Nicole

Dangers of working on a set.

he would spend multiple days walking overland to locations in full pack, sword, & armour when everyone else was travelling in trucks

refused to use any prop swords that weren’t actual steel

basically lived in the forest in-costume, sleeping rough under the sky, even fishing & foraging for his food when possible

often spent hours in the barn just bonding with the horses. He adopted the horse he rode, Uranus, after filming ended

repaired all his own gear by hand, which was often since he never took it off

had a tooth knocked out during filming but had the crew simply glue it back in place so they could keep filming

the instructor who taught everyone swordplay said Viggo was the best swordsman he had ever trained

carried his sword literally everywhere & practiced non-stop, resulting in the cops being called when locals reported “a wild man swinging a sword around his head" outside a gym in Wellington

an orc actor fucked up & accidentally threw a dagger directly into Viggo’s face, but Viggo just deflected it with his sword. They kept that shot

infamously broke 3 toes kicking that helmet but stayed in-character & sold his very real scream as part of the scene. They also kept that shot

Viggo insists on doing his own stunts; in The Two Towers where Aragorn is unconscious & floating down the river, the strong current pulled him underwater for so long that a rescue team had to go in to save him. Viggo survived by grabbing a boulder on the riverbed and pulling himself to the surface

In early December we found out that our son is suffering from Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia (CDH), where his diaphragm didn't full close. He is left with a hole in his diaphragm, allowing the organs in his abdomenal cavity to move into his chest cavity, restricting the growth of his lungs and affecting the positioning of his heart.

So far a portion of his intestines, most of his stomach, and now a portion of his liver is sitting in his chest cavity.

He'll need surgery with in days of birth to move the organs back into his abdomen and repair the diaphragm. He is expected to stay in the nicu a minimum of five weeks but could be up to 3 months or more, depending on his progress during pregnancy and how he responds and heals post surgery.

We hope to stay as much time as possible in the NICU with him during his time their.

And thats why I am posting this link today. Its hard for me to ask others for help, especially financial. It would mean the world to us if you could donate money so we can be there for our son.

Donations would go toward loss salary while staying with our son in the NICU, transportation to and from the hospital, food while staying there. Also the money would go toward things needed when we bring him home from the hospital, like the possibility for oxygen needs, feeding tubes and formula, medication, and other monitoring equipment he may need. Additionally, depending on how his hernia progresses before birth, we may need to relocate out of state and we want to be able to have that option to give him the best care.

@robert-the-foul @r0bilargreenleaf

If you can not donate, please share. I’ve provided two different fundraising sites:

They repaired the hernia again , luckily it was small but they added a biological dissolvable mesh to help cover the area. They had to get rid of part of his intestines from the issue that they saw. His blood pressure has been too low, so they don’t think his intestines would properly heal if they attached the pieces of intestines together just yet, so now they are being held outside the body in the meantime.

They told us 6-8 weeks for healing possible then they’ll attached the intestines together.

It’s a set back for sure.

They had mentioned that before they caught this they were considering starting feedings soon and weaning off more things .

So no pay, and he may not be able to visit our son until he is cleared to move about more.

The Greek phrase "Δεν ξεχνώ" goes also for our brother ethnoi across the former Ottoman empire! Greeks were also forced to labour - literally - to death along with them in the amele tabourou (Amele Taburları‎‎) labour camps. The survival rates were a dozen out of thousands of people, in a system that gave ideas to Hitler.

In Greece we have a very famous book about those labour camps, "The Number 31328, the book of slavery" ("Το Νούμερο 31328 Το βιβλίο της σκλαβιάς") by Greek writer Elias Venezis. From his hometown, Ayvali, 3.000 Christians were taken to the labour camps. From them only 23 survived and he was among them, and wrote this book. I can imagine the similar horrors Armenians underwent. Every April 24th let's remember them and honour them!

The LGBTQ+ person who asks Christians to "welcome and accept them without telling them they should change" is openly demanding that the Christians change. From being Christians, to being non-Christians.

Because Christ died to save you from who you used to be. When you become a Christian, you're choosing to change from who you were to who He tells you to be. That is Christianity. To tell Christians to stop talking and behaving like that is what they believe is to not only reject Christianity yourself, but demand that they reject it, too.

Do not listen to any influencer, pop culture icon, or person who says to you that Christians do not love LGBTQ+ people, because they say LGBTQ+ people should change who they are.

Christians change who they are. More accurately, they let Christ change who they are. Thats how they became Christians. Truth goes hand in hand with love—it is not opposed to it. But love is not anti-rejection. Love rejects plenty of things. Love rejects hatred, self-focus, and lies.

Queer Christians would like to have a word with OP and everyone agreeing with them but I bet you guys are gonna keep othering us as long as we don’t follow your ideas for what being a Christian is 👍

Everytime you say you love the LGBT+ but do something that leads to them feeling rejected, judged, dehumanized, etc (like constantly comparing and associating them to people who actually harm others; or saying they need to change; for example), you’re not actually loving them. You’re just paying lip service to cover up your sense of self-righteousness and completely ignoring their perspectives on the matter.

Signed,

A queer Christian

So the word "Christian" means "Those non-affirming-of-our-lifestyle mini-Christs."

The word "Christian" literally means "acts like Christ." Christ claimed to be Yahweh. Yahweh declares homosexuality, "queerness," a sin. Therefore, there is no such thing as a queer Christian.

It would be like saying, "I'm a carnivorous vegetarian."

Words have meaning. You want to be in this social religious club that flashes a commonly-known name around, meets weekly, and picks and chooses what is true based on nothing but personal preference? Call it something else. Because that's not what "Christian" means.

"Christian" means you're picking up the flag of the Nazarene who lived 2000 years ago and claimed to be the God--the specific God that said, among many other things, "those who practice homosexuality shall not enter the kingdom of God." And that's the only flag you're flying.

Don't like that specific flag? Then you don't like Christianity. Stop pretending.

The Bible's pretty clear that there is such a thing as "the Church," which means people who fit the description "follower of the real Christ" and such a thing as people who call themselves the church but aren't, because they don't follow Christ. You'd have to be willfully ignoring huge chunks of the Bible not to see that, and to say things like "Christianity is not a monolithic, organized group." What do you mean by that? True Christians follow Christ. Christ is real and there are things about Him that are objectively true--and things about Him that are not. It's definable.

Finally, this whole premise of "love does not do anything that leads to someone feeling rejected, judged, dehumanized" comes from where? Says who? Who says that that's not what love does?

If a parent doesn't judge that a little kid's desire to smack their brother across the mouth is wrong, and as a result of that refusal to judge, just lets the kid keep doing it, that parent is unloving. Because the kid will ruin their relationship with their brother, deprive themselves of a positive sibling relationship, and the brother will be physically and emotionally injured, because that brother's natural conclusion is that the un-judging parent doesn't care enough about them to make a judgement call that leads to intervention.

So we've established that "judgement" can be a loving thing to do.

Now let's talk about "rejection." You can feel rejected but not be rejected. When the parent stops the kid from smacking their brother, the smack-happy kid can feel embarrassed and resentful toward the parent. Because on some level, they really wanted to hit their brother. Maybe they even felt it was the right thing to do, quite strongly. And the parent is doing what? Rejecting that desire that the kid has. If the kid identifies strongly enough with their desire to hit the brother? Then the kid will feel "rejected" when the parent rejects that desire by stopping it and declaring it to be wrong. The kid feels rejected. But is the kid rejected? No. The parent rejects that desire the kid is having—it's a wrong desire, it's something the kid shouldn't have and doesn't have to cling to or act on. And the parent knows it's going to hurt the kid. So in calling the desire "wrong," and rejecting it, the parent is doing the opposite of rejecting the kid. Who you are does not have to be what you desire.

So you can love someone while rejecting what they desire—and it's not the same as rejecting who they are.

Last one. Let's go to "dehumanized."

Who gets to decide what "human" means? If it means "never does something wrong that should be turned away from—" and therefore Christians should never make LGBTQ+ people feel like they've done something that's wrong that should be turned away from—then none of us are humans. Because, as stated before, other actions like drunkenness or pettiness or selfishness are wrong and should be turned away from—and that's what all Christians do. They admit their wrong and turn away from it. They actually believe that all humans do wrong things which should be turned away from.

So by definition, if a Christian is saying to someone, "what you're doing and accepting and identifying as is wrong, and it's hurting you, and you should turn away from it—and I know this because I used to do it too" then they're actually including LGBTQ+ people in their group already. They're saying "you're just like me. Except you haven't decided to turn from what's hurting you and embrace Christ as your identity yet. I'm inviting you to do that part."

It's all in 1 Corinthians 6.

"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

So we've established that it is not inherently unloving to judge, and just because someone feels rejected or de-humanized doesn't mean that's what they are—nor does it mean those feelings are the result that the Christian intended or communicated.

So. Who gets to decide what "love" means? God, who is Love. Who gets to decide what "Christian" means? Christ, who is God. You can pretend. But you can't change what those words mean, any more than you can change what you are.

But I’m also not surprised that you’ve automatically judged me and accused me of not being a Christian. Happens I suppose. But the fact that sexuality is your litmus test for it and not the Gospel or Jesus Christ himself is very telling.

You really should try listening to other Christians and perspectives about all this. You have plenty of brethren out and about who disagree with you, many of which are far more well-read and understanding than you seem to be. People who engage with the text from different angles than just the kind you come from but still are Christians.

I'm not sure what part of the Gospel we're having a misunderstanding of.

The Gospel is: "your sin (a word which means 'your state of doing and being the opposite of what God commands') separates you from a loving and just God who is in charge, and who must punish sin or else He wouldn't be just. You have no way to solve your sin on your own. But if you repent (be willing to submit to Him changing who you are) and trust in Christ, He will take the just punishment that you deserved into Himself and make you a new creation, because He's not only just, He's loving."

What part of that is not Scriptural? What part of that am I wrong about? Because it seems to me like the only part I know for sure you disagree with is the definition of sin as "your state of doing and being the opposite of what God commands" and perhaps "repent."

Jesus said "Why do You call me Lord and not do what I say?" in Luke 6. James 2:26 says "faith without works is dead." The litmus test is the Gospel—the Gospel is that you were changed by Christ. If there's no evidence of that change (obedience) then that would be the basis for my observation (not accusation) that you're living inconsistently to the claim "I'm a Christian."

I don't care how well-read I or anyone else is. I don't care about mankind's viewpoints and how many of them there are. Not because, compared to my understanding, they're unimpressive—but because compared to God's Word they're worthless. Anything good anybody has to say is only that because it lines up with God's truth. Anything else is not good, and not worth listening to.

You’re throwing in all these ideas and claims and verses to make yourself appear like you know what you’re talking about. I am not even accusing you of not being a Christian, just challenging your claim that LGBT+ folk by mere association and identity are inherently un-Christian or that it’s impossible to be queer and Christian (Where are my Side A and Side B people at? 🤣). Meanwhile you are implying to know my faith, know how God is working (or not working) in my life. But you don’t actually know me. You’ve never met me, never spoken to me in conversation. I can admit that in my own life I do not necessarily always live out Christ-likeness (just like everyone else). But I don’t think these views are part of that issue.

Your approach is a very problematic way to look at your neighbors, very imperialistic in nature I argue. It’s Othering 101 because you’re so hellbent on believing you’re right and that every word you speak is stamped with “God-approved” that everyone else who says differently isn’t.

You’re so caught up with your views of Christianity and the Bible that you can’t even consider the possibility that everything you’ve said could be wrong or possibly inaccurate or not the entire message.

Meanwhile I’ve learned that I don’t need absolute certainty in this area of my life (sexuality or Scriptures I mean). I can have faith on God being here with me. I have Him. Christ came down on the cross to save me. He loves me. I love and live for Him. If that means changing how I approach my queer neighbors, then so be it as long as the Gospel is not just shared but lived out.

Believe it or not there are also different interpretations or views of what sin is, what hell and heaven are, etc. So yes that includes sexuality.

I’m done replying to this, cuz this just feels like you’re yapping your mouth at me and treating me like a sounding board. Think of me however you want but you don’t actually know me. You’re speaking to a complete stranger who decided to spend time challenging you a little as a fellow believer. And then you go on about claiming that I, someone you’ve never actually met or spoken to, am not a Christian.

I don’t have to answer to you or defend myself. God can speak for me and if He decides to give me a huge slice of humble pie then so be it. He’s done that plenty of times in my life. But your approaches and assumptions about other people are dangerous and in fact quite antichrist.

Just because "people debate" over Paul's teaching (which was referred to as Scripture by Peter, and is therefore just as valid as Christ's words in the Sermon on the Mount) does not mean that the truth hasn't been revealed. We debate over things that are obviously true beyond reasonable debate all the time: atheists still debate the existence of God. I'd be interested to know if you think that means God doesn't exist: simply because they're debating the matter.

Paul meant homosexuality; the same gender sleeping with the same gender. You have to do hermeneutical gymnastics to come up with any other excuse for what Scripture says.

Listen, you're the one telling me what I am and am not doing. You're making a lot of "you're so this," and "you're doing that" statements. But you're not actually responding to the points I'm making. How can I even consider that what I've believed has holes if you would rather tell me what kind of attitude I have than respond to what I've stated I've believed?

That's not the Biblical definition of "challenging another believer."

I'd like to know who this God is that you have faith in. You're telling me it's the God of Christians, and you're very insistent that I'm wrong to even suggest your faith is not in the God of Christians...but you're ignoring the only way that specific God has chosen to reveal Himself, which is Scripture.

It would genuinely be like me saying, "I don't have to understand qui-qui-quee's reblogs, I can make decisions based on who qui-qui-quee is." Well, that statement is meaningless. Because I can only put my faith in something known. And all I can know about you, all I have available to put my faith in, (in this context) is your reblogs. In this context, that's how you've chosen to let me get to know you. So if I ignore the only window I have into who you are, but still insist that my faith is in who you are, I'm just saying "my faith is in my idea of qui-qui-quee." Because I can't be saying my faith is in who you are—I've chosen to ignore your revelation of who you are. My faith's really in me, in this illustration.

I'm not saying that 100% for sure your faith is not in God. But every action we take is faith-based, and that faith has to be intentionally placed on something every time.

You don't have to answer me. But you have to answer God: how do you know what He wants with this whole homosexuality thing? Not "how do you know what people say He wants?" Not "how do you know what your ideal god wants?" Not "how do you know what you would want if you were a god?" Not "how do I you know what you feel like God wants?"

We either submit to the God of Scripture, or we follow something else entirely.

I hate seeing this post going around because it is so much of the same thing we all have heard too many times before and it's exhausting making the same arguments again and again. So I've ignored it to this point. But...

It's exhausting being compared to murderers and drug addicts and such simply for inborn and unchangeable qualities. No, being attracted to one gender or the other does not automatically make you either evil or holy.

Secondly, as quiche-quibbles intimated, there are many queer Christians who do follow the biblical rules, who make the choice to abstain from sexual relationships forever. We're still LGBTQ+ and we're still Christians. (And I wonder if you would make that sacrifice yourself?)

And yes, we are called to accept and love people where they are. First of all, you can't force somebody to convert. Only God can transform a heart. Constantly harping on people about how they're wrong and sinful will only drive them away, and how will you teach them the right path when they've learned to avoid you?

What happens with all this talk about queer people "not being Christian" and "having to change before they can be loved" (side note, do you have to be sinless before you can be loved? Do you extend this attitude to your own pet vices? I wonder why God bothered to send His only Son to wash you in His BLOOD, WHILE YOU WERE STILL SINFUL, unless he did love you already, unless he already saw you as His beloved child, a member of the body of Christ, WHILE YOU WERE STILL SINFUL?)

This attitude doesnt encourage anybody to change, it simply makes it clear to queer people that there is no space for them in your community. And why would anybody be inspired to change by that kind of behavior?

You’re ignoring everything that’s been said to this point, so I’m not surprising it feels exhausting—on both sides. I’ll summarize it, because it is a lot to read:

Inborn qualities they cannot change, as opposed to drug addicts and alcoholics - You’re misunderstanding the point. According to Scripture, all of those things are, in a sense, something we begin with that we can’t overcome on our own. It’s called “sin.” We don’t desire the things we were made to desire. That is the area in which the comparison is made. A substance to gain satisfaction from, a human relationship to gain satisfaction from—that’s all under the same Scriptural banner of “filling a need you were never made to have and do not have to have if you’ll submit to God.” So in that sense: yes, it’s “inborn” because all mankind has fallen from what God created them to be—and yes, it’s a choice to continue in it. That’s what the Gospel is. That’s what the plan for salvation from all sin is. Homosexuality, transgenderism, everything that;s not God’s original plan, they’re not special cases. They’re just in the long list of twisted desires from the fall. That’s all. But you’re absolutely right that being attracted to “one gender or the other does not automatically make you either evil or holy.” The Bible says “there is none good.” We’re all evil. Before Christ. That’s the Gospel.

there are many queer Christians who do follow the biblical rules, who make the choice to abstain from sexual relationships forever. We're still LGBTQ+ and we're still Christians. - I wonder if I’d make that sacrifice too. But by the grace of God I have sacrificed other things that my flesh wants, because I know that I can’t have that and Christ. So according to the definition of “Christian,” which is, “take up your cross, die to yourself, and follow Christ; identify with Christ, nothing else,” I would never call myself, “LGBTQ+.” No matter what feelings I have. I don’t classify myself by anything other than “identified with Christ.” Especially not “my feelings; my sexual impulses.” That’s plain in everything Jesus said. So, the statement is still true: “There is no such thing as a queer Christian.” Because to call yourself “queer” is not just to acknowledge that you sometimes have lustful desires outside of God’s will for you—it’s to identify with those. It’s to claim that’s part of who you are, when Christ says, “no, you were washed, you are clean, do not call what God calls ‘clean’ ’unclean.’” A Christian boasts in, identifies in, nothing but Christ. So you can’t be both.

And yes, we are called to accept and love people where they are. First of all, you can't force somebody to convert. Only God can transform a heart. Constantly harping on people about how they're wrong and sinful will only drive them away, and how will you teach them the right path when they've learned to avoid you? - Not if by “accept and love people where they are” you mean, “call sin ‘not sin.’” Or “never bring up the fact that they’re treating sin like it is not sin.” If that’s your definition of “accept” and “love people where they are,” it’s not Jesus’ definition. He told the woman at the well that she needed living water; He didn’t settle for just letting her live the way she was living. There’s no reason for Him to die if there’s no acknowledgement that something was wrong, and broken, which needed fixing. Secondly, no, of course you can’t force somebody to convert. And of course only God can transform a heart. We’re not commanded to force conversion or change hearts; we’re commanded to speak the truth in love, and obey in that way, and God will do the rest. Who’s “constantly harping on people about how they’re wrong and sinful?” This post was to Christians, about the lie that you can’t tell people that, to be a Christian, you must be changed by Christ. Thats what the post was about. Telling someone that what they’re doing is wrong and sinful is not the same as harping on someone. And that’s certainly not what this post was about. Again, read what I said: love rejects plenty of things. It is not anti-rejection. It’s just a matter of what ot rejects. What does the Bible say about

What happens with all this talk about queer people "not being Christian" and "having to change before they can be loved" (side note, do you have to be sinless before you can be loved? Do you extend this attitude to your own pet vices? I wonder why God bothered to send His only Son to wash you in His BLOOD, WHILE YOU WERE STILL SINFUL, unless he did love you already, unless he already saw you as His beloved child, a member of the body of Christ, WHILE YOU WERE STILL SINFUL?) - I didn’t say they had to be changed before they could be loved. You’re reading that into what I said, because your definition of “love” seems to be “don’t tell me when I’m wrong.” “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, so that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.” God loved the world. Which spurred Him on to action. To do what? Make the relationship right, after sin broke it. See how the sin has to be acknowledged? I never said otherwise. You're reading that into what I said. There’s a response to God’s love required. You can’t just say, “well He loves me, so I’ll keep living for the things that He died to save me from.” Don’t put words in my mouth.

This attitude doesnt encourage anybody to change, it simply makes it clear to queer people that there is no space for them in your community. And why would anybody be inspired to change by that kind of behavior? - It’s not my job or my goal, nor was it the command I was given, to “inspire them to change.” That’s up to God. Already said that. There is no space for someone who identifies with their sin, as if it is not sin, under the word “Christian.” Just like there is no space for someone who eats meat under the word “vegetarian.” That is how it works. Feels like, again, you’re exhausting yourself by arguing against things I never said, and ignoring what I did make clear.

Fandom Problem #15,028:

What are the chances that both of the books I read about the Barbary slave trade, one fiction and one non-fiction, go out of their way to be politically correct and say the European slaves' lives weren't that bad, right after showing how horrendous they were?

The fiction book, The Sealwoman's Gift, got my goat by having the heroine be attracted to her fucking slaver.

The non-fiction book, The Stolen Village: Baltimore and the Barbary Pirates, bewildered me by concluding - after a long description of the hell the slaves lived in - that they and their children lived happily ever after with their slavers, and isn't it wonderful that some modern North Africans can trace their ancestry back to European rape victims?

It is not hard to link to your Tumblr or Twitter with a vague message like, “If you’re looking for my other works or other ways of supporting me, go here: link.” I have had people buy me coffees after enjoying my fic and asking where to support me. I threw up a link to my Tumblr and people cared enough to follow it. They were fully understanding when I explained in the comments that they could not commission me and I could not link them directly to any donation platform, but they could go to xyz link to read more. And they did! Nobody has to put AO3 directly on the firing line.

Go ahead and commission independently. Just do it anywhere else except on AO3. And then don’t come crying to the community when you, personally, get a C&D from a massive corporation.

AO3 is our bullet shield. Tumblr will pull your shit down. Wattpad won’t fucking protect you. LJ and FF.net already sold our asses for one (1) corn chip. AO3 is trying to protect us, you goddamn lemmings.

If you cannot follow the rules that protect fanspaces, you do not belong in our fanspaces.

Firing someone solely for being trans

Being denied housing solely for being trans

Physically assaulting and murdering someone solely for being trans

What is not transphobia

Someone not wanting to date/have sex with a trans person

Acknowledging biological sex and differences

But have Arabs and Muslims ever suffered a genocide or been an oppressed by another group for the past 1500 years?

All my sources say that they never once suffered a genocide or oppression they inflicted on other groups like the Jewish people, Middle East Christians, Iranians, etc.

Sooo did they went through a genocide?

The Nakba sound like what racist southerners say “ the war of northern aggression” so I can’t be ass about it since Palestinians still have a “Abeed” neighborhood

But has the Arabs or any Muslims group truly suffered a genocide like those they inflicted upon others to this day?

That's just how history be.

And which the answer to your question is no but also yes. Generally speaking some of the biggest persecutors of Arabs and Muslims have been other Arabs and other Muslims. Specifically in regards to individuals who are either not seen as extreme enough or not seen as faithful enough. You often see purges of entire groups or regions because they are seen as heretics even when realistically they aren't. And this has been a consistent trend for the entire existence of Islam actually.

An evil nation can represent things like corruption, despair, sin, sickness, hatred, self-doubt, trauma- anything that poses a threat and must be overcome by good can be represented by an army of evil. Often an evil race represents evil itself and the hero defeating them is good triumphing over evil. Call it cliche, but it's rarely racist. Would it be less problematic if the good guys killed good people rather than evil monsters? If the heroes represent pure good, then their villains being evil isn't racist. It's normal.

Not to mention that even in the scenario where the evil army in a story represents a real group, it still might not be racist. Great example: Fantasy Nazis. Is it fair to say that every person in Nazi Germany was pure evil? Absolutely not. Do we need to address that nuance in a fantasy story about their victims? No!

Yet no one would say that implies that "God obeys Caesar."

“Notes on skirts and pants”

Bilbo takes the Arkenstone, knowing it's a theft against his friend, but then he takes it to the Elvenking and gives it to him for peace. And then Thranduil follows his example to trade it back to Thorin, for peace. Mirrors of Feanor and the Nauglamir and I don't even know what else because I'm not that well up on the First Age - but brought into being by one little hobbit standing at the brink of other people's wars.

And then it builds a path toward the fate of the Third Age. Because if Bilbo hadn't been able to renounce the Arkenstone then, I don't see how he would have escaped the Ring sixty years later.