with another in the bed of a woman, which is to say, the Hebrews had a shit ton of rules about when a man was or was not allowed in a woman’s bed and private quarters (including, if she didn’t want you there, you weren’t allowed there. Hebrew women were also allowed to divorce their husbands and the image of the ‘oppressive Hebrew people’ is an image that was propogated by Christianity which, historically speaking, doesn’t treat the Jewish people too well and liked to paint them as being rather barbaric and backwards and cultish with their traditions, which, another piece of fun info, their traditions were one of the main reasons why the Jewish people were less likely, in medieval times, to die of the plague. Because washing your hands and avoiding the dead and vermin and the like was a lot of help. Of course the Christians persecuted them for not dying but that’s another matter. I’m sidetracked). So the verse is literally saying ‘Don’t fuck in some lady’s bed because that’s just goddamn rude’

Also, whenever a Christian brings the book of Leviticus up, you should feel free to point out that these are rules that were given to make the Hebrew people prepared for when the son of God came to earth. In Christianity, it’s believed the son of God was Jesus. So by following the rules set in Leviticus or pushing them as things we should follow, they’re saying that Jesus was not the son of God, and that Jesus did not, in fact, die for our sins. Jewish people believe, in their faith, that the son of God hasn’t yet been born, so many choose to follow these rules.

Most people of course roll their eyes when I explain the translation of the verse (full breakdown found here) but it’s always fun to point out the nature of the rules in Leviticus and the implications of following them. 

I’m a theology student and I am on the verge of crying because of how accurate this commentary is. Historical context is simultaneously the most interesting and most important part of interpreting any texts. 

Most religious people seem to base their beliefs on things that are severely mistranslated. I wish they would do their research before using the bible for hate.

I studied theology extensively and was going to become a theologist until I switched majors. The above commentary is 100% accurate and what I try to stress in a lot if conversations with Bible Thumpers.

Jesus also affirms the homosexual relationship between the Roman Centurion and his “slave”. The particular Greek word used to refer to this special slave was “pais”. Greek language studies and contexts show that a “pais” was a male love slave. Regular slaves were called “dolos”. The Centurion makes this distinction clearly when he asks Jesus to heal his slave (pais), and then to prove his status he tells Jesus that his slaves (dolos) go when he tells them to. But this slave (pais) was special. He was the Centurion’s lover.

Hearing this, Jesus was so amazed he says he had not found ANYONE ELSE who had such great faith. He then blesses the Centurion and heals his male lover.

Matthew 8:5-13

THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE REALLY TEACHES ABOUT SAME SEX COUPLES.

In short, the English adaptation is a mistranslated farce.

^^^^this

reblogging for the comments ^^^^^^

Saving for later, in case parents ever bring this up or I need to come out again and “for good”.

(Source: idiotsonfb)

(Reblogged from pooky-chan)

(Source: kawaiidontyouthink)

(Reblogged from hannielove)