PROSPIT DREAMER
FANDOMS-EVERYWHERE
Reblogged on 16 Sep 2014 from dirkapitated
22,295 notes | Permalink

nollag:

[softly] da da da da da da da da da da da da da da da [stands up on table] some legends are told [starts screaming] soME TURN TO DUST OR TO GOLD [rips off shirt] BUT YOU WILL REMEMBER ME [backflips off table] REMEMBER ME [goes crashing through the window] FOR CENTURIES

Reblogged on 16 Sep 2014 from extremehomestuckshipping
720 notes | Permalink
dorkstruder:

wanted to draw my alpha babs ;v;

dorkstruder:

wanted to draw my alpha babs ;v;

(Source: dirksfreshkicks)

Reblogged on 16 Sep 2014 from thenameisroxylalonde
117,080 notes | Permalink
squided:

diamoncls:

yourwaifu:

thala55o:

mac and cheese

what?

mac and cheese

That’s an egg


Its a cracked egg and its shell on an IPad though. ._.

squided:

diamoncls:

yourwaifu:

thala55o:

mac and cheese

what?

mac and cheese

That’s an egg

Its a cracked egg and its shell on an IPad though. ._.

Reblogged on 16 Sep 2014 from gilbert-sprussianprincess
33,601 notes | Permalink

jaclcfrost:

[imagines a character in the hands of better writers]

[imagines a scenario in the hands of better writers]

[imagines a whole show and concept in the hands of better writers]

Reblogged on 16 Sep 2014 from thenameisroxylalonde
122,084 notes | Permalink

americanfrontier:

oh and when i was a year old, after i got my foot amputated my parents were pushing me around in a stroller at a street festival in miami and i was chewing on my foot or whatever and this street performer came up to us and was like “aw i bet that tastes good!!” and my dad was like “yeah look at what she did to the other one!!!!” and pulled back the blanket covering my left leg to show a stump with a huge scar on it and i’m pretty sure my dad terrified that poor man

Reblogged on 16 Sep 2014 from gilbert-sprussianprincess
1,356 notes | Permalink
"If Scotland divorces Britain, the union jack will have to be redesigned, which is upsetting news for every prick with a union jack cushion on their stupid sofa in their stupid house. Minus the soothing, steadying blue of the saltire, the flag’s going to resemble a violent, blood-burst staining a shroud. Better to scrap it and start again with a new design that more accurately reflects the spirit of the age. I vote for a crying brown oblong."
Brooker (via brookerface)

(Source: kabinessence)

Reblogged on 16 Sep 2014 from princesscarlythenalulover14
121,435 notes | Permalink
white-irish-rose:

mattpichette:

ninjalaptop:

inthatinstantwewerealive:

Old meets new

Wow, this is really cute.

Just the contrast between the era styles are so interesting. Couldn’t resist reblogging.

I just showed this to my mom because I thought it was cute and the first thing she said was “You know her daddy’s gonna kick his ass.” 

white-irish-rose:

mattpichette:

ninjalaptop:

inthatinstantwewerealive:

Old meets new

Wow, this is really cute.

Just the contrast between the era styles are so interesting. Couldn’t resist reblogging.

I just showed this to my mom because I thought it was cute and the first thing she said was “You know her daddy’s gonna kick his ass.” 

Reblogged on 16 Sep 2014 from princesscarlythenalulover14
9,581 notes | Permalink
solyeuse:

hazelxfaerie:

dying

TEREZI NO

solyeuse:

hazelxfaerie:

dying

TEREZI NO

(Source: ffxvi)

Reblogged on 16 Sep 2014 from thenameisroxylalonde
12,587 notes | Permalink

eofelis:

eofelis:

but why are french people so rude!!" you ask

well

it’s because our national symbol is a cock

image

so we can’t help being dicks

this is my post with the most notes and it’s a dick joke

Reblogged on 16 Sep 2014 from exorcistgamer
587,267 notes | Permalink

hellamyblake:

dobraeva:

*puts my ipod on shuffle and skips every song until i get one i was hoping for*

image

(Source: panerasexual)

Reblogged on 16 Sep 2014 from thenameisroxylalonde
244 notes | Permalink

(Source: notcommonfact)

Reblogged on 16 Sep 2014 from princesscarlythenalulover14
1,604 notes | Permalink
Reblogged on 16 Sep 2014 from charlesoberonn
10,141 notes | Permalink
littlebirdkisses:

karkat talking about his very very conflicted feels, and signless shutting up to listen.
littlebirdkisses:

karkat talking about his very very conflicted feels, and signless shutting up to listen.

littlebirdkisses:

karkat talking about his very very conflicted feels, and signless shutting up to listen.

Reblogged on 16 Sep 2014 from peskytimepirate
31,588 notes | Permalink
flamingraichu:

I googled ‘motion capture Groot’. I was not disappointed. 

flamingraichu:

I googled ‘motion capture Groot’. I was not disappointed. 

Reblogged on 16 Sep 2014 from thenameisroxylalonde
648,639 notes | Permalink
mediapathic:

nextyearsgirl:

This is an enormous chain and I’m sorry, but I need to say this:
The laws in the Old Testament were set forth by god as the rules the Hebrews needed to follow in order to be righteous, to atone for the sin of Adam and Eve and to be able to get into Heaven. That is also why they were required to make sacrifices, because it was part of the appeasement for Original Sin.
According to Christian theology, when Jesus came from Heaven, it was for the express purpose of sacrificing himself on the cross so that our sins may be forgiven. His sacrifice was supposed to be the ultimate act that would free us from the former laws and regulations and allow us to enter Heaven by acting in his image. That is why he said “it is finished” when he died on the cross. That is why Christians don’t have to circumcise their sons (god’s covenant with Jacob), that is why they don’t have to perform animal sacrifice, or grow out their forelocks, or follow any of the other laws of Leviticus.
When you quote Leviticus as god’s law and say they are rules we must follow because they are what god or Jesus wants us to do, what you are really saying, as a Christian, is that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was invalid. He died in vain because you believe we are still beholden to the old laws. That is what you, a self-professed good Christian, are saying to your god and his son, that their plan for your salvation wasn’t good enough for you.
So maybe actually read the thing before you start quoting it, because the implications of your actions go a lot deeper than you think.

This is a theological point that doesn’t come up often enough.
mediapathic:

nextyearsgirl:

This is an enormous chain and I’m sorry, but I need to say this:
The laws in the Old Testament were set forth by god as the rules the Hebrews needed to follow in order to be righteous, to atone for the sin of Adam and Eve and to be able to get into Heaven. That is also why they were required to make sacrifices, because it was part of the appeasement for Original Sin.
According to Christian theology, when Jesus came from Heaven, it was for the express purpose of sacrificing himself on the cross so that our sins may be forgiven. His sacrifice was supposed to be the ultimate act that would free us from the former laws and regulations and allow us to enter Heaven by acting in his image. That is why he said “it is finished” when he died on the cross. That is why Christians don’t have to circumcise their sons (god’s covenant with Jacob), that is why they don’t have to perform animal sacrifice, or grow out their forelocks, or follow any of the other laws of Leviticus.
When you quote Leviticus as god’s law and say they are rules we must follow because they are what god or Jesus wants us to do, what you are really saying, as a Christian, is that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was invalid. He died in vain because you believe we are still beholden to the old laws. That is what you, a self-professed good Christian, are saying to your god and his son, that their plan for your salvation wasn’t good enough for you.
So maybe actually read the thing before you start quoting it, because the implications of your actions go a lot deeper than you think.

This is a theological point that doesn’t come up often enough.

mediapathic:

nextyearsgirl:

This is an enormous chain and I’m sorry, but I need to say this:

The laws in the Old Testament were set forth by god as the rules the Hebrews needed to follow in order to be righteous, to atone for the sin of Adam and Eve and to be able to get into Heaven. That is also why they were required to make sacrifices, because it was part of the appeasement for Original Sin.

According to Christian theology, when Jesus came from Heaven, it was for the express purpose of sacrificing himself on the cross so that our sins may be forgiven. His sacrifice was supposed to be the ultimate act that would free us from the former laws and regulations and allow us to enter Heaven by acting in his image. That is why he said “it is finished” when he died on the cross. That is why Christians don’t have to circumcise their sons (god’s covenant with Jacob), that is why they don’t have to perform animal sacrifice, or grow out their forelocks, or follow any of the other laws of Leviticus.

When you quote Leviticus as god’s law and say they are rules we must follow because they are what god or Jesus wants us to do, what you are really saying, as a Christian, is that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was invalid. He died in vain because you believe we are still beholden to the old laws. That is what you, a self-professed good Christian, are saying to your god and his son, that their plan for your salvation wasn’t good enough for you.

So maybe actually read the thing before you start quoting it, because the implications of your actions go a lot deeper than you think.

This is a theological point that doesn’t come up often enough.

(Source: drunkonstephen)