# Furry Fandom, Christianity, and Sexuality



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 20, 2017)

Hear me out now before continue reading! I do _*NOT *_write this out of spite or hatred or out of a prideful heart. I write this genuinely out of personal convictions which are central to my faith. To those who disagree, please give me the same respect and civility I am here about to give you - and if you _really_ feel strongly about something PM me. I am happy to answer all your concerns and questions to the best of my ability.

The topic of sexuality is not new to the fandom, it is very much a central issue. Every time religion is mentioned this topic seems to always come up. The outside world looks at the furry fandom and sees it as one that is so sexual and dominated by homosexuality. Those within the fandom who have contrary opinions on sexuality seem in general to be shoved off by the fandom for fear they are a threat to the fandom which is supposed to be outgoing and accepting. I wish to give my opinion on this, an opinion based centrally on Scripture. Because to me, Biblical Christianity and the furry fandom don't have to be mutually exclusive.

As is always said: in the beginning God created male and female to be joined together. This was His design in creation. Since the fall, however, things have broken apart and mankind has gone astray. We no longer live in perfect harmony. War, disease, famine, and general disorderliness is part of reality. Along with a breaking in harmony the thoughts and desires of men and women have turned far from perfection. Our loves are not directed toward God as they should be, our desires are not all good, our hearts are distracted with many things. Our sexuality too, a very powerful thing, is broken. Lust ravishes the very depths of the heart and causes both man and woman alike to stumble at its oppressive grip. Part of this fallenness is, yes, LGBT lifestyles and attractions. Attraction itself isn’t necessarily a sin. But acting upon those attractions is. This is something I would like to discuss more.

I understand the pain that the LGBT has gone through over the years. Many have been abused and harassed. I do not at all endorse this. I in fact condemn it. Those who mistreat others for having same sex attraction have themselves sinned greatly, and such behavior is not at all Christ-like. People with exclusively same sex attractions and also follow Christian teachings are faced with the inevitable question as to the possibility of their being in a relationship. Should they stay celibate their entire lives? People who suffer from gender dysphoria, should they have to continue suffering from it? These are very hard questions. These are questions that have caused much pain and suffering. I myself am bisexual.

I believe though, and I always will, that the Scriptures are true, and Jesus Christ is who He said He is. He is the giver of Life, the Light of the world, the source of all Truth. He is God Himself come in the flesh to bear upon Himself the sins of the world and to redeem His elect. By faith we are made His, not a faith of ourselves, it is a gift of God. This faith alone justifies, and through it we are sanctified and made more holy - though never perfect in this life. This is the Gospel. This is the good news which transcends all culture and time. The Scriptures are indeed infallible, and it is amazing to see the vast number of manuscripts we have which agree to such profound accuracy. This is the only truth that can save. The Gospel is different than all other world religions. It is different than all other philosophies. It is a message of "_it is done." _I am nothing without the Gospel. Years ago when I was released from the hospital for depression, it was not years of medicine or therapy that helped_, _it was my realization of the reality of the Gospel message. Christ did it all. His righteousness is mine, and everything I deserve He took upon Himself. I used to be a broken mess of a person. I was extremely hateful. I use to be a rabid anti-furry. I remember the time I told a gay furry I thought he should be executed by the government - and that really hurt him a lot. Today I live with that, I feel horrible about that. I cannot take back those words... But one thing I know: I am nothing without Christ. He is who set me free, He is who brought such clarity to me and who softened my heart. Having a serious form of Tourette’s Syndrome growing up, I thought I couldn’t ever fit in anywhere. I knew Christ was my friend though. That is my story.

I will not stop speaking of His wondrous works. I will never stop. I will proclaim what I know is true - and that only through love.

So what do I have to say about the vast LGBT community here? Simple. God sent His Son into the world to die for sinners, which I am the chief and worst of. Give your sufferings and doubts to Him. Kneel to Him in prayer, pick up a Bible and read His Word. You may not feel He is there for you, but for those who are His He is suffering right beside you. You, His sheep, are dearly loved, you were bought with a price. Do not let your worldly affection trump the love you ought to have for the one who loves you infinitely! This is my story, indeed, for there is much I always have to give up for my God... Sometimes following Him will not take all your pain away. But, I say, who knows pain better than Christ? The one who took upon Himself the bitterest miseries. The one who was forsaken by the Father and left to die on a cross. The one who took upon Himself every tear and sorrow. Let Him suffer next to you. Put your faith and trust in Him, turn from your own ways and rest in Him, for surely He is the best guide and a very present help in times of trouble. To all your hard questions, and to all your personal struggles, who better knows them than Christ?


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 20, 2017)

With all due respect, is this a request to get people to start reading the bible and going to church every Sunday?


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 20, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> With all due respect, is this a request to get people to start reading the bible and going to church every Sunday?



No...


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 20, 2017)

So to abbreviate, your asking if it's possible to selectively pick and choose what parts of faith one is willing to accept, while still maintaining (or being acceptable) to your faith.  

I'm straight, but I don't think I can look down upon another for their preferences.  Personally, most guys I know of the opposite orientation are better humans than the former.  

This should be an interesting thread to follow if it doesn't turn into a dumpster fire.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 20, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> No...


Oh... Sorry.


----------



## Simo (Oct 20, 2017)

So if living life and being gay is sinful, and Christ took on my sins, I 'recon that means Jesus was gay. I had a hunch, that long hair, like a girl!

But on a serious note:

I find it both derogatory and offensive to be called a sinner due to my sexual inclinations and practices; to me, this is a very psychologically unhealthy thing to promote, and the cause of many harms and pain to so many people. I'm tired of Christianity making sex something 'dirty' and sinful. It may be for you, but this is key among the many, many reasons I flatly reject the religion.

As Nietzsche said:

"It was Christianity, with it's deep dislike of (earthly) life at the bottom of its heart, that first made something unclean of sexuality: It threw filth upon the origin, *upon the presupposition of our lives*."

The Bible tends to be more or less against, or at least very wary of,  sexual pleasure in general, which for me is the bigger problem with Christianity. It seeks to elevate the 'spiritual', and in the process downplays the beauty of life and denigrates the physical world. A schism opens between body and soul. We have the _*Virgin*_ Mary, and thus the idea that this is somehow preferable...as if it would have been 'unclean' otherwise, that Mary couldn't have just had normal sex and still had Jesus pop out just the same.

But beneath it all is a movement away from the earth based to a so-called heavenly based spirituality, and this is where I most dislike Christianity. Earth becomes this orb now placed merely _in relation_ to Heaven and Hell, and the body becomes a sort of dirty old rag, compared to the soul.

I like the earth, my body, and I find no need of having to separate it from what might be called my 'self' or 'soul': as Nietzsche said, "The body _is_ the soul"


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 20, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> So to abbreviate, your asking if it's possible to selectively pick and choose what parts of faith one is willing to accept, while still maintaining (or being acceptable) to your faith.
> 
> I'm straight, but I don't think I can look down upon another for their preferences.  Personally, most guys I know of the opposite orientation are better humans than the former.
> 
> This should be an interesting thread to follow if it doesn't turn into a dumpster fire.



I do not quite understand your first sentence.


----------



## WolfNightV4X1 (Oct 20, 2017)

I am a Christian, but I also support LGBT rights, if not for the sake of scripture, for the sake of human rights.

I think it's pretty hypocritical to be calling out homosexuality and transgenderness as a sin, and to highlight "one man, one woman" when in the biblical age concubines and polygamy were highly prevalent, did God condemn Abraham and all the Christians of the time period for the same actions so that hell was the only place they could go, or were those sins forgiven and forgotten while they lived their lives without remorse and they simply went to heaven, unlike those who are homosexual and transgender, which is inevitably an unavoidable factor in life.

You say you struggle with same-sex attraction (through art), but that would essentially (if you so accepted the fact) make you bi. Homosexuals do not have that options, nor do transgender people. These people are inherently forced to live a life of isolation or discomfort by virtue of that which they are and cannot control. You cannot arguably compare any struggle or pain to the struggle of someone in those situations.

Did you know intersexuality is essentially people or animals who essentially have both male and female organs simultaneously? Did you know both males and females are human regardless of physical characteristics? Did you know "crossdressing" is completely arbitrary and based on the time period and looking at the big picture wearing certain types of clothing is just that, clothing.


Not only that, but treating sexual intercourse as a sin on it's own inevitibly causes a lot of fearmongering and strain on what is inevitably a natural biological process. Teenager and adults can and do have a sex drive, shaming people for these urges they feel is incredibly counterintuitive and leads to a lot of psychological problems in the longer term.

Isn't the core value of the bible and God's word that we are followers of Christ's and as servants we must do to others what we would ourselves, to love and respect and care for everything and everyone while we live on this Earth until the day we die? To serve man as Jesus Christ came from heaven to Earth to serve us?

In the end, this is what matters. Not who we love, what we do, what we eat, what we wear. We do our best to be Christlike, and that's what matters in the end.

I so understand and respect and am glad that you have at least taken a more loving, caring approach to the LGBT community rather than condeming them in an angry way, so I have respect for you as well, overall. People are different, and will remain so, so giving each other an agree to disagree approach and allowing each other to live peacefully with full human rights is the best course of action.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 20, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> I do not quite understand your first sentence.



You either have to accept your faith in full (which I know is non-negotiable), or feel acceptance of another's beliefs.  

There is technically no middle ground with this.  

So either this thread is about discussing this delicate middle ground, or as mentioned before, preaching others to decry it.  Using words like "suffer from" were probably not the best choice to bring about positive discussion.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 21, 2017)

Simo said:


> I find it both derogatory and offensive to be called a sinner due to my sexual inclinations and practices; to me, this is a very psychologically unhealthy thing to promote, and the cause of many harms and pain to so many people. I'm tired of Christianity making sex something 'dirty' and sinful. It may be for you, but this is key among the many, many reasons I flatly reject the religion.



Homosexual practice isn’t the only sin though.. 

We don’t believe sex is sinful within the context of a man-and-woman marriage. 



Simo said:


> As Nietzsche said:
> 
> "It was Christianity, with it's deep dislike of (earthly) life at the bottom of its heart, that first made something unclean of sexuality: It threw filth upon the origin, *upon the presupposition of our lives*."
> 
> ...



Sorry to pop your bubble, but what you and Nietzsche are fighting against here is the ancient heresy of Gnosticism. The Bible does not at all hint at the physical realm and sex being utterly worthless - read the Songs of Solom for example. We do not believe in rejecting the physical world and only focus on the heavenly. Yes, heaven is our goal. But the Bible clearly focuses on the physical too. As for the Virgin Mary - that was to fulfill prophecy, not to say pregnancy is evil!


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 21, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> Homosexual practice isn’t the only sin though..
> 
> We don’t believe sex is sinful within the context of a man-and-woman marriage.



I'm getting some contradictory messages here. Do you accept or reject sexualities that aren't straight?


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 21, 2017)

I'll get the fire extinguishers ready...


----------



## Simo (Oct 21, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> I'm getting some contradictory messages here. Do you accept or reject sexualities that aren't straight?



Me too.

@Felix Bernard: You say you are attracted to male furries. Does this mean at least our avis can date? :V

But I don't think homosexuality is sinful, period, and I do think Christianity, despite a few nods to enjoying God's creation, so to speak, has very much positive to say about sex, and the body.


----------



## WolfNightV4X1 (Oct 21, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> Homosexual practice isn’t the only sin though..
> 
> We don’t believe sex is sinful within the context of a man-and-woman marriage.



But by virtue of teachings with sex only moral in the realm of marriage,  you teach young adults and teens navigating their budding sex drives (Yes, it is absolutely possible to have these while being clueless about sex), to push away these urges for years and years of their life, to essentially disregard and ignore it and make it to be an undesirable behavior, and then suddenly bring it about one day in marriage after years of repressing the behavior, ultimately it's very psychologically damaging and leads to a lot of discomfort, lies, and falsification of factual sexual truths and ignorance about sex itself. 

Not only that, but prior to the modern age marriage was an act that was not voluntary, but was arranged by parents to their children as they were in their teens, this really leads to no room for immoral sexual acts lest they be under sexual maturity, which in itself is immoral. 

...and again, you use the phrase, "man and woman" but its common in biblical time periods for, again, polygamists relations with several wives. This isnt biblical at all, and is inherently more harmful than man and man or woman with woman, which is inevitably a consensual, love binding, relationship.


----------



## Fuzzylumkin (Oct 21, 2017)

Ok so I have to take a moment and be serious when I say that this stuff really has no place whatsoever in this or any fandom


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Oct 21, 2017)

Fuzzylumkin said:


> Ok so I have to take a moment and be serious when I say that this stuff really has no place whatsoever in this or any fandom



It's entirely permissible to debate these sorts of subjects within a community, or just debate them in general.  It's part of society that things like these be discussed.  

It's only unacceptable if community guidelines are crossed, and we have those laid out in the Terms and Rules tab at the top of the forum.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 21, 2017)

SSJ3Mewtwo said:


> It's entirely permissible to debate these sorts of subjects within a community, or just debate them in general.  It's part of society that things like these be discussed.
> 
> It's only unacceptable if community guidelines are crossed, and we have those laid out in the Terms and Rules tab at the top of the forum.



I think it's going to be highly dependent on the OP's intent of this thread.  Hopefully it's aligned with a thoughtful discussion, and not a platform.


----------



## Simo (Oct 21, 2017)

I think everyone has managed to be quite civil, so far, and in the other thread; I mean, I've seen many debates on such topics on various forums, and I must say, we've been real angels, so to speak, in comparison to some of the mudslinging and fights I've seen.


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Oct 21, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> I think it's going to be highly dependent on the OP's intent of this thread.  Hopefully it's aligned with a thoughtful discussion, and not a platform.



Understandable.  And if it turns out that the thread was done for no other reason than to soapbox (or in the more negative potential, troll) it can be closed down.  But that will have to be looked at in the context of the discussion.


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Oct 21, 2017)

Simo said:


> I think everyone has managed to quite civil, so far, and in the other thread; I mean, I've seen many debates on such topics on various forums, and I must say, we've been real angels, so to speak.



That's what I was hoping for when redoing enforcement of things


----------



## Fuzzylumkin (Oct 21, 2017)

SSJ3Mewtwo said:


> It's entirely permissible to debate these sorts of subjects within a community, or just debate them in general.  It's part of society that things like these be discussed.
> 
> It's only unacceptable if community guidelines are crossed, and we have those laid out in the Terms and Rules tab at the top of the forum.




true... however my concern is that the fandom already has its name drug through the mud because of words like fetsh, kinks, etc... adding religion to it just makes it even worse..or at least I feel like it


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Oct 21, 2017)

Fuzzylumkin said:


> true... however my concern is that the fandom already has its name drug through the mud because of words like fetsh, kinks, etc... adding religion to it just makes it even worse..or at least I feel like it



I don't feel that this does anything to drag the fandom through the mud.  Showing that members of the fandom look into and debate these issues, if anything, does a bit to show that people who count themselves part of it have these sorts of thoughts and outlooks in mind, rather than just the usual stereotypes.

The discussion might be contentious, but it's a good thing overall that the discussion take place, as long as rules and respect are kept in mind.


----------



## Blaab (Oct 21, 2017)

I won't go into my opinions on sexuality much other then that true Christians are not necessarily religious in the context of the world's view of what that means, (a form of bondage and system of rituals) and they have a relationship with Christ, and are fully excepting of the _person, and of *all* persons,_ regardless of their sin or actions. 

This include things of sexuality. 
This doesn't mean we a_pprove_ of non biblical sexuality, but we do _accept_ the person, and while we may rebuke the action and lifestyle, and try and show the person they are sinning, we do *not* condemn them.

With regard to furriness, I think there is a hidden line we don't have enough of information to understand, at least, with the limited knowledge I have, being relatively new to faith.

I do however have a few out there thoughts: _"as it was in the days of Noah..." _We don't know as of yet exactly what those days were like, it could have been highly advanced society, or very primitive, and while we know the fallen angels meddled in those days, all we can be sure on is it became so bad that God had no choice but to basically completely start over.

_What_ exactly was bad isn't certain, but one thing we do know is that creation was twisted, for example the fallen angels tricking women into having nephillim children, aka giants.
What all this means isn't obviously known, but it could possibly mean not only human giants, but other forms of life as well, and while a part of me wants to believe this doesn't include anthropomorphic creatures or hybrid races, it's possible this is included, since fallen angels can shape shift and it may mean a whole host of human animal hybrid creatures could have existed, which could explain things like Egyptian animal headed gods.
*
That all said, this is obviously fringe stuff even for believers, and some of this is based off information from Enoch, who isn't considered cannon by all sects of the larger Faith.*

But, with this in mind, it could mean that furriness, at large, and not just people taking it to sexual levels or to fetishes, is actually a perversion in itself of creation.

This is a question I would love answered and for certain, as I have a feeling that furriness may be used as a deceptive device by Satan to trap and lie to people, both now and in the end, and in many ways, it already is.

That being said, I am not certain and there really isn't enough info, that I have seen, to be conclusive.
*
And to be sure, I believe that in the same way that Christ accepts Jews as much as Gentiles, and homos as much as heteros, and every other race, religion, and person ever, I think He is well accepting of furries, even if it does turn out even depiction of furries is somehow wrong. *
_
Which I honestly don't believe is the case, not inherently. _Sexuality, porn and the like, even biblical, in our fallen world, _is_, but the basic use of anthropomorphism, at least in art and such, _no_.

Like is bugs bunny _really_ a sin to draw?
I don't think so, same to dressing up as him. I think this community has a lot in it that is deception and fallen, but then, that is everywhere else too, and anyone's perception of it being more prevalent here could just being the fact they are looking here more then other places....


*To sum: *

*Christ accepts all, and true Christians do too, that doesn't mean we agree or approve of sin, nor that we won't rebuke it, but we will be open and loving to everyone regardless.*

*And:*

*Furriness could be wrong fundamentally, but there is, from my knowledge, not enough info to be sure, and in the spirit of the prior statement, it makes sense to accept furries too, and that the act of furry art, suits and such, so long as it's not wondering into sin, is likely acceptable.*

Also, @Felix Bernard: I encourage your boldness, and offer my hand in support of you.

I will however say that in all that you have said, I'm not sure what exactly you were proposing with your original post....


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 21, 2017)

Fuzzylumkin said:


> true... however my concern is that the fandom already has its name drug through the mud because of words like fetsh, kinks, etc... adding religion to it just makes it even worse..or at least I feel like it



It does to an extent.  Anytime the internet gathers people from the ends of the earth, differing viewpoints engage each other.  

Now, this thread could possibly be used for good.  There is no doubt that there are individuals within the fandom of various religious sects.  Their individual sects may also look down upon several aspects of the fandom, and one could have internal conflicts deciding what is "right" for the individual.  

I'm all for intelligent discussions, but not staunch "Fire and Brimstone" types.  I've already stood toe to toe against hardcore religious fanatics willing to die for their cause, and it's truly the worst humanity has to offer.  Period.


----------



## Fuzzylumkin (Oct 21, 2017)

I mean I guess ultimately it doesn't matter to me one way or another, I'm totally non religious, I just hate the conversations where I have to explained what the fandom is to the muggles


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 21, 2017)

This thread is stage 4 cancer...

What does your sexuality have to do with anything about the furry fandom?

Also,when the hell did religion ever correlate with the fandom on the grand scale?

Shouldn't remain neutral in both aspects to include all?

Separate Church and Fur


----------



## Blaab (Oct 21, 2017)

Ramjet556 said:


> This thread is cake...
> 
> What does your cake have to do with anything about the cake pandom?
> 
> Also, when the icing did cake ever correlate with the pandom on the confectionery scale?



It did when the fandom started, as religion relates to life itself, since religion is a means of understanding the world and providing guides to, hopefully, keep it livable. At least, some religions are. 

Philosophy relates to everything. 

Except cake. There is only one true answer there....* it is a lie!!!*


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Oct 21, 2017)

Ramjet556 said:


> This thread is stage 4 cancer...
> 
> What does your sexuality have to do with anything about the furry fandom?
> 
> Also,when the hell did religion ever correlate with the fandom on the grand scale?



Please do not attempt to derail the topic with needless toxicity, regardless of your personal biases.  It's already been made clear that this is a permissible topic.

It's understandable if this is a touchy issue, but do not attempt to pollute the discussion.  Keep your comments on topic.


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 21, 2017)

SSJ3Mewtwo said:


> Please do not attempt to derail the topic with needless toxicity, regardless of your personal biases.  It's already been made clear that this is a permissible topic.
> 
> It's understandable if this is a touchy issue, but do not attempt to pollute the discussion.  Keep your comments on topic.



It is on topic...I'm just explaining my view.Plus in my just I posted before I got my full response out.

The real fact is you just don't like it,and well whatever


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (Oct 21, 2017)

Ramjet556 said:


> It is on topic...I'm just explaining my view.Plus in my just I posted before I got my full response out.
> 
> The real fact is you just don't like it,and well whatever



I do my best to remain as neutral as possible.  My views on religion were made pretty well and clearly in the prior topic:  forums.furaffinity.net: Do you believe in God, or some similar thing?

However, it is your responsibility to ensure your own civil conduct.  Referring to things you are opposed to as 'stage 4 cancer' is not doing so.

So I posted to ensure things stayed on track and civil.  Please ensure they remain so.  If things become needlessly antagonistic then staff will step in.


----------



## Blaab (Oct 21, 2017)

SSJ3Mewtwo said:


> Please do not attempt to decake the topic with needless saladity, regardless of your personal tastes.  It's already been made clear that this is a permissible dessert.
> 
> It's understandable if this is a touchy flavor, but do not attempt to pollute the recipe.  Keep your ingredients on topic.



I'm sorry Ill stop if you like, I'm just trying to keep this a.. light batch..

_*Ehem* __On topic:_
I think it's a fair thing to not be a fan of the discussion, so long as that dislike isn't reflected in the form of toxicity. 

*One can disagree without being disagreeable. - Chef Excellence.*


----------



## Fuzzylumkin (Oct 21, 2017)

This is actually the WORST fandom to put the LGBQT community down... its like pissing off a ton of angry wolves with keyboards!


----------



## Blaab (Oct 21, 2017)

OP offers his opinion, you may find it disagreeable or closed minded, but it is his opinion.

You however didn't offer any opinion, and instead said this entire discussion is vile, which isn't really helpful.

So please, either debate, or don't, but let's keep it civil.

And cake worthy.


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 21, 2017)

Fuzzylumkin said:


> This is actually the WORST fandom to put the LGBQT community down... its like pissing off a ton of angry wolves with keyboards!



Exactly!


----------



## Ramjet (Oct 21, 2017)

Blaab said:


> OP offers his opinion, you may find it disagreeable or closed minded, but it is his opinion.
> 
> You however didn't offer any opinion, and instead said this entire discussion is vile, which isn't really helpful.
> 
> ...



I did offer my rebuttal...

"Shouldn't remain neutral in both aspects to include all?"


----------



## Blaab (Oct 21, 2017)

Ramjet556 said:


> I did offer my rebuttal...
> 
> "Shouldn't remain neutral in both aspects to include all?"



After an edit yes, but the fact still remains, you can be agreeable, and disagree. Calling things stage 4 cancer.. not really agreeable, unless it's actually literally a stage 4 cancer cell.
And I'm pretty sure a group of 1's 0's equating to words isn't cancer....

But I digress. Let's be cakely.


----------



## EmpressCiela (Oct 21, 2017)

Oh jeez. Was not expecting that long of a position to be so intriguing and so personal for me. Give me a bit to research and make a stance on this. Might have to ask some friends at church for their opinions too to get some sources. This will be an interesting discussion ^w^


----------



## Kellan Meig'h (Oct 21, 2017)

WolfNightV4X1 said:


> In the end, this is what matters. Not who we love, what we do, what we eat, what we wear. We do our best to be Christlike, and that's what matters in the end


Thank you. You hit the nail right on the head.


----------



## Blaab (Oct 21, 2017)

AkuroZinnui said:


> Oh jeez. Was not expecting that long of a position to be so intriguing and so personal for me. Give me a bit to research and make a stance on this. Might have to ask some friends at church for their opinions too to get some sources. This will be an interesting discussion ^w^


I'd be interested to hear what you find on my thoughts as well. It's a complicated thing but and not 100% on topic but it is related, the idea that furriness at all may be on some line or over it is a topic that needs answered.


----------



## Water Draco (Oct 21, 2017)

As far as I see it the promoting the male female nuclear family unit within religion is to further expand the congregation of that religion. So husband and wife have children and bring them up within that religion. Their children then go on to get married and have more children and the cycle continues and the congregation grows.

I used to be a very devout Christian and although heterosexual myself. It was how the Christian religion regarded sexuality and its opposition to relationships other than heterosexual is what first brought about my questioning of religion. It was disapproved of that I had friends outside of the church that were LBGT, and members of the church were putting pressure on me to either bring them into Christianity and the doctrine of the religion or distance myself from them.

This forced me in to taking very close look at the church and the values I believed to be important. Eventually through a lot of questioning I realised that for me the values I held most dear were not exclusive to the religion.

With this realisation I then evolved within myself and out grew the need for the belief of there being a supernatural being that in some way had a control over my life and destiny.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 21, 2017)

Blaab said:


> So please, either debate, or don't, but let's keep it civil.
> 
> And cake worthy.


This. So much this!!!   You, sir, have defeated the Internet.


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 21, 2017)

The fandom itself, sexuality and Christianity have nothing in common.

One's, well, a fandom, the other your sexual preferences and the last an ideology. There is no common ground here. They are completely separate entities that does not need in any way, shape or form to interact with each other. It's better that way.

Like Ramjet, I find the very idea of religion toxic to the mind. Toxic to critical thinking, to ask questions, to find answers on your own. Religion have for many millennia been used as a means to brainwash and control the masses. You are handed answers that aren't fulfilling, answers you may not have the right question to . With free flow of information and conversation, religion is losing its grip and control over people, and it's losing it fast. When I ask a question, like for instance "Where do we come from?" I do not want the answer "God created you", or anything that has this god figure in it. That does not answer my question. It's not a sufficient answer. Especially not when this god figure tend to pop up in different forms and different religions, like for instance the Jewish Torah or the Islamic Quran. It's not an answer that actually answers the question.

Which religion is correct? Which religion is wrong? You can't claim that yours is correct without any evidence to back it up with. And that is what people want: Evidence. If you can actually manage to prove at some level the existence of this god figure in correlation with your faith, then people are going to start following that faith. Claiming that god's existence is outside of any ability to prove his existence is not evidence. It's shoving the burden of proof onto someone else. If you claim that god exists, then the burden of proof is upon you, not someone else who does not believe to debunk/disprove it.

You can make as many claims as you want, especially when it comes to a lack of need to actually provide any evidence. It's morally convenient to do so, because you don't have to think to come up with an actual answer to the questions you're asked.

Humans apply subjective morals onto themselves and others. Good morals will stand on their own legs. Shit like "Don't steal", "Don't covet your neighbor's wife", "Don't murder". These morals are not exclusive to Christianity nor any ideology for that matter. You can't own morals the same way you can't own ideas. They are good morals to take with you, however, you don't need to be a follower of any ideology to actually have some morals that originated in that ideology.

When it comes to sexuality, leave your subjective morals and faith out of it. Sexuality is often set in stone, and can't be "changed" with the flick of a switch, let alone when someone else wants you to "change" it. I do not judge whether you're straight, bi or gay. I do however judge if you act in a moronic way about it.



Water Draco said:


> As far as I see it the promoting the male female nuclear family unit within religion is to further expand the congregation of that religion. So husband and wife have children and bring them up within that religion. Their children then go on to get married and have more children and the cycle continues and the congregation grows.
> 
> I used to be a very devout Christian and although heterosexual myself. It was how the Christian religion regarded sexuality and its opposition to relationships other than heterosexual is what first brought about my questioning of religion. It was disapproved of that I had friends outside of the church that were LBGT, and members of the church were putting pressure on me to either bring them into Christianity and the doctrine of the religion or distance myself from them.
> 
> ...


The "nuclear family" is promoted because it's a family that works and continue to work over the thousands of years our species have been about. A child grows up in a safer and better environment with two parents, two role models. Male and female with distinct characteristics, roles, strengths and weaknesses.

It has little to do with ideology, but rather a family structure that works.

Religion and sexuality should and need to be two separate entities. If you mix them up, you will have your compasses going in weird directions. Let religion optionally take care of the spirit and faith needs while the sexuality that isn't as optional, take care of the bodily needs.

TL;DR: There's no point mixing these three items. They are all completely independent from each other, and should be treated as such.


----------



## Sagt (Oct 21, 2017)

Ramjet556 said:


> This thread is stage 4 cancer...
> 
> What does your sexuality have to do with anything about the furry fandom?
> 
> ...


To be fair, he was saying in his original post that christianity and the fandom don't have to be mutually exclusive. Pretty understandable since he's seemingly a very religious guy and his fursona was made to be linked to his religious background. He then provided his take on sexuality, a common point of contention with religion. That in mind, what he wrote wasn't super irrelevant or whatever.

Really, the thing I find annoying about the original post is that it kind of reads like he's encouraging gay people to not engage in same-sex relationships and to instead accept his god. The thread might have been intended to be directed towards other religious people, but it's still pretty unpleasant imo.

By the way, sexuality sort of is linked to the fandom since a very large portion of furs aren't straight and since, for many, the fandom is just a place for NSFW type content.



Yakamaru said:


> We're seeing if gay couples and raising kids now actually works. Lets see how it works out. If it shows that it statistically have a negative impact on the children in time, I will be against it. So far however, going by these two articles and more I've seen, I am not impressed.
> www.breitbart.com: Gay Man 'Murdered 18-Month-Old Just Weeks After Formal Adoption with Husband'
> www.newnownext.com: Lesbian Couple Convicted Of Murdering 2-Year-Old Son, Abusing Other Children
> Doesn't exactly make gay people look better in terms of child handling and raising now, does it?


Dude.


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 21, 2017)

Lcs said:


> To be fair, he was saying in his original post that christianity and the fandom don't have to be mutually exclusive. Pretty understandable since he's seemingly a pretty religious dude and his fursona was made to be linked to his religious background. He then provided his take on sexuality, a common point of contention with religion. That in mind, what he wrote wasn't super irrelevant or whatever.
> 
> Really, the thing I find annoying about the original post is that it kind of reads like he's encouraging gay people to not engage in same-sex relationships and to instead accept his god. The thread might have been intended to be directed towards other religious people, but it's still pretty unpleasant imo.
> 
> By the way, sexuality sort of is linked to the fandom since a very large portion of furs aren't straight and since, for many, the fandom is just a place for NSFW type content.


They aren't mutually exclusive, no. They aren't mutually inclusive, either. They are two separate entities that is 100% up to you if you want to mix them. If you do, the consequences of doing that is on you, not someone else, and the responsibility is yours to take on where you lead it.

It does however become a bit of an annoyance when you try to use your faith to tell others not to do X, or do Z because I follow Y ideology.

I can say being gay is a sin, while you may not. It's subjective, and doesn't go anywhere. And you won't exactly convince anyone, either.



Lcs said:


> Dude.


Ye. Removing them as they're not exactly relevant at all to the topic(s). A different topic for a different time.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 21, 2017)

I am personally agnostic, though back when I was a wee kiddo Sweden still had state religion, and the Church of Sweden is Lutheran Protestant by denomination, so culturally, I do have that background. From my observations, reconciling furry fandom, sexuality and Christianity is, for most people, about finding a path that fits your particular beliefs. No one else can tell you where exactly that path should take you.

I have "family" (my host family from when I was an exchange student in the US) who are Catholic, and whose eldest son is gay. To my knowledge this is not a major struggle to them, and they're very supportive of him and have always been pleasant to his boyfriends and welcomed them into their home when he's been home to visit. I personally have trouble believing that homosexuality, or other non-standard sexual/relationship practices, would be a problem with a loving God as long as they do not harm anyone. From my perspective, love is something pure that God would have given humanity, and it makes no sense that Satan would be able to appropriate it. Thus, since there is same-sex _love_ (as distinct from lust), it seems safe to me to assume that God is okay with people being gay. 

This is about as much as I'm going to speak on matters of faith, though, since I'm not an active devotee; I have notions of how I feel about some aspects of Christianity, but they're all very... "assuming that X is true, then Y", rather than outright accepting the underlying premise. 



Yakamaru said:


> The "nuclear family" is promoted because it's a family that works and continue to work over the thousands of years our species have been about. A child grows up in a safer and better environment with two parents, two role models. Male and female with distinct characteristics, roles, strengths and weaknesses.


You may want to read _Sex at Dawn_ by Cristopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha, as well as other anthropological texts. There are plenty of successful societies, historically, that took a "it takes a village to raise a child" communal approach to child rearing, and it's not that long ago (and to some degree this still is the case) that child rearing particularly in wealthy families is delegated to paid staff while the parents engage in politics. Medieval fostering of sons between noble houses, wet nurses, governesses, and similar are all a product of delegated child care, and those children are not being raised in an environment with two parental role models in the "nuclear family" pattern. 



Yakamaru said:


> Religion and sexuality should and need to be two separate entities. If you mix them up, you will have your compasses going in weird directions. Let religion optionally take care of the spirit and faith needs while the sexuality that isn't as optional, take care of the bodily needs.


Ultimately the goal should be to be a person you yourself can live with. For some people, refraining from sexual acts that they feel are sinful do more towards that end than reaching for something they desire but feel their deity disapproves of. Finding that balance is a struggle for some people, and a walk in the park for others. Your way doesn't have to be everyone's way.


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 21, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> You may want to read _Sex at Dawn_ by Cristopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha, as well as other anthropological texts. There are plenty of successful societies, historically, that took a "it takes a village to raise a child" communal approach to child rearing, and it's not that long ago (and to some degree this still is the case) that child rearing particularly in wealthy families is delegated to paid staff while the parents engage in politics. Medieval fostering of sons between noble houses, wet nurses, governesses, and similar are all a product of delegated child care, and those children are not being raised in an environment with two parental role models in the "nuclear family" pattern.


Historically, yes, we've seen societies do that in a rather successful manner. It doesn't mean all of them did, let alone the majority. But it wasn't that uncommon. Currently however, no, we don't have much of that. The only thing I can think of is kindergarten, though that's kinda become part of the norm. 

It takes resources and time to raise offspring, and as such, we've evolved to primarily having two parents as caretakers, and have had such relations for who knows how long.

As it currently stands, the "nuclear family" is what works best in today's societies, especially in western countries. 



quoting_mungo said:


> Ultimately the goal should be to be a person you yourself can live with. For some people, refraining from sexual acts that they feel are sinful do more towards that end than reaching for something they desire but feel their deity disapproves of. Finding that balance is a struggle for some people, and a walk in the park for others. Your way doesn't have to be everyone's way.


"You do you, and be happy about it", basically. Your way is only your way, and no one elses. You may meet people going the same way for some time, but ultimately you're on your own road.

Though people will obviously react when you try to make your way someone elses way as well.


----------



## silveredgreen (Oct 21, 2017)

As a Christian furry i keep my love for the fandom and my faith separate at all times tbh. Its for the best, considering how many things deemed immoral by faith are present here. Despite being a Christian i have a very 'you do you' mindset. I don't judge people for their life choices and i'm somewhat of a more liberal Christian than what most people think of.

In the words of the great Markiplier:

*You do you and i'll do me, and we won't do each other. Probably.*


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 21, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> As a Christian furry i keep my love for the fandom and my faith separate at all times tbh. Its for the best, considering how many things deemed immoral by faith are present here. Despite being a Christian i have a very 'you do you' mindset. I don't judge people for their life choices and i'm somewhat of a more liberal Christian than what most people think of.



I understand where you're coming from. For me, it's good to give a statement of faith once, get eviscerated for it, and never do it again. If I were speaking with someone in prison, a lifer on death row with only a wall to stare at, then yes, I would try_ a lot_ harder because that person is at death's door step.

So yeah, when I witness, when I testify it's usually only once. When I see a favorable or unfavorable reaction I'll continue as long as I'm welcome (in the first case) or I'll move on (in the second), especially if my health fails me.

After hearing the Gospel once from me, people can do whatever they want with the Good News. They can accept it or reject it. Most reject it and that's to be expected. Why I say the things I do is because people should know the Way, Truth, and Life and not some muddying money-obsessed televised mega church philosophy (what most people see and I hate because it's a system I was once fooled by) based on theologically unsound concepts that encourage greed.






This hurts me even more than most others because I'm a black furry. D:

Disgraceful.

Second-hand embarrassment.

So I care, but I'm not going to hound after people with the Gospel who have no interest in Christ. It's just not how it's done. If I were in physical proximity with someone, I would let my faith-based actions do the talking for me, i.e., putting others' needs ahead of myself, being kind, (loving my neighbor) and holding fast to God and be obedient in doing these things whether they're gay, straight, black or white. When I let what I do speak for itself, I wait until they want to talk about religion. Or until I mention God in conversation in reference to my own life, or when I see a need or something to contribute... because no one wants to start a conversation like that out of left field unless you're talking about baptism or a birth of a new baby or death of a loved one, etc.

In addition, if those who don't know Christ say something interesting or funny on here and it doesn't go against God's grain, then yeah, I don't mind hitting the like button!


----------



## silveredgreen (Oct 21, 2017)

AshtheDragon said:


> I understand where you're coming from. For me, it's good to give a statement of faith once, get eviscerated for it, and never do it again. If I were speaking with someone in prison, a lifer on death row with only a wall to stare at, then yes, I would try_ a lot_ harder because that person is at death's door step.
> 
> So yeah, when I witness, when I testify it's usually only once. When I see a favorable or unfavorable reaction I'll continue as long as I'm welcome (in the first case) or I'll move on (in the second), especially if my health fails me.
> 
> ...



Yeah and speaking the gospel is something we as Christians are called to do. I personally wouldn't do so on the internet unless someone was open to hearing it or asked about it, but IRL i'd do the same. Tell em once and let them decide what to do with the information. As a general rule, the internet is extremely hostile towards the faith. So much that most public forums and chatrooms ban any mention of the topic entirely.


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 21, 2017)

Felix,

What was the point of this thread? I'm a little confused. You said that the main point was not for us to go to church and pick up a bible, so I'm a little confused? I'd rather not jump to conclusions, so I'd like to know your intent behind this. It's kind of hard to tell.


----------



## Water Draco (Oct 21, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> Felix,
> 
> What was the point of this thread? I'm a little confused. You said that the main point was not for us to go to church and pick up a bible, so I'm a little confused? I'd rather not jump to conclusions, so I'd like to know your intent behind this. It's kind of hard to tell.




Felix I would agree with Akartoshi any possibility of a synopsis expressing a clear short statement as to what this is all about to give this conversation some clarity?


----------



## Saiko (Oct 21, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> Felix,
> 
> What was the point of this thread? I'm a little confused. You said that the main point was not for us to go to church and pick up a bible, so I'm a little confused? I'd rather not jump to conclusions, so I'd like to know your intent behind this. It's kind of hard to tell.


I think it is a kind of sermon to himself. This is an internal dialogue over things he’s worried about, and he’s emulating the behavior of Biblical characters/authors like Paul by writing us a letter of wisdom. If anything, we’re supposed to be discussing that wisdom. Apart from that, I don’t think there’s much to talk about here.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 21, 2017)

I thought that the furry fandom was a safe place from people who'd try to tell me that I'm in the wrong for being LGBT..... 
Why do I have to be into women, and only women to be "in the right"? I feel so sad right now.


----------



## silveredgreen (Oct 21, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> I thought that the furry fandom was a safe place from people who'd try to tell me that I'm in the wrong for being LGBT.....
> Why do I have to be into women, and only women to be "in the right"? I feel so sad right now.



It is, furries are generally one of the most accepting communities out there. One person saying its wrong doesn't make it fact.


----------



## Inkblooded (Oct 21, 2017)

Homosexuality isn't a sin.
But size difference FurAffinity interspecies massive horse penis anal sex art is.

Sometimes I think having a boyfriend is wrong. But then I just browse FA front page and I feel better about myself.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 21, 2017)

silveredgreen said:


> It is, furries are generally one of the most accepting communities out there. One person saying its wrong doesn't make it fact.


I know... But, I'm still disgusted on a visceral level that there are people here who think I should change because I'm into men while being physically male and for enjoying yiff and liking the kinky stuff. "Accepting" somebody doesn't just mean not harassing them or actively trying to get them to change, but it's also believing that they aren't inherently wrong for X, Y or Z. Even if somebody treats me nicely, they can't really respect me as an equal person if they think a fundamental part of who I am MUST be changed.


----------



## Jarren (Oct 21, 2017)

Just gonna throw in my two cents here. Wasn't the biblical passage about homosexuality in the old testament? Wasn't it also very vague? Didn't God punish the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah, not for"lying with men as they do with women", but for their shitty treatment of guests? Didn't, with his teachings and death, Jesus effectively render the laws of the old testament null and void, ushering in a new set of beliefs and teachings for the Jews who followed him (and the later Christians?). Shouldn't his message of loving thy neighbor and treating your fellow man with respect be paramount over prostelytizing? Isn't it better to live as Christ did and set an example than to set the moral imperative to follow the old book on punishment if eternal damnation? 
Just throwing that out there.


----------



## Saiko (Oct 21, 2017)

Jarren said:


> Just gonna throw in my two cents here. Wasn't the biblical passage about homosexuality in the old testament? Wasn't it also very vague? Didn't God punish the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah, not for"lying with men as they do with women", but for their shitty treatment of guests? Didn't, with his teachings and death, Jesus effectively render the laws of the old testament null and void, ushering in a new set of beliefs and teachings for the Jews who followed him (and the later Christians?). Shouldn't his message of loving thy neighbor and treating your fellow man with respect be paramount over prostelytizing? Isn't it better to live as Christ did and set an example than to set the moral imperative to follow the old book on punishment if eternal damnation?
> Just throwing that out there.


No, Paul wrote some crap about it in the New Testament; so there’s enough material to perpetuate the debate in Christianity.

That being said, Paul wrote a lot of things that I find to be quite ridiculous. Realizing that the author of most of the New Testament used the  same arguments and rhetorical gymnastics that frustrate me the most was actually the straw that broke my faith and drove me to atheism.


----------



## silveredgreen (Oct 21, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> I know... But, I'm still disgusted on a visceral level that there are people here who think I should change because I'm into men while being physically male and for enjoying yiff and liking the kinky stuff. "Accepting" somebody doesn't just mean not harassing them or actively trying to get them to change, but it's also believing that they aren't inherently wrong for X, Y or Z. Even if somebody treats me nicely, they can't really respect me as an equal person if they think a fundamental part of who I am MUST be changed.



Unfortunately you can't force everyone to think its acceptable, and there will always be people who think its wrong even if they themselves wouldn't react violently towards the LGBTQ+ community. But its for that exact reason that furries provide a big support group of sorts. There will always be people here that will help fight for you and your rights. And furries aren't the only ones, there's a lot of people who are super supportive. You're not wrong in any way for being gay, and you shouldn't let the tangent of one person get you down like that.


----------



## Jarren (Oct 21, 2017)

Saiko said:


> No, Paul wrote some crap about it in the New Testament; so there’s enough material to perpetuate the debate in Christianity.
> 
> That being said, Paul wrote a lot of things that I find to be quite ridiculous. Realizing that the author of most of the New Testament used the  same arguments and rhetorical gymnastics that frustrate me the most was actually the straw that broke my faith and drove me to atheism.


Dammit, Paul. You ruined my argument from thousands of years in the past!


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 21, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> I know... But, I'm still disgusted on a visceral level that there are people here who think I should change because I'm into men while being physically male and for enjoying yiff and liking the kinky stuff. "Accepting" somebody doesn't just mean not harassing them or actively trying to get them to change, but it's also believing that they aren't inherently wrong for X, Y or Z. Even if somebody treats me nicely, they can't really respect me as an equal person if they think a fundamental part of who I am MUST be changed.


Who cares what someone thinks? At the end of the day, the only one missing out on life is the one getting their fire insurance for a fire that doesn't exist.


----------



## ellaerna (Oct 21, 2017)

Since we're talking about what's right and wrong by Biblical standards





And particularly pertinent for the discussion of just ignoring one's desires and urges





In all seriousness, though, I feel a bit bait and switched with this thread. I had assumed this was going to be a deep dive into perceptions of sexuality in Christianity and how that intersects with the fandom, but most of it was just Felix's personal "finding God" story (which is fine, just not super relevant) and the blanket statement that because Christ suffered more, you shouldn't complain about your own. Or at least that's how it read to me.

As I stated before, the bible isn't a perfect work, and much of what's in it is clearly biased by the times. Hence why we don't stone people for wearing modern clothes or worry about our planting our crops too close together. Even the rules against eating pork in the Jewish faith actually make more sense as just good practice (pork wasn't very clean and could easily lead to sickness) than a hard and fast commandment by God. It's not so much that God cares one way or the other- some of it seems rather arbitrary, really- but that those kinds of rules and regulations fit with the needs and standards of the time. Saying that being gay is a Sin but not other things in the bible is just kind of picking and choosing, is it not?

And sticking to the strict rules of only hetero sex after marriage can have a lot of bad consequences. Too much pressure is put, particularly on women, to be pure and that can lead to shame that is very damaging. There is a story (can't find a link right now, will edit if I find it) of a Good Christian woman who waited til marriage as she should, but then broke down after having the "right kind" of sex with her new husband because she felt unclean. So much of her self-worth and self-image was tied around this idea of being virginal that she felt ruined after sex. And what if a woman is raped, is she now still a sinner because she had sex out of wedlock? Even if she is assured that no, she's not unclean since it wasn't her fault, will she still be able to accept that after hearing for so long that she must never have sex lest she lose God's love and favor? Will a Good Christian man still want her after she has been tarnished so? 

As for the Fandom, yes, there's a lot of sex, queerness, and perverseness that happens here. But those things aren't core tenants. You can turn on SFW and enjoy the animal people just fine without taking part in the sinful acts of others. Furryism(?) is not in itself sinful. You can definitely be a Good Christian and still be a furry. Or you could be a terrible christian and be a furry. You get what you put in, basically.


----------



## jtrekkie (Oct 21, 2017)

Jarren said:


> Just gonna throw in my two cents here. Wasn't the biblical passage about homosexuality in the old testament?...



Paul referred to it once (both he and the Old Testament use extremely rare words; etymology is uncertain and the translation isn't direct. Some ancient authors such as Philo of Alexandria give different interpretations.), in English texts some things were misatribbuted to homosexuality due to the use of euphemisms. But you are right, sexual sins were never supreme sins and Christianity doesn't have a set of rules you have to follow, that gets you no where. There are some guidelines that tend to make things easier.

The point is that the Bible, like any other work, makes more sense in its native languages. They should be referred to when possible, otherwise you could just be confused by struggling translators.


I did want to say that sex still isn't always a good thing. Even young people with only good intentions can do more harm to themselves and others than most of you can realize. What we call sin usually has the effect of hurting either ourselves or others, and it is entirely possible for sex to do that. And, by the by, that's why people plead with others to reconsider. It's empathy, not some kind of indignant grstification.

Going for asceticism may well be the better option, it wouldn't be right to chastise someone trying, but what that means will vary from person to person. But I am certain that abstinence or even a general attempt to be good isn't good enough.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 21, 2017)

And going off of the mention in the Old Testament. We need to realize that there are parts in Leviticus which apply today (the moral law), though not the civil laws necessarily (death penalty for it). Leviticus 18-20 in general are standards of moral law, so they apply today as being sins. As for the writings of Paul, we can go into very great depth of debate on that! But yes, I believe Romans 1:26-27 is about homosexuality. There are likewise other verses that mention it in the NT. But that isn't just it, we need not just look at those verses. Jesus Himself defined marriage to be between a man and a woman and looked to creation mandate (which He was there) to support it.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 21, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> And going off of the mention in the Old Testament. We need to realize that there are parts in Leviticus which apply today (the moral law), though not the civil laws necessarily (death penalty for it). Leviticus 18-20 in general are standards of moral law, so they apply today as being sins. As for the writings of Paul, we can go into very great depth of debate on that! But yes, I believe Romans 1:26-27 is about homosexuality. There are likewise other verses that mention it in the NT. But that isn't just it, we need not just look at those verses. Jesus Himself defined marriage to be between a man and a woman and looked to creation mandate (which He was there) to support it.


Jesus wouldn't have disapproved homosexuality, tho.


----------



## Water Draco (Oct 21, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> And going off of the mention in the Old Testament. We need to realize that there are parts in Leviticus which apply today (the moral law), though not the civil laws necessarily (death penalty for it). Leviticus 18-20 in general are standards of moral law, so they apply today as being sins. As for the writings of Paul, we can go into very great depth of debate on that! But yes, I believe Romans 1:26-27 is about homosexuality. There are likewise other verses that mention it in the NT. But that isn't just it, we need not just look at those verses. Jesus Himself defined marriage to be between a man and a woman and looked to creation mandate (which He was there) to support it.




In your eyes and your faiths homosexuality may be considered a sin.

In my eyes in a modern society, I do not see homosexuality as being sinful at all.


----------



## Beatle9 (Oct 21, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> And going off of the mention in the Old Testament. We need to realize that there are parts in Leviticus which apply today (the moral law), though not the civil laws necessarily (death penalty for it). Leviticus 18-20 in general are standards of moral law, so they apply today as being sins. As for the writings of Paul, we can go into very great depth of debate on that! But yes, I believe Romans 1:26-27 is about homosexuality. There are likewise other verses that mention it in the NT. But that isn't just it, we need not just look at those verses. Jesus Himself defined marriage to be between a man and a woman and looked to creation mandate (which He was there) to support it.


So, how many fibers is the shirt I'm assuming you're wearing made out of? Because Liviticus also says that in addition to "Man lying with a man" that wearing a shirt or more than one fiber is an abomination! And out of curiosity have you ever eaten shellfish? Cause that's an abomination too. And these are held to the same standard in Leviticus, it doesn't say "A man lying with a man is worse than the other two, so if you have to pick and choose, that's okay."

Also, do you have a quote of Jesus saying "Marriage is between one man and one woman" cause I've never heard that, and that doesn't sound like something he'd say. Jesus kind of hung out with society's outcasts, he hung out with fucking hookers for crying out loud.


----------



## Simo (Oct 21, 2017)

Saiko said:


> I think it is a kind of sermon to himself. This is an internal dialogue over things he’s worried about, and he’s emulating the behavior of Biblical characters/authors like Paul by writing us a letter of wisdom. If anything, we’re supposed to be discussing that wisdom. Apart from that, I don’t think there’s much to talk about here.



It's curious, but I was also thinking the thread was more born out of an inner psychological struggle, or dissonance, than anything else, between sexual/sexual urges, and religious faith, and trying to reconcile the two. It seems to me to be more of an inner, personal matter, projected outward.

It is curious, as I had a close (furry) friend (and also a fox, oddly), who was very involved with his church, and had a deep faith, who gradually in his early 20s came to terms that he was both bisexual, and polyamorous, and it was a struggle that took many years to see a sort of 'resolution'. This is not to say that is the case here, but I was struck by a number of similarities. And yet, we always remained good friends, despite our squabbles and debates.

So I think the idea of the original post being an internal dialog is a sage one; and not uncommon, in the fandom.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 21, 2017)

Everyone has their own beliefs, there is no doubt regarding that fact.  But beliefs are just like a giant dong.  

You don't whip it out to anyone unless asked, and don't try to ram it down people's throats.  It's guaranteed to start heated debates.


----------



## Saiko (Oct 21, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> And going off of the mention in the Old Testament. We need to realize that there are parts in Leviticus which apply today (the moral law), though not the civil laws necessarily (death penalty for it). Leviticus 18-20 in general are standards of moral law, so they apply today as being sins. As for the writings of Paul, we can go into very great depth of debate on that! But yes, I believe Romans 1:26-27 is about homosexuality. There are likewise other verses that mention it in the NT. But that isn't just it, we need not just look at those verses. Jesus Himself defined marriage to be between a man and a woman and looked to creation mandate (which He was there) to support it.


Yet the only way we can derive the sinfulness of homosexuality is from a divine command. We can’t derive it from procreation because straight couples aren’t sinful for not having children. We also can’t derive it from the relationships being unhealthy because gay relationships can be just as healthy (or unhealthy) as straight ones. Nor can we trace it back to physical health because you can’t transmit an STD if you don’t have one, and straight couples with a disease aren’t sinning. Every distinction we attempt to make corresponds to some straight phenomenon that is apparently allowed. Meanwhile we find that a denying oneself relationships and sex out of faith usually causes a great deal of harm and strife. This then conflicts with the assumption that a divine command is for our own good, and we end up with a moral rule that is both arbitrary and causes harm.


----------



## Yantiskra (Oct 21, 2017)

I personally think that the mere concept of "sin" isn't defined and one may twist it as he wishes. What is sin? Why is it bad? Bad to whom? Is it to me personally? Did you ask me or did you just decide it for me? What right you have to do so? Why should I even suffer from doing it and not enjoy, for example? The only defined idea I found is that "something that God forbids".
Seriously? He may have a bad day and forbid whatever or, more likely, people may have a bad/good day and add something to said Bible. It was already done once, why not twice?
Still doesn't explain to me why a "sin" is a bad thing at all. Such undefined idea of it doesn't make much sense to me so I hardly care. You tell me "that harms people and they may know and kick your ass and you will hurt your reputation and end up being alone, don't do that. " - oh, I see, it's all clear now. I really don't want to do that, because it may be bad for both me and people - sure, I get it!) But it isn't about being bad or good, and felling guilty/pleased with it - it's a common sense. Like, "being good" and "bad" can hardly be defined too and always in relation to somebody 

Not to mention you may still hurt your reputation with something that wasn't meant to hurt others just because somebody doesn't like that - like sexuality - and here we go, trying to divide anything into black and white again... Excuse me, I may go and call farting a sin then : D We're people, we're not ideal and absolutely right, we can't even define ideal and the absolute truth, that doesn't even exist, only have biased ideas of it. Trying to define such things is like trying to proclaime yourself a God. And that's kind of arrogant and a waste of time, in my opinion.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 21, 2017)

Heh, I just wanted to state, for the record, that I am NOT afraid of being sent to hell, if it's my destiny. If God exists, and if I were to be punished for the way I life my life, then so be it. I'm not about to be false to myself and deny who I am for ANYONE.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 21, 2017)

Saiko said:


> Meanwhile we find that a denying oneself relationships and sex out of faith usually causes a great deal of harm and strife. This then conflicts with the assumption that a divine command is for our own good, and we end up with a moral rule that is both arbitrary and causes harm.



I will go ahead and quote Charles Spurgeon here by saying there is more evil in one drop of sin than in a whole sea of affliction and suffering. If following Christ means denying oneself sex and thus suffering those consequences, then so be it. The Gospels no where mention being a disciple of Christ as easy and getting what you want and having it good. In fact, the Gospels depict being a disciple of Christ as "picking up your cross," suffering all forms of persecution, and ultimately denying yourself. The Gospel says that if we love our parents more than Jesus, we are _unworthy _to be His disciple. This is the hard truth, and with that we dedicate ourselves to lives of service - to God and to our neighbor. If you do not like this and refuse to accept it, very well, go ahead and do so - I cannot change my mind. But by no means will I keep silent.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 21, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> Heh, I just wanted to state, for the record, that I am NOT afraid of being sent to hell, if it's my destiny. If God exists, and if I were to be punished for the way I life my life, then so be it. I'm not about to be false to myself and deny who I am for ANYONE.



I do not follow Christ because I am afraid of hell. I deserve hell, God would be perfectly just sending me there right now, the wretch that I am! I follow Christ because He is _worthy _to be followed. He is the only one worthy of my praise and love. 
Soli Deo Gloria.


----------



## Crimcyan (Oct 21, 2017)

Im super confused on what the fuck this thread is about, like it just keeps changing.
My stance is on all this is when ever you bring personal beliefs into public it's always gonna be toxic or other's will be toxic toward it so a thread like this was bound to start shit from the very beginning.
Also just let homosexuals be homosexuals does it really matter who or what people fuck, people already fuck car's, books, grapefruits, animals, plushies, cup of raman noodles, so why is fucking a person of the same sex such a big deal?


----------



## Saiko (Oct 21, 2017)

A “god” who demands I hurt myself for no reason other than because he says so is neither loving nor just and is unworthy of my worship.


----------



## Beatle9 (Oct 21, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> I will go ahead and quote Charles Spurgeon here by saying there is more evil in one drop of sin than in a whole sea of affliction and suffering. If following Christ means denying oneself sex and thus suffering those consequences, then so be it. The Gospels no where mention being a disciple of Christ as easy and getting what you want and having it good. In fact, the Gospels depict being a disciple of Christ as "picking up your cross," suffering all forms of persecution, and ultimately denying yourself. The Gospel says that if we love our parents more than Jesus, we are _unworthy _to be His disciple. This is the hard truth, and with that we dedicate ourselves to lives of service - to God and to our neighbor. If you do not like this and refuse to accept it, very well, go ahead and do so - I cannot change my mind. But by no means will I keep silent.


So what you're saying is, you know following your faith isn't healthy for you mentally and physically, but you do it anyway because a stupid book that god and Jesus didn't even write tells you to? That's not a very good justification.


----------



## Simo (Oct 21, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> ...we dedicate ourselves to lives of service - to God and to our neighbor.



Speaking of service, I've been cleaning all day, and the place still needs work. How about you come over, and mop my floors, clean the windows, finish the laundry and gimmie some service, neighbor! It won't be easy, either! : P


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 21, 2017)

Philip Doddridge (1702-1751)


Grace, ’tis a charming sound,

Harmonious to mine ear;

Heaven with the echo shall resound,

And all the earth shall hear.



Grace first contrived the way

To save rebellious man;

And all the steps that grace display

Which drew the wondrous plan.



Grace first inscribed my name

In God’s eternal book;

’Twas grace that gave me to the Lamb,

Who all my sorrows took.



Grace led my roving feet

To tread the heavenly road;

And new supplies each hour I meet,

While pressing on to God.



Grace taught my soul to pray

And made mine eyes o’erflow;

’Twas grace which kept me to this day,

And will not let me go.



Grace all the work shall crown,

Through everlasting days;

It lays in heaven the topmost stone,

And well deserves the praise.



O let Thy Grace inspire

My soul with strength divine

My all my powers to Thee aspire,

And all my days be Thine.


----------



## jtrekkie (Oct 21, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> Heh, I just wanted to state, for the record, that I am NOT afraid of being sent to hell, if it's my destiny. If God exists, and if I were to be punished for the way I life my life, then so be it. I'm not about to be false to myself and deny who I am for ANYONE.



I think you're the third person I've heard that from recently. The thing is, no one is asking you to give up your likes or your personality or anything. That's not really who you are anyway. But if you're committed to being true to yourself, you've determined that you can never change.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 21, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> I will go ahead and quote Charles Spurgeon here by saying there is more evil in one drop of sin than in a whole sea of affliction and suffering. If following Christ means denying oneself sex and thus suffering those consequences, then so be it. The Gospels no where mention being a disciple of Christ as easy and getting what you want and having it good. In fact, the Gospels depict being a disciple of Christ as "picking up your cross," suffering all forms of persecution, and ultimately denying yourself. The Gospel says that if we love our parents more than Jesus, we are _unworthy _to be His disciple. This is the hard truth, and with that we dedicate ourselves to lives of service - to God and to our neighbor. If you do not like this and refuse to accept it, very well, go ahead and do so - I cannot change my mind. But by no means will I keep silent.


Felix. Religion is supposed to be something that comes from within you. You sound rather miserable following what you follow, and I highly suggest that you reevaluate yourself. You sound like you're being oppressive towards yourself. What's even the point of being a part of something that constantly belittles and oppresses yourself? Religion is supposed to be something that resonates with you and makes you feel like you're part of something greater than yourself.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 21, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> I will go ahead and quote Charles Spurgeon here by saying there is more evil in one drop of sin than in a whole sea of affliction and suffering.



You can't use a measurement that doesn't exist.  You're literally using ignorance of facts as a factual basis.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 21, 2017)

jtrekkie said:


> I think you're the third person I've heard that from recently. The thing is, no one is asking you to give up your likes or your personality or anything. That's not really who you are anyway. But if you're committed to being true to yourself, you've determined that you can never change.


Right. I am not sorry for who I am and I never will be.


----------



## Water Draco (Oct 21, 2017)

Felix, 
          Can you accept that you have your beliefs and others have their own? At the end of the day we are all on the same blue marble orbiting a star. Although from time to time we have our disagreements can we not all endeavour to live our lives peaceably together.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 21, 2017)

Water Draco said:


> Felix,
> Can you accept that you have your beliefs and others have their own? At the end of the day we are all on the same blue marble orbiting a star. Although from time to time we have our disagreements can we not all endeavour to live our lives peaceably together.



Thus, the end argument.  Can you tolerate one another?


----------



## Saiko (Oct 21, 2017)

Water Draco said:


> Felix,
> Can you accept that you have your beliefs and others have their own? At the end of the day we are all on the same blue marble orbiting a star. Although from time to time we have our disagreements can we not all endeavour to live our lives peaceably together.


I don’t feel like he’s being intolerant. He simply holds a moral opinion against a group - which is VERY different. The problem I’m getting at is that his belief system has critical flaws that are both incredibly common among young evangelicals and horrendously bad for persuasion and evangelism. In fact it drives a great many people away.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 21, 2017)

Water Draco said:


> Felix,
> Can you accept that you have your beliefs and others have their own? At the end of the day we are all on the same blue marble orbiting a star. Although from time to time we have our disagreements can we not all endeavour to live our lives peaceably together.



Yes, I am able and willing to live with people of other beliefs, that’s why I am not bashing any of you. But I do share mine, and I welcome you to share yours. In all reality, I love each and everyone of you. One of my greatest enemies is depression and low self esteem, and I am not here trying to cause division or hate.


----------



## Beatle9 (Oct 21, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> Yes, I am able and willing to live with people of other beliefs, that’s why I am not bashing any of you. But I do share mine, and I welcome you to share yours. In all reality, I love each and everyone of you. One of my greatest enemies is depression and low self esteem, and I am not here trying to cause division or hate.


If those are two of your greatest enemies it sounds like your brand of faith is doing more harm to you than good... imho


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 21, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> Felix. Religion is supposed to be something that comes from within you. You sound rather miserable following what you follow, and I highly suggest that you reevaluate yourself. You sound like you're being oppressive towards yourself. What's even the point of being a part of something that constantly belittles and oppresses yourself? Religion is supposed to be something that resonates with you and makes you feel like you're part of something greater than yourself.



Nothing resonates with me and causes me to break down into tears of joy than the grace of God which is displayed in Christ.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 21, 2017)

The only reason my esteem isn’t any lower than it is is because I believe in a God who humbled Himself so that miserable creatures like I can be exalted and can be called His beloved child.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 21, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> Nothing resonates with me and causes me to break down into tears of joy than the grace of God which is displayed in Christ.


No, that can't be true. You're not looking hard enough. SOMETHING has to work for you.


Felix Bernard said:


> The only reason my esteem isn’t any lower than it is is because I believe in a God who humbled Himself so that miserable creatures like I can be exalted and can be called His beloved child.


Can I ask, why do you have such a low opinion of yourself?


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 21, 2017)

You guys are *not *talking to someone who believes himself better than anyone. You are talking to a miserable worm who cannot fathom being any more than a sinner saved by grace. But because of that grace I am given a crown of life.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 21, 2017)

I should take a break now and enjoy some music... talk to you all later. Love you guys.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 21, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> I should take a break now and enjoy some music... talk to you all later. Love you guys.


Okay... But, I seriously recommend helping yourself out. You shouldn't have to feel that way about yourself. You only live once, you know, and I'd hate to see you ruin your one and only shot at life.


----------



## ellaerna (Oct 21, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> No, that can't be true. You're not looking hard enough. SOMETHING has to work for you.


Technically, something _does _work for him. Faith. 
It's not what you want to work for him, but he thinks it's enough. Is it perfect? No. But it's not much better to insist that a depressed person just isn't trying hard enough not to be depressed.


----------



## Lunar Man (Oct 21, 2017)

Fuzzylumkin said:


> Ok so I have to take a moment and be serious when I say that this stuff really has no place whatsoever in this or any fandom


Everything has a place within this fandom.



Felix Bernard said:


> You guys are *not *talking to someone who believes himself better than anyone. You are talking to a miserable worm who cannot fathom being any more than a sinner saved by grace. But because of that grace I am given a crown of life.



You alright? Like, is something bothering you? I'm no therapist, but DM me if you want to talk about something.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 21, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> Technically, something _does _work for him. Faith.
> It's not what you want to work for him, but he thinks it's enough. Is it perfect? No. But it's not much better to insist that a depressed person just isn't trying hard enough not to be depressed.


Um, that's not what I was trying to say. I was saying that his faith seemed to be toxic to his well-being. I'm not the type of person to go around blaming people for their depression. But, it does seem to me like he's being shackled by his faith. I'm legitimately worried about him.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 21, 2017)

Saiko said:


> No, Paul wrote some crap about it in the New Testament; so there’s enough material to perpetuate the debate in Christianity.
> 
> That being said, Paul wrote a lot of things that I find to be quite ridiculous. Realizing that the author of most of the New Testament used the same arguments and rhetorical gymnastics that frustrate me the most was actually the straw that broke my faith and drove me to atheism.


Back in the olden days, when I was relatively new to the Internet, one of my online aquaintances was a preacher's son. His wise words about Paul were as such: "Paul was a doodie-head." Being an apostle doesn't make him right about everything; there's the whole selling Jesus out to the Romans and denying Jesus thing, for two blatant examples. 
_____________________________

The primary thing I have retained from my childhood religious teachings (my 1st grade teacher had a curious tendency to turn practically every class into Christianity class, and the local scout club was church-affiliated) is the Golden Rule. With age and maturity, my understanding of it has matured and deepened. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you obviously doesn't mean "if you're a masochist you can go around slapping people" - you should treat others well, because treating your fellow humans well is treating yourself well, and on the whole it'll make the world a better place as most people have the manners to reciprocate and/or pay it forward.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 21, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> Um, that's not what I was trying to say. I was saying that his faith seemed to be toxic to his well-being. I'm not the type of person to go around blaming people for their depression. But, it does seem to me like he's being shackled by his faith. I'm legitimately worried about him.



No! No!
My shackles are broken by my faith. There’s a reason I’m not dead - that’s because I’m sure there’s a God who loves me.


----------



## silveredgreen (Oct 21, 2017)

Well... this escalated quickly.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 21, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> No! No!
> My shackles are broken by my faith. There’s a reason I’m not dead - that’s because I’m sure there’s a God who loves me.


Oh. Well, that's good. But, I still hate to see that you have such a low opinion on yourself. Nobody's perfect, and as long as you're striving to be the best person you can be, then I really see no reason at all to call yourself a "worm".


----------



## ellaerna (Oct 21, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> Um, that's not what I was trying to say. I was saying that his faith seemed to be toxic to his well-being. I'm not the type of person to go around blaming people for their depression. But, it does seem to me like he's being shackled by his faith. I'm legitimately worried about him.


That's fair, but a lot of your posts sounded very... blamey. 
You were very emphatic that he wasn't trying hard enough to find something other than faith, when he already stated that meds and therapy didn't help him (sometimes it doesn't). And you asked why he has such a low opinion of himself when he's stated time and again that he is depressive. Depression doesn't always have a rhyme or reason. 
Yes, his faith can be damaging, but it can also be damaging to tear down the one crutch someone has. It sounded to me very antagonistic and not as caring as maybe you wanted to be.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 21, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> That's fair, but a lot of your posts sounded very... blamey.
> You were very emphatic that he wasn't trying hard enough to find something other than faith, when he already stated that meds and therapy didn't help him (sometimes it doesn't). And you asked why he has such a low opinion of himself when he's stated time and again that he is depressive. Depression doesn't always have a rhyme or reason.
> Yes, his faith can be damaging, but it can also be damaging to tear down the one crutch someone has. It sounded to me very antagonistic and not as caring as maybe you wanted to be.



Fluffy was trying to help. I can tell he cares about me, and even though I don’t agree with him the very act of trying to understand me helps me tremendously. 

But you hit the nail right on the head - there is no reason I have recurrent depression, it just happens randomly. I have multiple conditions, and my crutch is Christ.


----------



## Crimcyan (Oct 21, 2017)

Me trying to keep track of what this thread is about


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 21, 2017)

Crimcyan said:


> Me trying to keep track of what this thread is aboutView attachment 22505


I think the title was kinda misleading. I think that Felix was mostly trying to seek emotional support above all else.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 21, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> I think the title was kinda misleading. I think that Felix was mostly trying to seek emotional support above all else.



No, I was trying to spark conversation.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 21, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> No, I was trying to spark conversation.


Oh. _Rip._ Sorry for putting words in your mouth...


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 21, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> Oh. _Rip._ Sorry for putting words in your mouth...


Haha no worries :3


----------



## Water Draco (Oct 21, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> Yes, I am able and willing to live with people of other beliefs, that’s why I am not bashing any of you. But I do share mine, and I welcome you to share yours. In all reality, I love each and everyone of you. One of my greatest enemies is depression and low self esteem, and I am not here trying to cause division or hate.



It can be an emotive subject and difficult to broach without the wrong impression being inadvertently taken up. How this is presented can have a significant effect on how this viewed from both sides.

We all have choices and decisions to take in life. Those choices and decisions we make will inevitably at some point have an effect on ourselves and others whether it be positive, neutral or negative, and no two people are the same or have the same response. All you can hope for is to be lucky to strike that happy medium.

You leave me with the impression that you do have some questions that you are trying to reconcile. This is not uncommon as we all have periods whereby we have to take a step back to appraise our thoughts, and at times that inner monolog can be pretty dam loud and obscure the answers to what we are asking of our selves. Or even disguise the question/s we should be asking of our selves.

Discussing such things is a way to air out your thoughts although sometimes it takes picking a neutral party to have these discussions with, as some may have strong and opposing opinions that end up in just bumping heads together when the wires get crossed.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 21, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> But you hit the nail right on the head - there is no reason I have recurrent depression, it just happens randomly.



It's cyclic, I deal with this occasionally.  There is a reason (either chemically, or environmentally) that simply hasn't been identified yet.  Even knowing the root cause doesn't guarantee it will cease, though.  Sometimes, you just need to figure out how live with those figurative demons


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Oct 21, 2017)

All I can think is after reading all of this is Jesus Christ gets far to much credit in the religious community nowadays when some of that credit should at least go to Jehovah. It's not like he didn't create the universe and everything in it or anything.

As for the actual topic, a few quotes come to mind:
Respect thy neighbor.
Don't throw stones in glass houses.
Treat others how you'd like them to treat you.
Live and let live.
Etc...


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 21, 2017)

Mr. Fox said:


> All I can think is after reading all of this is Jesus Christ gets far to much credit in the religious community nowadays when some of that credit should at least go to Jehovah. It's not like he didn't create the universe and everything in it or anything.
> 
> As for the actual topic, a few quotes come to mind:
> Respect thy neighbor.
> ...



Jesus _is _Jehovah!


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 21, 2017)

Well, Felix, I don't think you saw my previous post so I'll ask you again.

What was the point for this thread? What discussion were you trying to start?


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Oct 21, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> Jesus _is _Jehovah!


Nope, Jehovah is the true God of the Bible, the Creator of all things. (Revelation 4:11) The prophets Abraham and Moses worshipped him, *as did Jesus*. (Genesis 24:27; Exodus 15:1, 2; John 20:17) He is the God, not just of one people, but of “all the earth.”—Psalm 47:2.

www.jw.org: Who Is Jehovah? | Bible Questions

You'd think a devote Christen like yourself would know that.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 21, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> Well, Felix, I don't think you saw my previous post so I'll ask you again.
> 
> What was the point for this thread? What discussion?



The point of this thread is to spark discussion about the faith and also about sexuality - which is very important.


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 21, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> The point of this thread is to spark discussion about the faith and also about sexuality - which is very important.


Yeah. I know that much. What exactly are you trying to accomplish?


----------



## Sagt (Oct 21, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> He probably isn't a devout Christian but an attention seeking troll honestly. At least, I really hope he is because if he actually believes what he has been saying, that's sad.


That's pretty uncalled-for.


----------



## Blaab (Oct 21, 2017)

Mr. Fox said:


> Nope, Jehovah is the true God of the Bible, the Creator of all things. (Revelation 4:11) The prophets Abraham and Moses worshipped him, *as did Jesus*. (Genesis 24:27; Exodus 15:1, 2; John 20:17) He is the God, not just of one people, but of “all the earth.”—Psalm 47:2.
> 
> www.jw.org: Who Is Jehovah? | Bible Questions
> 
> You'd think a devote Christen like yourself would know that.



Jesus is the physical embodiment of God, thinking of it in terms of _our_ being, we live in three persons:

Our mind, body and soul.

In biblical terms our soul, spirit and flesh.

God is the Soul, the head, Father and creator.
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit, the force of God and the presence we can feel when we attune to Him.
The Son is the flesh example. Everything God can be in human form Jesus is, and Jesus lives as an example of what we are supposed to be. He has command of the Spirit, but is subject to the will of God, but all of them are equal and in balance, much as we are intended to be.

To have power over our spirit and flesh, to have submissiveness to the Father and our soul, yet to be in balance with all of them is what The Holy Trinity is.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 21, 2017)

Lcs said:


> That's pretty uncalled-for.


Yeeeeeah, I agree. That blow was kinda below the belt, @Akartoshi . I agree with your opinions, more or less, but try not to stoop to personal insults, okay?


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Oct 21, 2017)

Blaab said:


> Jesus is the physical embodiment of God, thinking of it in terms of _our_ being, we live in three persons:
> 
> Our mind, body and soul.
> 
> ...


All I know is Jesus is God's (Jehovah's) son, and last I checked he is the creater of all things. Even the religious guy (nice guy) I use to study with knows that


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 21, 2017)

Mr. Fox said:


> Nope, Jehovah is the true God of the Bible, the Creator of all things. (Revelation 4:11) The prophets Abraham and Moses worshipped him, *as did Jesus*. (Genesis 24:27; Exodus 15:1, 2; John 20:17) He is the God, not just of one people, but of “all the earth.”—Psalm 47:2.
> 
> www.jw.org: Who Is Jehovah? | Bible Questions
> 
> You'd think a devote Christen like yourself would know that.



Ah, you’re a Jehovah’s Witness. I encourage you to read the Scriptures again, and the whole of it! Jesus in the Gospel of John says Him and the Father are “one.” He also says “before Abraham was, I AM.” That is not speaking of age - that is a statement of identity - the same I AM of Exodus 3:14 which God used in the bush to identity Himself. Remember why the Pharisees wanted to stone Him? Because He made himself *equal* with God! Jesus was God manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16) therefore His divinity was veiled in human flesh - that is why we see Him worship the Father as He did.

Since you posted the link to your tradition, I’ll post mine: www.opc.org: Orthodox Presbyterian Church


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 21, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> Yeeeeeah, I agree. That blow was kinda below the belt, @Akartoshi . I agree with your opinions, more or less, but try not to stoop to personal insults, okay?


I had deleted the post, but not fast enough for lcs to quote me. However, I do feel like he is trying to draw attention to a subject that is pointless to debate as well as that topic being very blurry. I still don't know what his goal is yet.

As to why I said he was a troll, I simply thought that he was trying to provoke a reaction, and didn't know the basics of Christianity (IE, that Jehovah was Jesus or something). I was wrong, and I apologise.

I also said it wa sad because he keeps belittling himself.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 21, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> Ah, you’re a Jehovah’s Witness. I encourage you to read the Scriptures again, and the whole of it! Jesus in the Gospel of John says Him and the Father are “one.” He also says “before Abraham was, I AM.” That is not speaking of age - that is a statement of identity - the same I AM of Exodus 3:14 which God used in the bush to identity Himself. Remember why the Pharisees wanted to stone Him? Because He made himself *equal* with God! Jesus was God manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16) therefore His divinity was veiled in human flesh - that is why we see Him worship the Father as He did.
> 
> Since you posted the link to your tradition, I’ll post mine: www.opc.org: Orthodox Presbyterian Church


So, you're saying that Mr. Fox is wrong?


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 21, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> So, you're saying that Mr. Fox is wrong?



Yep. But he says I am wrong too, so the feeling is mutual.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 21, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> Yep. But he says I am wrong too, so the feeling is mutual.


Uhh..... That's kinda harsh.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 21, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> Uhh..... That's kinda harsh.



How so? Why is saying someone is wrong harsh? Are we not allowed to think others are wrong?


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Oct 21, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> Ah, you’re a Jehovah’s Witness.


Actually I'm not. 

In any case, both Christens and Jehovah's Witnesses have their own interpretations of what God actually is, but who is to say whomever is right? 

Personally, I'm on the fence about both.


----------



## jtrekkie (Oct 21, 2017)

For reference, Jehovah is a late substitute for the Tetragrammaton meaning "my Lord" (from Adonai). We like to avoid it because Adonai is used elsewhere and can be confused with Jesus himself or normal people who are sometimes called "lord". That's one of the reasons most Christians will tell you Jehovah is Jesus, Felix got the other. As far as the word goes neither is wrong, per se, but it is a cause of confusion.


----------



## Crimcyan (Oct 21, 2017)

OhHhHhHh shiiiiit its a a fox fight

Im very bored and this is sorta amusing ¯\_(ツ)_/ ¯


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 21, 2017)

Mr. Fox said:


> Actually I'm not.
> 
> In any case, both Christens and Jehovah's Witnesses have their own interpretations of what God actually is, but who is to say whomever is right?
> 
> Personally, I'm on the fence about both.



I recommend Dr. James White’s book “The Forgotten Trinity.” The Scripture is very clear on who God is, and if we use Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) for matters of faith we will find this conclusion to be the only working one. This is about right and wrong - who God is is a central and essential doctrine in the Christian faith. Getting that wrong is getting the faith wrong.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 21, 2017)

Crimcyan said:


> OhHhHhHh shiiiiit its a a fox fight
> 
> Im very bored and this is sorta amusing ¯\_(ツ)_/ ¯



*Boops Mr. Fox on the nose and squeezes it*
Ima right here, little foxxo.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 21, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> I recommend Dr. James White’s book “The Forgotten Trinity.” The Scripture is very clear on who God is, and if we use Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) for matters of faith we will find this conclusion to be the only working one. This is about right and wrong - who God is is a central and essential doctrine in the Christian faith. Getting that wrong is getting the faith wrong.


There isn't really a right or wrong answer when it comes to religion. How can we possibly know what's right or wrong in that respect?


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 21, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> There isn't really a right or wrong answer when it comes to religion. How can we possibly know what's right or wrong in that respect?



Just for a joke... just to lighten up the mood here xD

I can totally make fun of myself.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 21, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> There isn't really a right or wrong answer when it comes to religion. How can we possibly know what's right or wrong in that respect?



But to answer your question seriously: I believe there is a right and wrong because we have a perspicuous Scripture which alone is the infallible rule of faith.


----------



## Saiko (Oct 21, 2017)

I personally find the whole Trinity three-for-one thing to be an inconsequential detail in the grand scheme of things. It doesn’t really matter how god is split or merged if all the choices yield the same character and philosophy, and we’re not supposed to be able to comprehend that part of his being anyway.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 21, 2017)

Saiko said:


> I personally find the whole Trinity three-for-one thing to be an inconsequential detail in the grand scheme of things. It doesn’t really matter how god is split or merged if all the choices yield the same character and philosophy, and we’re not supposed to be able to comprehend that part of his being anyway.



We can fully understand the incarnation then. And if we do not fully understand the incarnation, we cannot fully understand the importance and power of the atonement. In other words, is Christ is not the very substance of God - there is no real atonement for sin.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 21, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> But to answer your question seriously: I believe there is a right and wrong because we have a perspicuous Scripture which alone is the infallible rule of faith.


But, how do you know that the scripture is infallible? Just saying it doesn't make it so.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 21, 2017)

Once again, asking "why" is necessary. Why do you feel this way? Why do you think this is true? I'll gladly hear you out, but saying that something's true just because it is true isn't a valid argument. Remember, 500 years ago or so, most Christians believed that the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe. They thought that concept was infallible.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 21, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> But, how do you know that the scripture is infallible? Just saying it doesn't make it so.



I know Scripture is infallible because it is the power of God unto salvation to those who believe in its testimony. I know it is infallible because it is the fulfillment of prophecy and is true in every word.

www.reformed.org: Westminster Confession of Faith


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 21, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> Once again, asking "why" is necessary. Why do you feel this way? Why do you think this is true? I'll gladly hear you out, but saying that something's true just because it is true isn't a valid argument. Remember, 500 years ago or so, most Christians believed that the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe. They thought that concept was infallible.



*They* thought the concept was infallible. The Scripture make no clear teaching on it. The Bible is not a science book - it doesn’t make scientific claims. It makes Theological claims.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 21, 2017)

Heh, my friends are right. This is getting me nowhere at all. Once again, saying that something's true because it's true isn't a valid point, but I can't do this anymore. I won't participate in a zero-sum game. Smell ya later!
If someone can't use logic to articulate themselves, then, I can't use logic to argue against them.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Oct 21, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> So, you're saying that Mr. Fox is wrong?


I'm never wrong. If anyone says I am, they're lying. :V


FluffyShutterbug said:


> Uhh..... That's kinda harsh.


Not really. The two faiths share so many similarities there is bound to be some overlap.


Crimcyan said:


> OhHhHhHh shiiiiit its a a fox fight


And you know there is only one way a fox fight can end. :^)


Felix Bernard said:


> *Boops Mr. Fox on the nose and squeezes it*


That is like, a mating call in the furry fandom. Careful, you don't want to commit adultery. :V


----------



## ellaerna (Oct 21, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> I know Scripture is infallible because it is the power of God unto salvation to those who believe in its testimony. I know it is infallible because it is the fulfillment of prophecy and is true in every word.
> 
> www.reformed.org: Westminster Confession of Faith


Saying that is like saying "I'm hot cause I'm fly." It means nothing. I acknowledge your faith, but it's not an argument. You literally don't _know_ that it's true. You just believe. 

But if you want to get technical, how is it infallible when the bible itself is contradictory? You don't even have to go that far to recognize it. Genesis 1.1-2.3 and Genesis 2.4 can't even agree on how and in what order the creation happened.

Not to mention all of the many years of science that refutes it.


----------



## Saiko (Oct 21, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> Once again, asking "why" is necessary. Why do you feel this way? Why do you think this is true? I'll gladly hear you out, but saying that something's true just because it is true isn't a valid argument. Remember, 500 years ago or so, most Christians believed that the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe. They thought that concept was infallible.





Felix Bernard said:


> I know Scripture is infallible because it is the power of God unto salvation to those who believe in its testimony. I know it is infallible because it is the fulfillment of prophecy and is true in every word.



Uhhhh something you both should realize is that it’s okay to just revert back to “I have faith that it’s infallible.” If that’s a fundamental premise of the religion, then there isn’t much to discuss there.

However, Felix, it’s equally important that you treat it like a fundamental premise if that’s what it is. That means it is a prerequisite to your belief system that cannot be derived without begging the question, which is the error you just made. (You said you know it is infallible because everything in it is true.)


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 21, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> Once again, asking "why" is necessary. Why do you feel this way? Why do you think this is true? I'll gladly hear you out, but saying that something's true just because it is true isn't a valid argument. Remember, 500 years ago or so, most Christians believed that the earth was flat and that the earth was the center of the universe. They thought that concept was infallible.



I would say the flat Earth thing was long disproved by the Chinese and the Egyptians and even the first century Greeks (the latter being a contemporary people to Jesus and the apostles). When it comes to Europeans though, in the last five hundred years you have to factor in the fall of Rome and the Dark Ages (and especially the bubonic plague) where there was a severe regression in and hatred of such knowledge furthered by Anglicans and the Roman Catholic church. Like the fig leaf over genitalia thing? Yeah, them.

I believe Jesus is real for the faith imparted to me.

Furthermore, and it's not at all a huge factor supporting my belief, there is also secular historical evidence recorded and reported by Romans describing worldwide/empire wide phenomena immediately after His death.


----------



## jtrekkie (Oct 21, 2017)

The flat earth thing is a myth, it was not a common conception in the middle ages. Geocentricism was supported by the Catholic church because it was the prevailing view among scientists at the time, and while it's easy to make fun of them now geocentricism is not an unreasonable view. In fact, the first theoretical descriptions of heleocetricism appealed to aesthetics only, evidence supporting them was only found much later after the search for stellar parralax failed (see Bradley, stellar aberration.)

You might be interested to know that the Bible wasn't always held to be infallible (by early Catholics anyway). That came about as a product of it being inspired, and that came about as a product of unusual accuracy. In short, the world is less ridiculous if it's true.


----------



## Scales42 (Oct 21, 2017)

What an interesting Thread. Let me tell you a little story.....

Back in the day, my mother wanted me to be baptized, but i fought against it. Even as a child I never wanted
to commit myself to a religion, that being said, I did believe in god and even prayed from time to time. but then real life kicked
in and I witnessed horrible things happening to me and people that I cared about. This is usually the part where the person
"finds god" and everything turns out good at the end, that didnt happen though. After recovering from a messed up illness
I have come to the conclusion that there is only one being out there that can control my faith ----------------> *ME*
My morals are my creation, my faith is for me, I dont need a god for that. Maybe there is a god,  but 
he/she/it is probably working on a more interesting project now... Anyway, good luck trying to convert a few sinful furfags 

Have a great day yall


----------



## AshtheDragon (Oct 21, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> I know... But, I'm still disgusted on a visceral level that there are people here who think I should change because I'm into men while being physically male and for enjoying yiff and liking the kinky stuff. "Accepting" somebody doesn't just mean not harassing them or actively trying to get them to change, but it's also believing that they aren't inherently wrong for X, Y or Z. Even if somebody treats me nicely, they can't really respect me as an equal person if they think a fundamental part of who I am MUST be changed.



It's more than treating someone nicely.

I treat you with respect because you are human, just like me.

We don't agree on some things, but that doesn't mean I think you are worthy of persecution, or death, or imprisonment, or shunning perpetrated by other people, by "Christians" because of your sexual orientation. Same with my fellow Christians. I've had enough of that behavior as a black person being harassed and hated, being called a "n-gger". In fact, I'd rather have friends that are different from me to hear their perspective. I have in the past. I have friends at college I deeply respected and cared about who are of a different sexual orientations. We ate together, socialized... I in no way ridiculed them or their faiths.

Jesus associated and continues to associate with "sinners"- what we all are. Me, you, everyone, because no human save for Him is perfect... I for one, do too! I am no better than you intrinsically.

I cared and still care about them even though I am concerned for their welfare after death. In fact, I care even more given I was baptized late last year after what may be my final stint at college. I asked one of them if she still cares about me even after my conversion and my diametrically opposed statement(s) of faith and she said yes. I think that's wonderful, personally. That our bond is so strong it transcends our differences.

What is it secularists always reply, "Only God can judge"? Well let Him do so after death or at the Judgement.

I can judge if a behavior is wrong based on the Word of God recorded in the bible and react accordingly within myself, say my statement of faith to others... but I can't condemn you to death or Hell because it's simply not my place to do so. I can't say "God hates f-gs", "God hates you on every level" because that's simply not true. I don't know the future, I don't know God's ultimate plan for your life and how you will react to Him in the future, and what's more: I know how much God cares for humanity.

* * *

Aside: did you draw your avatar?


----------



## PaintedMica (Oct 21, 2017)

Now, this is just my opinion so please, don't think I'm bashing or forcing my ideas and ideals on anyone. In my view of things, a religion which prevents one from loving another human regardless of gender in an intimate fashion, is a religion whose doctrine cares not for the needs of its people. Now, I'm a pagan, so my view on religion is different from most, as is my take on using a god, or gods as a crutch. 

The Aesir have never stated that one can not love people of the same sex, nor has he stated that we are born flawed, and filled with sin. A religion that propagates the idea of original sin and chronic repentance for every minor perceived slight against a god is in my eyes, harmful. Mentally and spiritually, for if you degrade yourself in your own eyes as a way of coming to terms with how you appear to your god, you have simply accepted self-degradation which constitutes a weaker soul.

In general, I stepped away from Christ because I was tired of destroying my self worth in order to be "Truthful" to him and myself. Now since this is about the Fandom and sexuality, I'll loop back around to that. Sexuality in my eyes is a basic part of human biology, be it homosexual or heterosexual. The fandom does have a sexual side, yes, as the fandom is run by humans. (I think)

Therefore in my eyes, the sexual side of the fandom is an expression of human sexuality and art. Which to me is a height of beauty I had not witnessed before joining the Fandom. I do not see the problem with it, as my gods do not preach against sexuality, nor do they ask for me to beg them for forgiveness. They simply ask that I conduct myself with honor and responsibility, and should I do wrong, to right that wrong through my own strength. 

Just my two cents on the matter...well, more like five in this case. I apologize if this is horrifically off topic heh..


----------



## Scales42 (Oct 21, 2017)

PaintedMica said:


> Therefore in my eyes, the sexual side of the fandom is an expression of human sexuality and art.



A
M
E
N


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 21, 2017)

PaintedMica said:


> Now, this is just my opinion so please, don't think I'm bashing or forcing my ideas and ideals on anyone. In my view of things, a religion which prevents one from loving another human regardless of gender in an intimate fashion, is a religion whose doctrine cares not for the needs of its people. Now, I'm a pagan, so my view on religion is different from most, as is my take on using a god, or gods as a crutch.
> 
> The Aesir have never stated that one can not love people of the same sex, nor has he stated that we are born flawed, and filled with sin. A religion that propagates the idea of original sin and chronic repentance for every minor perceived slight against a god is in my eyes, harmful. Mentally and spiritually, for if you degrade yourself in your own eyes as a way of coming to terms with how you appear to your god, you have simply accepted self-degradation which constitutes a weaker soul.
> 
> ...



You're one of the only users on topic lol.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Oct 21, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> You're one of the only users on topic lol.


Furries ruin everything ™


----------



## Simo (Oct 21, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> One of my greatest enemies is depression and low self esteem, and I am not here trying to cause division or hate.



I was wondering: Given depression and your low sense of self esteem, and also, feeling like a 'worm', have you ever sought professional treatment for this? I'm not saying your faith can't be of help; not at all. But if you're suffering from depression and low self esteem, it may do a world of good to see somebody about it. And there are psychologists out there who work primarily with spiritual and Christian individuals. I just hate to see a person so miserable sounding. I've also suffered some severe bouts of depression, and seeing a talk therapist was for me a huge help; others also take meds, in my case, that proved to make things worse, but there are options out there that might buttress your recovery from feeling so depressed and bad about yourself.

And again, I'm not saying this to judge, but because you seem like a nice person, and whatever differences aside, I just thought I'd throw out a few ideas, that might help with depression, which is a really hard thing to live with.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Oct 21, 2017)

PaintedMica said:


> Now, this is just my opinion so please, don't think I'm bashing or forcing my ideas and ideals on anyone. In my view of things, a religion which prevents one from loving another human regardless of gender in an intimate fashion, is a religion whose doctrine cares not for the needs of its people. Now, I'm a pagan, so my view on religion is different from most, as is my take on using a god, or gods as a crutch.
> 
> The Aesir have never stated that one can not love people of the same sex, nor has he stated that we are born flawed, and filled with sin. A religion that propagates the idea of original sin and chronic repentance for every minor perceived slight against a god is in my eyes, harmful. Mentally and spiritually, for if you degrade yourself in your own eyes as a way of coming to terms with how you appear to your god, you have simply accepted self-degradation which constitutes a weaker soul.
> 
> ...


I would quote a George Carlin reference here but Felix seems like a pretty cool dude.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 21, 2017)

Mr. Fox said:


> I would quote a George Carlin reference here but Felix seems like a pretty cool dude.


I have a good idea of what skit you're talking about.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Oct 21, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> I have a good idea of what skit you're talking about.


I actually quoted the wrong post (on phone) but many of his arguments would hold up here.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 21, 2017)

Mr. Fox said:


> I actually quoted the wrong post (on phone) but many of his arguments would hold up here.


We would need all kinds of new safe spaces, if we introduced his genius here.


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 21, 2017)

Holy thread Batman!


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 21, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Holy thread Batman!


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 21, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


>


So, are you going to actually answer what I posted or not...? I've asked this three times, but What were you trying to accomplish in this thread? I know you're provoking discussion, but we discuss things for a reason. We make people laugh, we get people to think, we get people to reflect. Ultimately, we get people to agree with our point of view in debates. Or at least that's the goal, though you might have fallen short of that.

So, what exactly are you making this for? What was your end goal? Would you like us to convert to christianity? Do you think being gay is a sin? So far you have been very vague...


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 21, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> So, are you going to actually answer what I posted or not...? I've asked this three times, but What were you trying to accomplish in this thread? I know you're provoking discussion, but we discuss things for a reason. We make people laugh, we get people to think, we get people to reflect. Ultimately, we get people to agree with our point of view in debates. Or at least that's the goal, though you might have fallen short of that.
> 
> So, what exactly are you making this for? What was your end goal? Would you like us to convert to christianity? Do you think being gay is a sin? So far you have been very vague...



I thought I made it more than clear enough what I believe about homosexuality in my main post. Please read it again. As for my further intentions, I just made another forum post about them.


----------



## WolfNightV4X1 (Oct 22, 2017)

FURRY IS NOT A SIN BECAUSE ITS JUST CARTOON ANIMALS AND BEING A FAN OF IT

When will normies stop taking this fandumb so seriously???


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 22, 2017)

WolfNightV4X1 said:


> FURRY IS NOT A SIN BECAUSE ITS JUST CARTOON ANIMALS AND BEING A FAN OF IT
> 
> When will normies stop taking this fandumb so seriously???



Did anyone here say being a furry is a sin, or is that just a general statement toward those outside the fandom?


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 22, 2017)

WolfNightV4X1 said:


> FURRY IS NOT A SIN BECAUSE ITS JUST CARTOON ANIMALS AND BEING A FAN OF IT
> 
> When will normies stop taking this fandumb so seriously???


Lol. Not gonna happen anytime soon, mate.

This fandom's got too many morons in it. When Furries stop taking themselves so damn seriously, other people will also stop.


----------



## Crimcyan (Oct 22, 2017)

Blueberrydragon said:


> With all due respect... the only sin the furry community is responsible for is... is... th-the... r34. (Though sometimes it's good not gonna lie)


AND ZABIVAKA WE MADE PUTIN CRY


----------



## WolfNightV4X1 (Oct 22, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> Did anyone here say being a furry is a sin, or is that just a general statement toward those outside the fandom?



It was a general statement and it was pretty heavily stated in the OP you had to address to yourself and others that it can fit in with religion, which it does, because people seem to treat the furry fandom as if it is heavily linked to it's sexuality, perversion, and other NSFW content...the furry fandom at it's core is just an appreciation of animal art and people without fail always link it to certain aspects of it's content rather than the big picture

Really anyone of any race, gender, culture, sex, religion, etc. can appreciate it because it's just a general hobby and nothing more. I had to clarify that yet again because I just never know with newer folks in the fandom who hyper obsess over that aspect of it


----------



## WolfNightV4X1 (Oct 22, 2017)

Scales42 said:


> After recovering from a messed up illness
> I have come to the conclusion that there is only one being out there that can control my faith ----------------> *ME*
> 
> 
> Have a great day yall



Would like to interject that the idea of God isn't because he's a candy machine for you to put faith in, get good things out...or some expectation that all responsibility and need to achieve good in the world is released from our hands because "God will take care of it"


One of the interesting jokes I know goes something like this:

"A girl wants to win the lottery, she prays to God to help her win the lottery some day so she can live a peaceful, comfortable life.
The day comes and she didnt win the lottery.
For several years she prays and prays and prays, but everytime she does she never wins.
The day comes and soon she passes and goes on to heaven,

The girl asks, "God, why didn't you let me win the lottery when I have hoped and prayed and asked?"

 He replies, "You never bought the ticket!"


YOU make things better, because we have the life given to us to take things in our hands and make it better


----------



## WolfNightV4X1 (Oct 22, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> And sticking to the strict rules of only hetero sex after marriage can have a lot of bad consequences. Too much pressure is put, particularly on women, to be pure and that can lead to shame that is very damaging. There is a story (can't find a link right now, will edit if I find it) of a Good Christian woman who waited til marriage as she should, but then broke down after having the "right kind" of sex with her new husband because she felt unclean. So much of her self-worth and self-image was tied around this idea of being virginal that she felt ruined after sex. And what if a woman is raped, is she now still a sinner because she had sex out of wedlock? Even if she is assured that no, she's not unclean since it wasn't her fault, will she still be able to accept that after hearing for so long that she must never have sex lest she lose God's love and favor? Will a Good Christian man still want her after she has been tarnished so?
> 
> As for the Fandom, yes, there's a lot of sex, queerness, and perverseness that happens here. But those things aren't core tenants. You can turn on SFW and enjoy the animal people just fine without taking part in the sinful acts of others. Furryism(?) is not in itself sinful. You can definitely be a Good Christian and still be a furry. Or you could be a terrible christian and be a furry. You get what you put in, basically.



Adding to sexuality, I know there is a lot of toxicity to suppressing sexuality and I've seen a lot of poor effects from it. I heard a story back at my old church where a girl accidentally got pregnant. The way the parents reacted was watching her every move, they would not let the girl go anywhere by herself anymore, they even attended sunday classes beside her, kept her by them at all times. That kind of response and behavior is incredibly controlling and toxic, I was actually pretty shocked to hear they did the OPPOSITE of what they should have, considering the girl mustve been through a lot of trouble to have sought out unprotected sex, in fact, unprotected sex to a child not taught ANYTHING about sex instead of "dont have it" is a serious negative result of sex.

I'm not against abstinence nor the personal moral values of sex only when it is right, quite the opposite actually. However, Christianity for most of what I have observed carries such a strongly, visceral compulsion to hide away, shield, and prevent sex as if it didn't exist, as if shoving it into a box and stifling it and only opening it when it is "right". How will people know how to have sex, what to have sex with, how their bodies are like or what they feel if they don't understand it nor their own bodies beforehand? Neither my parents nor the churches I grew up in believe in openly discussing sex and it was always such a vague concept, little was ever known about it, in fact had I never had the internet I would not have known what it was at all as my naivete carried straight into adolescence and even after I began to have a budding sex drive not even knowing what it was.  Refusing to teach children and teenagers about sex in any detail is a huge disadvantage.


Adding to other aspects of things in the bible, in my personal experience at church in a study group, some girls were reading passages in the bible, something along the lines of "Women must have their heads covered or it is an abomination", the girls sort of stopped, shrugged it off saying "It doesn't apply to us" and move one. Why is this? Why can you ignore a clearly stated passage, should they not be wearing headdresses at this time. Shouldn't they not have rights to households or other things that are not for that of a women? 

There is definitely a lot of wrongness I've witnessed within the shame and fear culture and none of it is positive, and no when I say this I am not condemning Christianity as a whole, but how the individual Christian people walk their faith


----------



## Scales42 (Oct 22, 2017)

WolfNightV4X1 said:


> Would like to interject that the idea of God isn't because he's a candy machine for you to put faith in, get good things out...or some expectation that all responsibility and need to achieve good in the world is released from our hands because "God will take care of it"
> 
> 
> One of the interesting jokes I know goes something like this:
> ...




So why should anybody bother with being religious in the first place? at the end of the day we are on our own. Of course
some religious folks claim that they only achieved something great because the "POWER OF GOD" suddenly hit them like an avil.
But I will take the liberty to say that this is pretty much a placebo.


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 22, 2017)

Blueberrydragon said:


> With all due respect... the only sin the furry community is responsible for is... is... th-the... r34. (Though sometimes it's good not gonna lie)


And such a beautiful sin it is. <3

*hits 621*


----------



## Pipistrele (Oct 22, 2017)

Well, as "Everything is Terrible"  collection proves, you can do pretty much anything as long as it's for the Lord - skate for the Lord, rap for the Lord, skydive for the Lord, racketeer for the Lord. Why can't the male dudes just screw each other in fursuits for the Lord? .u.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 22, 2017)

Pipistrele said:


> Well, as "Everything is Terrible"  collection proves, you can do pretty much anything as long as it's for the Lord - skate for the Lord, rap for the Lord, skydive for the Lord, racketeer for the Lord. Why can't the male dudes just screw each other in fursuits for the Lord? .u.



Can one disobey God’s Holy Writ for the Lord? Does that make much sense?

Nice try though.


----------



## PaintedMica (Oct 22, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> Can one disobey God’s Holy Writ for the Lord? Does that make much sense?



Many interpret the word of God in different ways. Disobedience in this context is mildly subjective rather than objective as each person spoken to will have their own preconceived notions on how the rules apply to them.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 22, 2017)

PaintedMica said:


> Many interpret the word of God in different ways. Disobedience in this context is mildly subjective rather than objective as each person spoken to will have their own preconceived notions on how the rules apply to them.



With all due respect, one has to be extremely intellectually dishonest to not see these things would be going against His standards. Commandment and laws are not very subjective like the apocalyptic texts are... If laws were subjective and allowed for different interpretations there would be basically a form of anarchy. Ancient Israel understood pretty clearly this particular sin. Any person going in reading the text like any other literature would see it. Sure, one can interpret it in a form of eisegesis (forcing into the text what it does not say), or they can interpret through exegesis (allowing the text to speak for within its own context).


----------



## PaintedMica (Oct 22, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> With all due respect, one has to be extremely intellectually dishonest to not see these things would be going against His standards. Commandment and laws are not very subjective like the apocalyptic texts are... If laws were subjective and allowed for different interpretations there would be basically a form of anarchy. Ancient Israel understood pretty clearly this particular sin. Any person going in reading the text like any other literature would see it. Sure, one can interpret it in a form of eisegesis (forcing into the text what it does not say), or they can interpret through exegesis (allowing the text to speak for within its own context).



The main issue I see in most problems is in that interpretation. As the commandments were handed down from God to man, those are very difficult to dispute. Whereas the bible, which was written by man in God's words, is a tad more prone to being wrenched into all sorts of interesting shapes and sayings. Although in general, I don't believe there is a commandment that states "Ye shall not date cute boys." The issue I have is not with the commandments and laws, it's with the interpretation that many use to justify a myriad of actions.


----------



## Lunar Man (Oct 22, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> So, are you going to actually answer what I posted or not...? I've asked this three times, but What were you trying to accomplish in this thread? I know you're provoking discussion, but we discuss things for a reason. We make people laugh, we get people to think, we get people to reflect. Ultimately, we get people to agree with our point of view in debates. Or at least that's the goal, though you might have fallen short of that.
> 
> So, what exactly are you making this for? What was your end goal? Would you like us to convert to christianity? Do you think being gay is a sin? So far you have been very vague...



Chill, dude. It's just some words on the internet. 
He's probably just telling LGBT furries to repent or something, expressing his viewpoints, and trying to win people over to Christianity. That's the vibe I'm getting. No biggie... if you disagree then disagree and carry on.


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 22, 2017)

Lunar Man said:


> Chill, dude. It's just some words on the internet.
> He's probably just telling LGBT furries to repent or something, expressing his viewpoints, and trying to win people over to Christianity. That's the vibe I'm getting. No biggie... if you disagree then disagree and carry on.


I am not angry? I have never been angry nor have I ever intended to be. I just really don't understand what OP is trying to say, that's all.


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 22, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> I thought I made it more than clear enough what I believe about homosexuality in my main post. Please read it again. As for my further intentions, I just made another forum post about them.


Alright, let me re-word my question. What did you think you were going to accomplish? Did you think that everyone was going to change their sexuality and pick up a bible?


----------



## Lunar Man (Oct 22, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> I am not angry? I have never been angry nor have I ever intended to be. I just really don't understand what OP is trying to say, that's all.


Alrighty. My bad dude. It's just that I'd rather not see this devolve into a flame war or something.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 22, 2017)

Okay everyone, soon I’ll be going back to my dorm. My Christian college’s Wi-Fi blocks Furaffinity 
If any of you want to continue asking me questions and discussing this, I just made a Discord chat, please join!

Discord - Free voice and text chat for gamers


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 22, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> Okay everyone, soon I’ll be going back to my dorm. My Christian college’s Wi-Fi blocks Furaffinity
> If any of you want to continue asking me questions and discussing this, I just made a Discord chat, please join!
> 
> Discord - Free voice and text chat for gamers


I think it's best we don't keep discussing this and go our own separate ways.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 22, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> I think it's best we don't keep discussing this and go our own separate ways.



Very well, if that’s what you desire go on your way. I personally enjoy fostering discussion.


----------



## Traino da Foxxo (Oct 22, 2017)

@Felix Bernard why are you a Calvinist?


----------



## Saiko (Oct 22, 2017)

Well that was an oddly specific question.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 22, 2017)

Traino da Foxxo said:


> @Felix Bernard why are you a Calvinist?



Where should I start?

Doctrines of Grace (TULIP) and God's Sovereignty?
Covenant Theology?
Form of Government and Worship (Presbyterianism)?
The Westminster Confession and Standards? 
The great consistency within its Systematic Theology?
Lapsarianism?


----------



## Simo (Oct 22, 2017)

A love of Calvin Coolidge?


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 22, 2017)

Saiko said:


> Well that was an oddly specific question.



It has merit, given the OP's stances.  4 point or 5 point systems each have their own individual views (to the point that they're even argumentative of the other's position within the same belief system).


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 22, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> It has merit, given the OP's stances.  4 point or 5 point systems each have their own individual views (to the point that they're even argumentative of the other's position within the same belief system).



Did someone say 5 point systems?


----------



## Traino da Foxxo (Oct 22, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> Did someone say 5 point systems?



Haha, you’re referring to TULIP right? Tell us about that.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 22, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> Did someone say 5 point systems?



I did, but I'd probably recommend you maintain your own thread topic before I am right about what's about to happen.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 22, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> I did, but I'd probably recommend you maintain your own thread topic before I am right about what's about to happen.



Agreed.
If anyone has any questions that are off topic (like my Calvinism) please PM me about it.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Oct 22, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> Okay everyone, soon I’ll be going back to my dorm. My Christian college’s Wi-Fi blocks Furaffinity


Do they think it's sinful or something?


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 22, 2017)

Mr. Fox said:


> Do they think it's sinful or something?



They block whatever has NSFW or pornographic material, so the main FA page definitely is blocked. As for the forum page, they probably just associated it with the main FA website.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Oct 22, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> They block whatever has NSFW material, so the main FA page definitely is blocked. As for the forum page, they probably just associated it with the main FA website.


So if you told them you're a furry they wouldn't say "burn in hell furfag"? Because that would totally be not cool.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 22, 2017)

Mr. Fox said:


> So if you told them you're a furry they wouldn't say "burn in hell furfag"? Because that would totally be not cool.



I was actually thinking about making a Christian Furry club on campus 
This is off topic though. Lol.


----------



## Crimcyan (Oct 22, 2017)

Do they block nsfw stuff off the wifi access? I would expect highschools to do that not colleges, my college doesnt even block websites
So would youtube be blocked too?


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 22, 2017)

Crimcyan said:


> Do they block nsfw stuff off the wifi access? I would expect highschools to do that not colleges, my college doesnt even block websites



Because colleges understand it is counter-intuitive to learning.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Oct 22, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> I was actually thinking about making a Christian Furry club on campus


That's the way, rustle some feathers.


----------



## ellaerna (Oct 22, 2017)

Crimcyan said:


> Do they block nsfw stuff off the wifi access? I would expect highschools to do that not colleges, my college doesnt even block websites
> So would youtube be blocked too?


Keep in mind, he said it was a CHRISTIAN college. I imagine they are a little pickier about what students can look at with the wifi they pay for.


----------



## Saiko (Oct 22, 2017)

Crimcyan said:


> Do they block nsfw stuff off the wifi access? I would expect highschools to do that not colleges, my college doesnt even block websites
> So would youtube be blocked too?





-..Legacy..- said:


> Because colleges understand it is counter-intuitive to learning.


It depends on the college. Private Christian ones have much more leeway, especially if they don’t have dorms on-campus. Public universities with dorms don’t have as much freedom with their filters due to privacy and censorship concerns.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 22, 2017)

Mr. Fox said:


> That's the way, rustle some feathers.



I highly doubt there are many furries at all at my college. Is it okay to say what college I go to?


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 22, 2017)

Saiko said:


> It depends on the college. Private Christian ones have much more leeway, especially if they don’t have dorms on-campus. Public universities with dorms don’t have as much freedom with their filters due to privacy and censorship concerns.


I agree with how the architecture is set up entirely on that level. 

I was loosely referring to how it's impossible to do argumentative research if the "other side" can't be researched.


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Oct 22, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> I highly doubt there are many furries at all at my college. Is it okay to say what college I go to?


Yeah, if you're cool with that. Honestly, at this point I'm just glad you're not one of those Westboro Church fanatics that hates everything and gets easily offended.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 22, 2017)

Mr. Fox said:


> Yeah, if you're cool with that. Honestly, at this point I'm just glad you're not one of those Westboro Church fanatics that hates everything and gets easily offended.



Yeah, Westboro junkies drive me crazy. Really, they are disgusting. I go to Wheaton College btw.


----------



## Crimcyan (Oct 22, 2017)

Idk, im just surprised they are blocking websites, there are people in my class watching porn in the middle of my class on the school's wifi...


----------



## Saiko (Oct 22, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> I agree with how the architecture is set up entirely on that level.
> 
> I was loosely referring to how it's impossible to do argumentative research if the "other side" can't be researched.


Woops, I misinterpreted your “they” lol. Sorry about that. Isn’t English a wonderful language? :V


----------



## Deleted member 82554 (Oct 22, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> Yeah, Westboro junkies drive me crazy. Really, they are disgusting. I go to Wheaton College btw.


Dude that's a cool college, Blanchard Hall looks like a mansion.


----------



## silveredgreen (Oct 22, 2017)

Tbh i'm surprised this is still going and relieved that it hasn't gone up in flames by now.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 22, 2017)

Mr. Fox said:


> the main building looks like a mansion.



Oh man yeah! Blanchard! I love that building <3


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 22, 2017)

Traino da Foxxo said:


> @Felix Bernard why are you a Calvinist?


Why are you an alt? Why not post on your main?


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 22, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> Why are you an alt? Why not post on your main?



I was waiting for someone to pick up on this lol.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 22, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> I did, but I'd probably recommend you maintain your own thread topic before I am right about what's about to happen.


----------



## Saiko (Oct 22, 2017)

As I said, it was an oddly specific question.


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 23, 2017)

Al'uu'debaran said:


> Yay! The dead children sing!


Huh?


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 23, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> Huh?



Spammer awaiting their execution.


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 23, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> Spammer awaiting their execution.


Sentence: Death by snuggles. Furry style.


----------



## Dox-Tucy (Oct 23, 2017)

Hej Felix, I have an idea. Let´s move to Czech. We have 40% atheists and 60% people, which don´t belive in God. Let´s stay here few years and you will find, that everything else is just fun  Amen bro.


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 23, 2017)

Dox-Tucy said:


> Hej Felix, I have an idea. Let´s move to Czech. We have 40% atheists and 60% people, which don´t belive in God. Let´s stay here few years and you will find, that everything else is just fun  Amen bro.


"40% Atheists and 60% people"?


----------



## Mabus (Oct 23, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> I'll get the fire extinguishers ready...


Somebody say fire??!!!


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 23, 2017)

Mabus said:


> Somebody say fire??!!!


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 23, 2017)

Dox-Tucy said:


> Hej Felix, I have an idea. Let´s move to Czech. We have 40% atheists and 60% people, which don´t belive in God. Let´s stay here few years and you will find, that everything else is just fun  Amen bro.


Ahoj, další česká osoba! Jsem ze Zličín 
He'll probably succumb to the tourist traps first before making it anywhere in Prague lool.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 23, 2017)

Less of the off-topic shitposting, please!


----------



## Telnac (Oct 24, 2017)

Oy this has been a hot topic. At the risk of being burned, here's my stance:

The Bible is very clear where it stands on the subject of sex, and I won't rehash that; it's a horse that has thoroughly been beaten in this thread. In my life, I have fallen far short of the Bible's teachings in this regard. I have sinned sexually and I have sexual desires that go way outside what God says is OK. 

However I am trying to follow God's way as best I can. As for my desires, I am reminded of the proverbial thorn in Paul's flesh and God's response when Paul begged God to take it away: "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness." (2 Cor 12:9)

This is why I don't others. I am a weak, sinful man. Who am I to judge anyone?  God loves me despite this. Whoever you are, whatever you have done, I believe He loves you too.  Jesus Christ's sacrafice on the cross proves it. 

That's all. I'm sure this will be attacked but this is far too of a personal thing for me to debate so I'll just let it be.


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 24, 2017)

Telnac said:


> Oy this has been a hot topic. At the risk of being burned, here's my stance:
> 
> The Bible is very clear where it stands on the subject of sex, and I won't rehash that; it's a horse that has thoroughly been beaten in this thread. In my life, I have fallen far short of the Bible's teachings in this regard. I have sinned sexually and I have sexual desires that go way outside what God says is OK.


Well, via the bible's standards, we have all sinned sexually. "Matthew 5:28: But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

Basically you could find a verse for everything in the bible that says ___ behavior is evil. They made sure to make it so that everyone is a sinner and nobody could possibly be pure.



Telnac said:


> That's all. I'm sure this will be attacked


Nobody is going to attack you here. People could be a bit narky in their responses, but nobody would personally attack you. We're going to challenge your views because this is a debate.


Telnac said:


> but this is far too of a personal thing for me to debate so I'll just let it be.


What you're basically saying is, "I'm not going to listen to anyone who challenges my views." Now, ultimately, that's up to you, but if you don't want people to debate because it's something too personal to you, *don't post then!*


----------



## Telnac (Oct 24, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> Nobody is going to attack you here. People could be a bit narky in their responses, but nobody would personally attack you. We're going to challenge your views because this is a debate.
> 
> What you're basically saying is, "I'm not going to listen to anyone who challenges my views." Now, ultimately, that's up to you, but if you don't want people to debate because it's something too personal to you, *don't post then!*


Actually what you’ve said so far I agree with, but I guess I wasn’t clear on what I meant re: debate so let’s clarify things. 

I’ve posted my beliefs in response to the OP, not to debate my views but to share them. If someone wants to attack my beliefs in this area, I won’t respond because I would be responding out of emotion and not rationally. It pointless for me to debate this because this topic is too close to me. 

There’s nothing wrong with sharing your beliefs but not entering a debate over them. If someone else wants to debate my views they’re free to do so. I just won’t be joining the fray because emotionally charged responses aren’t helpful IMO.


----------



## TarableArt (Oct 27, 2017)

This is an interesting thread. Guess I could give my opinion on topics. 
I'm a Christian, but I'm kinda anti-church. I've often gotten the impression that people feel that Christianity is all about judging your every action as bad because it's mostly come from the mouths of people. I just live by the simple "Judge not lest ye be judged." 
I think the biggest problem people have is they think "sin" is something evil. It's not. It's just doing something to distance yourself from God. Book of John talks about it. That's why everybody is a "sinner"- cuz we all do something that distances us in some way from him. Most of the stuff God warns us against doing is for health reasons anyway- especially for people back when cultures were super brutal and unclean. Pretty sure God doesn't care as much now if you eat lobster/pigs since we have ways to keep it safe now. He warns against gambling because a lot of people have super addictive personalities and it could ruin your life (but if you're good at playing and don't destroy your life savings I'm pretty sure he'd only roll his eyes at you).  

On the topic of homosexuality I think I can blame the fact that Hebrew doesn't translate well to English. In the English Bible, God calls it an "abomination"- but that's not completely correct. It's translated from the Hebrew word "tōʻēḇā"- which just means "especially sinful". God clarifies with that particular word also for people that crossdress and cheat at games. It's barely a step above "sheqets" which is what he refers to unclean food. He doesn't like you doing it, but our Dad also said he accepts that humans are prone to not listening to him anyway and that he loves his unruly kids anyway. No body is getting to Heaven completely without sin, cuz we all take steps away from God. That's why he gave us an 'out' with Jesus- to make it easier to get in.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Oct 29, 2017)

Basically, the Christian Bible's Old Testament contains safe harbored within it a dark monstrous immoral ideology of cultish psychotic male exploitation and genocide. Time and time again, when these dudes don't get their way, they get into a back room and discuss what the "will of God" will decree, and then they operate. It actually bugs me a bit, especially folks who profess their Christian practice treats the Bible as the "literal" word of "God," because those old books in the Old Testament do contain such deplorable acts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. That's an inexcusable and profoundly immoral element of doctrine for any spirituality or religion or moral framework in the 19th century or beyond.



> Numbers 31 - Vengeance on the Midianites
> 
> 3 So Moses said to the people, “Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites so that they may carry out the Lord’s vengeance on them... 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals...
> 
> ...



The subtext here is because the Midianites were attractive and drew interest from the boys of the tribe, these new happy families were hit with a plague from God himself, e.g.: a biowarfare agent. What happened to Nimrud's society, the Midianites, or the Assyrian Empire. "That's all in the past," you say, but then, if that were really true, you'd have no problem renouncing as evil forever the gender inequity, exploitation, and genocide of the Bible's old testament, and yet I can't recall when I ever heard that happen, not in sermons, not in personal professions of faith. So there's still this element of a psychotic exploitative genocidal male cult baked somewhere into all that just waiting to be tapped into by such dudes ready for the next revival of some anachronistic pre-modern hate and cultural war.

It's preposterous now that it's the 21st century that we're still embattled and defending 20th century modernism, full stop. No means no, and at a certain point if that isn't enough to establish boundaries, then we call it rape. It's time to start calling out the psycho men and their schemes for other genders. It's exactly what's informing Trumpism's arrogance and contempt for women and LGBTQI individuals, and all the virtues associated with matriarchal spirituality.

Jealous Gods, exploitative Gods, genocidal Gods, gender inequitable Gods --- these are Gods that are evil, they are not worthy of worship, certainly not in the 21st century. Repent to a well-adjusted modern version of God, one without the cultic psycho male arrogance, exploitation, and genocidal proclivities. Just saying. Am I throwing bombs just to be upsetting? No. I'm not proposing anything radical, just some equality and respect refactored into a few doctrines desperately in need of modernizing. And then live that change so the world is finally free of this pressure again once and for all time.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 29, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> Basically, the Christian Bible's Old Testament contains safe harbored within it a dark monstrous immoral ideology of cultish psychotic male exploitation and genocide. Time and time again, when these dudes don't get their way, they get into a back room and discuss what the "will of God" will decree, and then they operate. It actually bugs me a bit, especially folks who profess their Christian practice treats the Bible as the "literal" word of "God," because those old books in the Old Testament do contain such deplorable acts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. That's an inexcusable and profoundly immoral element of doctrine for any spirituality or religion or moral framework in the 19th century or beyond.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No matter what you say and suggest, the Triune God of Scripture lives and is the only being worthy of my praise and worship. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. My conscience is bound to none other but God’s own Word.

The beauty of the Gospel is this:
The Godhead from eternity past decreed to glorify Himself. No glory belongs to anybody but God. The Father decreed to create everything and elect a people unto Himself. He chose to save His fallen sheep by becoming a man and taking the due penalty we deserve on the cross. But it doesn’t stop there! Because of the merits of Christ who lived righteously and died for us, and because Christ was risen and now intercedes on our behalf at the Father’s right hand, this righteousness is imputed to us. We are justified by an _alien _righteousness. Faith alone is the instrument by which this righteousness is applied to us (and thus we are justified). Even this faith is a gift from God as the Scripture teaches. Our works avail to nought. Our will is dead and enslaved to sin until we are set free and made the servants of Christ by faith. May that be the nail in the coffin to this so-called “autonomy” and “free will” so liberally flaunted in this modern age! We are given a new nature, and become new creatures entirely by His work in us, for the Holy Spirit forever sanctifies those justified until the day they’ll be glorified and risen with their King.
This is the Gospel. Whether or not you’re willing to accept Christ by faith is beyond my power to make happen. You must be born again.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Oct 29, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> No matter what you say and suggest, the Triune God of Scripture lives and is the only being worthy of my praise and worship. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. My conscience is bound to none other but God’s own Word.
> 
> The beauty of the Gospel is this:
> The Godhead from eternity past decreed to glorify Himself. No glory belongs to anybody but God. The Father decreed to create everything and elect a people unto Himself. He chose to save His fallen sheep by becoming a man and taking the due penalty we deserve on the cross. But it doesn’t stop there! Because of the merits of Christ who lived righteously and died for us, and because Christ was risen and now intercedes on our behalf at the Father’s right hand, this righteousness is imputed to us. We are justified by an _alien _righteousness. Faith alone is the instrument by which this righteousness is applied to us (and thus we are justified). Even this faith is a gift from God as the Scripture teaches. Our works avail to nought. Our will is dead and enslaved to sin until we are set free and made the servants of Christ by faith. May that be the nail in the coffin to this so-called “autonomy” and “free will” so liberally flaunted in this modern age! We are given a new nature, and become new creatures entirely by His work in us, for the Holy Spirit forever sanctifies those justified until the day they’ll be glorified and risen with their King.
> This is the Gospel. Whether or not you’re willing to accept Christ by faith is beyond my power to make happen. You must be born again.



*Incoming Rant* So, are you saying that God should be jealous, exploitative, genocidal and gender inequitable? Are you saying that women, minorities and LGBT folk should face contempt? There is a reason why puritanism died out. There is a reason why most people don't believe in predetermination anymore. And, nobody needs to be "Born Again". Christianity/Calvinism isn't the only way to go. And, the god you describe is real, if Calvinism is the only right way, then I wouldn't really want to go to heaven anyway. *Rant Over*


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Oct 29, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> No matter what you say and suggest, the Triune God of Scripture lives and is the only being worthy of my praise and worship. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. My conscience is bound to none other but God’s own Word.
> 
> The beauty of the Gospel is this:


I do understand where you're coming from. I was raised Mennonite in one of their parochial schools for much of elementary and middle school. I think you feel spirituality, and you have an apprehension of the spirit. But there's a lot of doctrine attached to what you feel that is a matter of interpretation for every individual. A lot of different paths lead to what you cherish, but some have been obscured, vandalized. I do think that it's a mistake or intolerance to reject modernity, but it may seem reasonable if one misunderstands what modernity truly is. With the right culture, people can be both well and as artfully or spiritually free as they pursue their own best potentials and divine within. 

I appreciate and respect your willingness to stand up to what I said with a direct measured reply.  Thanks for the discussion, hopefully we can all coexist even where our doctrines and morality are calibrated along different principles. Also hopefully we all agree that humanist and Enlightenment Age morality is virtuous and we must be excellent stewards of Earth and each other, better than we have been.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 29, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> *Incoming Rant* So, are you saying that God should be jealous, exploitative, genocidal and gender inequitable? Are you saying that women, minorities and LGBT folk should face contempt? There is a reason why puritanism died out. There is a reason why most people don't believe in predetermination anymore. And, nobody needs to be "Born Again". Christianity/Calvinism isn't the only way to go. And, the god you describe is real, if Calvinism is the only right way, then I wouldn't really want to go to heaven anyway. *Rant Over*



God is a very jealous God, yes He is! He is righteous in his judgement and can do whatever He pleases whenever He pleases. As for women and inequality - God does not view women as inferior. No, both man and woman are created equal in His image. Does that mean they should have the same roles in the family and the church? That’s a different question, and God set specific standards for that. As for minorities: Christ came for people of all tribes and peoples, and all diversities of people will be glorified (go to heaven). We should therefore welcome ethnical diversity with open arms in the church.

As for people facing contempt. Nobody should be bullied. Nobody should be harassed. But all should hear the glorious news of the Gospel, and yes, be called to repent. Jesus says you must be born again. That’s true, because we are dead in our sin before being born again.

It isn’t that “Christianity/Calvinism” is the only way, it’s *Christ* is the only way!

I can not force you to believe, only God can change the heart of stone into flesh as Ezekiel put it.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 29, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> I appreciate and respect your willingness to stand up to what I said with a direct measured reply.  Thanks for the discussion, hopefully we can all coexist even where our doctrines and morality are calibrated along different principles. Hopefully we all agree that humanist and Enlightenment Age morality is virtuous and we must be excellent stewards of Earth and each other, better than we have been.



The Enlightenment is only good for its improvements in science and medicine. It’s anthropocentric worldview and rejection of special revelation I utterly oppose.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Oct 29, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> The Enlightenment is only good for its improvements in science and medicine. It’s anthropocentric worldview and rejection of special revelation I utterly oppose.


I understand your preference. I'll mention that there are other approaches well worthy of consideration and respect.

How about : Transcendentalism - Wikipedia


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 29, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> I understand your preference. I'll mention that there are other approaches well worthy of consideration and respect.
> 
> How about : Transcendentalism - Wikipedia



That sounds very interesting, but I prefer this: 
https://www.theopedia.com/regeneration


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Oct 29, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> That sounds very interesting, but I prefer this:
> https://www.theopedia.com/regeneration


I feel as though that sort of 'regeneration' is the selfsame thing as 'recreation' done right. You know, when you tear down your mind and build it anew, live the change. From my view, that definitely seems like a universal human thing. Cultivating one's own life, perhaps with the aid of the holy spirit if you like such parlance. It feels like there's a lot of different ways to get here and different, sometimes even secular, descriptions of this process.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 29, 2017)

So brief synopsis:

*Man writes the Bible. 
*Jesus said all these things. 
*No, not that, I don't believe the first 30 iterations of the Bible. Bad translation. 
*No, the first version is also a lie.  
*You're interpreting the current version wrong, because our interpretation is better. 
*I only believe the version that matters for my position.  Everyone else is damned. 








*Everything in the Bible is fact.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 29, 2017)

ChromaticRabbit said:


> I feel as though that sort of 'regeneration' is the selfsame thing as 'recreation' done right. You know, when you tear down your mind and build it anew, live the change. From my view, that definitely seems like a universal human thing. Cultivating one's own life, perhaps with the aid of the holy spirit if you like such parlance. It feels like there's a lot of different ways to get here and different, sometimes even secular, descriptions of this process.



I find your point of view far more intriguing than the common viewpoint I hear... I would like to discuss with you. I am big on philosophy and theology.
There are three major things I caught that make us different. You said that this recreation is a “universal human thing,” which can perhaps be “aided by the Holy Spirit,” and furthermore there are “many different ways to get here... even secular.”

Well, first off the bat: Christians believe in two recreation. One is physical - Christ’s second advent making all things new, and the other is spiritual - making the sinner a born again child of God. 

This I do not believe is a universal thing. This recreation is only given to those who the Father gave the Son before eternity past.

This recreation is not merely “aided” by the Holy Spirit but is alone the work of the Holy Spirit.

This recreation is only through Christ. As the Gospels say: “the way is narrow.”


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 29, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> So brief synopsis:
> 
> *Man writes the Bible.
> *Jesus said all these things.
> ...



That’s why studying the original languages and doing intense study of hermeneutics (methods of interpretation) is important. The translations are really not that different.

But there are parts in Scripture that are plain as daylight in all ages, such as Christ being the messiah, His death and resurrection, and the necessity of faith.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 29, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> That’s why studying the original languages and doing intense study of hermeneutics (methods of interpretation) is important.



You entirely missed the point of that post.  Let me clarify:

God is all knowing and all powerful. 

Can he make a rock, he cannot lift?  

Simple yes or no answer.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 29, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> You entirely missed the point of that post.  Let me clarify:
> 
> God is all knowing and all powerful.
> 
> ...



Problem is it isn’t a simple yes or no. It depends on how you define all powerful.
Is God capable of doing something He by nature cannot do (sin or creating something greater than Himself)? - the answer is no.
So then, what does all powerful mean? It means He brings to pass whatever He wills to do, and does so perfectly - nobody can stop His hand.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 29, 2017)

So in other words: all powerful in intent not in scope if you consider this case.


----------



## ChromaticRabbit (Oct 29, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> I find your point of view far more intriguing than the common viewpoint I hear... I would like to discuss with you. I am big on philosophy and theology.
> There are three major things I caught that make us different. You said that this recreation is a “universal human thing,” which can perhaps be “aided by the Holy Spirit,” and furthermore there are “many different ways to get here... even secular.”
> (...)
> This recreation is only through Christ. As the Gospels say: “the way is narrow.”


I've had an unusual path. Mennonite / CompSci & Liberal Arts / LGBTQI. Quite the buffet.

Is Christ best understood as the individual, or as their approach to spirituality?  What then of Christ-like attributes in other doctrines and faiths and creeds? Isn't Christ universal and a part of what all ascendant spiritual practice approaches? Didn't these things even predate Christ, but these teachings record one path to them? If so, then the folks who recorded this in the scriptures hardly walled it off from the rest of humanity, even if it was divine-inspired.

I suppose that I'm saying I am a skeptical that this 'brand' of faith holds the only key to heaven, in part because I've seen it elsewhere and don't believe those others are wrong to believe so just because they don't hold the ideas as instructed by the same religious doctrine as your culture.  I'm trying carefully to say that because we're all human, and we're equal creations of God as is said, we all contain the same divinity and it pulls us in the same direction when we listen and let it. It's possible for many different ideas to be 'right' and lead there, I think. I apprehend we may beg to differ on this point, but that's kind of the point. I want to show you the way you can find your own understanding reflected in others' differing practice. It's a slightly-subversive idea, I know, but other denominations have come to see it more in that light, and widen their tolerance to sit comfortably in a more pluralistic social-spiritual context, such as the United States or Europe.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 29, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> Problem is it isn’t a simple yes or no. It depends on how you define all powerful.
> Is God capable of doing something He by nature cannot do (sin or creating something greater than Himself)? - the answer is no.
> So then, what does all powerful mean? It means He brings to pass whatever He wills to do, and does so perfectly - nobody can stop His hand.



You just stepped on a three sided blade. 

One, you say you know his limitations. 

Two, he can't do whatever he wants. 

Three, he couldn't stop his own doing. 

Please continue, but do be direct.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 29, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> You just stepped on a three sided blade.
> 
> One, you say you know his limitations.
> 
> ...



1.) Scripture says He cannot lie, Scripture says He cannot tempt or do evil. If someone is all and can only do good, a 2nd grader could conclude this someone cannot do evil, right? I hope so. That’s my authority because I believe Scripture is God revelation to us about His character and plan.

2.) That was never the argument. He can and does do what He wants, everything that happens - even the evil actions of men - were decreed to happen by His own council and are all worked to His own glory and will. God does not want to sin.

3.) This argument holds no water for one very obvious reason. If God is doing something out of His own free and unchangeable will, it is superfluous to speculate “oh well, uh, could He stop His own doing?” Hello? He doesn’t want to stop His own doing!


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 29, 2017)

The perfect answer I was looking for.

"The Scripture says"

Didn't we just go over how the entire course of rewritings is entirely different interpretations?  How the "first" version isn't followed?  (Can't be misinterpreted if it was the first, seriously)

*Snazzy edit you added there.  Was killing innocent children of non believing parents in the Old Testament not considered evil?  Or is that a misinterpretation as well?*

You're still saying he has an incapability.

Rinse and repeat

*Either way, you have continued to divert from your original post topic in this thread.  You aren't asking for discussion on this topic whatsoever, and more or less sermonizing just like you had started.  You even made another account to bolster its continuance.  Is deception moral as well?


----------



## ACaracalFromWork (Oct 30, 2017)

Did someone say christianity and sin!?
I'll shed some light on this subject
if you really want to boil down in all this want to get in the real grit huh let's go!

What is sin?
_"Theology_ Deliberate disobedience to the known will of God."
As in breaking any of a God's rules sinning is seen as act of rebelling of God's laws.
you would rather steal bread than to put your faith in God and break his commands
even hating someone in your heart is a sin!
Sin is a stain on your white clothes that can not be bleached and that stain disgust God and you a seen as a enemy to him
only through Jesus blood the stain can be washed out
all sin leads to death.

1 John 5:17 NIV
All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

Is being furry a sin?
As I tell you this we would not need to be furries *in a sinless world* you would love each other in way that's unimaginable
this pure unconditional love this would mean I would lay down my life for each anyone one of you for I see you as my brother and sister
you are more worth than me than the stars and the earth and any value of gold for its just items and material you are God's wonderful creation and I love you
and you would even do the same for me. in this sinful world sadly not everyone willing to do this and including me I don't love others as I should and i'm sorry for that.
but being a furry is a way for us to connect to each other and having something common to relate to each other we share this connection and we bond with it.

Mark 12:30-31
30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’
[a] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”

What makes being furry a sin?
when you look at porn and sexuialize it simple as that as with any other fandoms.
you should only think of your spouse in a sexual way no one and nothing else period.
the purpose of being married is the right to do so.

Is being gay a sin?
I will not answer this because I do not have the knowledge or wisdom I will answer this
if you have sexual thoughts to anyone that's not your married partner it is a sin.
Hebrews 13:4 NIV
Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

Here is some info though if you want to know what the bible really says its a list of all the verses about what it says on this subject we are talking about
but do not lose heart!
watch what it says the person who put this together this also added not to judge others bible verses and what sin is
www.openbible.info: What Does the Bible Say About Being Gay?

James 4:11-12
11 Brothers and sisters, do not slander one another.
Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister[a] or judges them speaks against the law and judges it.
When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. 12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?
also read Romans 2:1-3

Why do you you share your christianity Caracal?
it is my job and Jesus commanded me too
if you say you are a christian *it is your job *to tell others about Jesus too
Mark 16:15
15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
their is a better bible verses but i'm struggling to find it....
Here take this example.
If you are an employee of a ship and someone ask who is your captain you say this man is my captain and I will honor him for I serve his ship.
Denying the captain is denying the ship, the captain will not keep you on his ship if you do not honor him.
So christianity is the ship and Jesus is the captain you must tell others who is the captain of your ship and do not hide him from the world
he needs your help to tell others about his name and to spread the gospel this is the purpose of christianity tell others about him and the gospel.
if you're a christian the most important thing is to speak his name and the next *show Jesus love through your eyes and through your actions*
and following his commandments that he had set on us
luckily with being Jesus being our captain he will not throw us out when we are unloyal because of his love for us is so great.
Why hide your God? if he says he loves you why would you hide him? AT LEAST TELL SOMEONE WHO IS YOUR CAPTAIN!?
but not not force your beliefs onto others but *show them your love that Jesus shown to you!*

And last if i'm a sinner how do I get into heaven?
If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved!
Jesus died on the cross to wipe out our sins so we will live forever in heaven.
it is a free invitation to heaven accepting Jesus is accepting the invitation to heaven.
even a sinner like me can go to heaven and be forgiven.

Original poster instead of making a post about sexuialty of others
make post showing what Jesus has done through your life and guide others to him.
keep in mind *christians are strangers here* you must show them that you can be welcomed here.
these are your friends and you should love them if you said this in other forums they would of already thrown you out and banned you.
So this means they have some form of respect and patience for you!

I want to know that you guys are really great and glad to be here
I hope you guys have a good day.

i'm so bad at editing on forums give me a second errrrrrrrrrr


----------



## GreenZone (Oct 30, 2017)

its current year scripture has been proven to be inaccurate its been changed so much do i even need to mention how christians tried to destroy the first airplane for fear of stumbling upon heaven or taking pot shots at the Hubble telescope out of fear that scientists would find god creating the universe

not to mention that the religious texts are not the only texts on Jesus any other real world documentation about Jesus be it government documents or authors of the time talking about meeting him all say he was a raving lunatic with a lot of charisma and an ability to manipulate the poor particularly the Roman versions of Arrest Records made him look like crazy dave from the trailer park why even put any effort into following it he even got a fine for saying people were "cured" and rather than stay in bed or follow medical practitioners advise they got up went about their lives and died days later

i'm sorry but archaeology and anthropology is a thing you have the bible saying one thing and everything else saying another thing one of these things is not like the other

what is the difference between Jesus and say a random cultist leader who has a bunch of people believe he's the reincarnation of Jesus?

if you actually research Jesus he was someone who converted to Christianity went into Jewish Forums and debated about god (something semi illegal at the time since Rome had all these religions and tried to keep the peace between them all) gained followers became Christianity's leader caused ruckus and was crucified

his whole birth and all that was made up after his death when writing the bible there's no real evidence of his life before he just showed up at the forums one day no records no citizenship registries nothing

he was never crucified for blasphemy or claiming to be the king of jews that wasn't an executable offence then its because he was disrespectful to other religions and desecrated their temples

the ancient world didn't have this idea of "my god is real yours is fake" and go to war over it rather different gods inhabited different regions if you were in rome you worshipped their gods if you went to Egypt you didn't have to worship their god but you paid them respect by offering tribute as thanks for allowing you into their domain 

it wasn't until Judaism, Christianity, and Islam that everyone went "no there's only one god and its mine i need to kill you now"


----------



## Telnac (Oct 30, 2017)

Ah, the “ Historical Jesus” argument. First, let’s deal with the archelogical record: the OT of the Bible may have existed in written form before the Exile of the Jews to Babylon (circa 587 BC) but no written accounts of the OT predates that. The OT as we know it today was written down during the exile, based on an oral retelling of these ancient stories.

As a result I view the OT writings of the earliest history of humanity and the Jewish people as more spiritual truths rather than having the dates & events lined up perfectly with archeology. 

As for the Historical Jesus argument, there is no factual basis for it. It arises from two assumptions: 1) Jesus was a real man who lived, preached & was crucified. 2) Jesus was but a man, so he never performed miracles and certainly didn’t rise from the dead. Given those two constraints, the Historical Jesus movement tries explain the rise of Christianity. 

Despite several scholars who support this view, there is no evidence to support this viewpoint. If you want to believe it on faith, fine. I’ll happily continue believing what I believe based on faith.


----------



## GreenZone (Oct 30, 2017)

Telnac said:


> Ah, the “ Historical Jesus” argument. First, let’s deal with the archelogical record: the OT of the Bible may have existed in written form before the Exile of the Jews to Babylon (circa 587 BC) but no written accounts of the OT predates that. The OT as we know it today was written down during the exile, based on an oral retelling of these ancient stories.
> 
> As a result I view the OT writings of the earliest history of humanity and the Jewish people as more spiritual truths rather than having the dates & events lined up perfectly with archeology.
> 
> ...




except its not assumptions historians painstakingly cross reference sources and throw out whats not deemed credible as the ancient world didn't have the same emphasis on credible sources as we do now the ancient world also had another fault and that is storing its written knowledge along with blue prints schematics and civil documents in central archive locations like Alexandria  you also seem to forget the Muslisms and Christians went out of their way to destroy these places not only destroying any narrative against their own but sending the world into a dark age

make no mistake Christianity did cause the dark ages out of their paranoia of science and progression

want to build steam engines or create flying machines? no lets just follow the rules of this one book and kill anyone who doesn't agree Islam wasn't even that backwards they continued scientific and medical advancement it wasn't until recently that Islam became radicalised and re interpenetrated their ancient scripture Salah Ad-Din if alive now would be rallying against Isis along with everyone else


----------



## Telnac (Oct 30, 2017)

GreenZone said:


> except its not assumptions historians painstakingly cross reference sources and throw out whats not deemed credible


Then cite for me actual historical sources that back up your claim. Not just the opinion of a talking head, actuak sources from the historical record dating back that period. 



GreenZone said:


> as the ancient world didn't have the same emphasis on credible sources as we do now the ancient world also had another fault and that is storing its written knowledge along with blue prints schematics and civil documents in central archive locations like Alexandria


You’re right, the ancient world was short-sighted by not building the Internet and instead relied in Libraries. Such a backward people!  We’d never stoop so low as to build libraries or universities where we pool or greatest knowledge & experts. [/sarcasm]


GreenZone said:


> you also seem to forget the Muslisms and Christians went out of their way to destroy these places not only destroying any narrative against their own but sending the world into a dark age
> 
> make no mistake Christianity did cause the dark ages out of their paranoia of science and progression


The Dark Ages were caused by the distruption of Rome’s vast trade network following the fall of Rome. Knowledge was lost because no one could afford to pay scribes to copy works before they rotted away. Alexandria 
was destroyed by an earthquake, nor marauding crusaders or Islamic fighters. The biggest offense to progress caused by the Church happened during the medieval era, not the Dark Ages. 



GreenZone said:


> want to build steam engines or create flying machines? no lets just follow the rules of this one book and kill anyone who doesn't agree


Actually, the Elightenment happened as direct result of the printing press, which was used to produce Bibles more than anything else. Many of the inventors and scientists of the 18th & 19th centuries were devout Christians and there are plenty of Christians today who are prominent scientists such as Francis Collins, who headed the Human Genome Project. 

I’ll let a Muslim respond to your assertions about Islam. Not being Muslim, I cannot speak credibly about their faith. I’ll certainly acknowledge Islsm’s contribution to science & mathematics, but your assertion that Christianity is antithetical to science is a gross oversimplification that ignores both many Christian thinkers over the centuries and history itself. 

Lastly, what does any of this debate over the history of Christisnity have to do with sexuality or the furry dandom?


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 30, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> That’s why studying the original languages and doing intense study of hermeneutics (methods of interpretation) is important. The translations are really not that different.
> 
> But there are parts in Scripture that are plain as daylight in all ages, such as Christ being the messiah, His death and resurrection, and the necessity of faith.


Well, I do happen to speak Greek, (badly) I've lived on the border from Bulgaria and Greece at one point, and nothing is that different? The only difference is that Greek has many suffixes, prefixes and synonyms.  For example, you could say "Repent!" in english. In greek, there are many ways you can say this, such as "μετανοείτε" which means to repent and keep repenting. Or you could say μετανοώ, which just means to repent.

However, the meaning is still the same. The translations do not lose any words. They just write it in an english way. I didn't study hebrew, so I can't say for the OT but I know that the NT has just as many contradictions, flaws, and overall same translation in greek and english.



Spoiler: From things Christians say to justify:



_"6) A good tactic is to make a vague reference to the original Greek and suggest that the problem vanishes once you read the ancient texts themselves. Hopefully, your reader will not read Greek and be unable to question this. If your reader actually understands Greek this tactic is invariably counterproductive but don't worry, this is almost never the case. Sample text: Scholars have pointed out that the Greek can also be interpreted to mean "this census happened before the one when Quirinius was governor". A careful reading of the Greek, therefore, solves the problem."_



Also, why did you say this for?


Felix Bernard said:


> No matter what you say and suggest, the Triune God of Scripture lives and is the only being worthy of my praise and worship.


This comes across as "No matter what you say, even if it's a valid point, I'm not going to change or listen."


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 30, 2017)

betthethao said:


> Well... this escalated quickly.



Stop. With. The. Alts.


----------



## GreenZone (Oct 30, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> This comes across as "No matter what you say, even if it's a valid point, I'm not going to change or listen."



that's why i'm not going to reply further there's no point the guy said he believes in the earth is only 6000 years old thing you can't debate people like that


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 30, 2017)

GreenZone said:


> that's why i'm not going to reply further there's no point the guy said he believes in the 6000 years old you can't debate people like that


People like that shouldn't post long articles provoking debate if they are just going to shut themselves off.


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 30, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> People like that shouldn't post long articles provoking debate if they are just going to shut themselves off.


"Progressive" Liberals act a lot like religious Fundamentalists. They shut themselves off in their own little echo chamber most of the time, and only come out once the planets align to look outside their bubble.

Anything that doesn't fit their world view is pretty much ignored. If they were open for debate and discussion, they wouldn't repeat the same talking points.


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 30, 2017)

Yakamaru said:
			
		

> "Progressive" Liberals act a lot like religious Fundamentalists. They shut themselves off in their own little echo chamber most of the time, and only come out once the planets align to look outside their bubble.
> 
> Anything that doesn't fit their world view is pretty much ignored. If they were open for debate and discussion, they wouldn't repeat the same talking points.


Honestly, it's not just liberals, (what's wrong with that?) it's almost everyone. We tend to stick to our own belief and it is hard for us all at times to come out of our comfort zones.

Obviously, that doesn't excuse it, especially when you're trying to start a debate that you're shutting yourself off from.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Oct 30, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> Spoiler: From things Christians say to justify:
> 
> 
> 
> _"6) A good tactic is to make a vague reference to the original Greek and suggest that the problem vanishes once you read the ancient texts themselves. Hopefully, your reader will not read Greek and be unable to question this. If your reader actually understands Greek this tactic is invariably counterproductive but don't worry, this is almost never the case. Sample text: Scholars have pointed out that the Greek can also be interpreted to mean "this census happened before the one when Quirinius was governor". A careful reading of the Greek, therefore, solves the problem."_



Knowing the Greek by no means clarifies it entirely, and sometimes it muddies it up more. As my Biblical Hermeneutics professor said: “Having a little knowledge of Greek is more dangerous than having no knowledge of Greek.” This happens when you misuse the little knowledge you have.
But it is important, nevertheless, to learn the original languages. Much of the atheist straw men that say “the Bible is incoherent because all these translations - QED” can easily be refuted by knowing the translation process and seeing for yourself the different translations. Is all that meaning really lost?

Let me give an example:
*Insert Greek here*
Translation 1: “On the second day of the week Sally went to the fisher’s market.”
Translation 2: “On Monday Sally went to the market that sold fish.”

Oh no meaning is lost! Really? This is precisely how every translation works. The only major differences is in word choices - which, if you understand the original languages, aren’t all that far off. We can talk about textual variance in manuscripts, but that only accounts for a very very small minority of Scripture.


----------



## GreenZone (Oct 30, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> Much of the atheist straw men that say “the Bible is incoherent because all these translations - QED”



no atheists say "the bible is incoherent" because it depicts events that never happened like talking about camels before they were even domesticated and made up jewish kingdoms and kings 

also don't forget that Rome recorded everything if a bug farted they made a note of it also the impossibility of the flood or Noah being 400 years old 

the bible however has been shown to take actual natural events but blow them way out of proportion like the parting of the sea


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 30, 2017)

I was actually talking about how Christians justify contradictions in the bible by saying that it was an incorrect translation. This was why I was saying


Akartoshi said:


> However, the meaning is still the same. The translations do not lose any words. They just write it in an english way. I didn't study hebrew, so I can't say for the OT but I know that the NT has just as many contradictions, flaws, and overall same translation in greek and english.


Basically, what you said, 


Felix Bernard said:


> Oh no meaning is lost! Really? This is precisely how every translation works. The only major differences is in word choices - which, if you understand the original languages, aren’t all that far off. We can talk about textual variance in manuscripts, but that only accounts for a very very small minority of Scripture.


is also backing up what I was talking about, which I assumed you didn't intend lol.


----------



## GreenZone (Oct 30, 2017)

why are we even arguing about this point? there's so many historical bullshit its not funny there was no flood there were no camels at the time there were no Jews in Egypt the Pharaohs did not use slaves during that time period they were Farmers and Craftsmen earning money during the flood seasons

i swear if Jesus came back today he'd be like "i was trying to teach good morals to young children its all here in my fuckin sweet book of made up fairy tales staring my self insert OC" *holds up bible*


----------



## Saiko (Oct 30, 2017)

@-..Legacy..-

The problem with omnipotence and omniscience is less with the self-referencial paradoxes that come and go with definitions and more with the very reason Calvinism and predestination are such a big debate right now. See, if you have a god who is omnipotent, you have a god who can will you to do whatever “brings glory to him;” and you can’t stop it (sources: the ten plagues, Romans 9, and Felix). At the very least there are thus people who god has held responsible and punished for events they had no agency in - contradicting the notion of “responsibility.” When you throw omniscience into the mix, you then presumably have a god that knows who will ultimately be saved. This is either because of determinism or because he will “have mercy on whom he will have mercy” and via omnipotence make them saved. However now no one has agency in their own faith, so people are saved and damned arbitrarily. That is, they are rewarded and punished for something they had no control over and thus are not responsible for. Referring back to my post in the other thread, we now have a god that not only “expects me to hurt myself simply because he says so,” but very well might change my psyche so that I want to hurt myself and won’t realize I’m doing so. We also can’t excuse it with something like, “You sinned, and god’s hands are tied. This is what happens,” because that kind of reasoning dismisses the fact that he through omniscient omnipotence created the situation and is thus responsible for all consequences of the system. We’re left with a paradox where either we must either severely limit our definitions of omnipotence and omniscience, admit that this theology and this characterization of god are inconsistent, or be Calvinists and use Jesus-magic to deny that it’s a paradox at all.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 30, 2017)

Saiko said:


> @-..Legacy..-
> 
> The problem with omnipotence and omniscience is less with the self-referencial paradoxes that come and go with definitions and more with the very reason Calvinism and predestination are such a big debate right now. See, if you have a god who is omnipotent, you have a god who can will you to do whatever “brings glory to him;” and you can’t stop it (sources: the ten plagues, Romans 9, and Felix). At the very least there are thus people who god has held responsible and punished for events they had no agency in - contradicting the notion of “responsibility.” When you throw omniscience into the mix, you then presumably have a god that knows who will ultimately be saved. This is either because of determinism or because he will “have mercy on whom he will have mercy” and via omnipotence make them saved. However now no one has agency in their own faith, so people are saved and damned arbitrarily. That is, they are rewarded and punished for something they had no control over and thus are not responsible for. Referring back to my post in the other thread, we now have a god that not only “expects me to hurt myself simply because he says so,” but very well might change my psyche so that I want to hurt myself and won’t realize I’m doing so. We also can’t excuse it with something like, “You sinned, and god’s hands are tied. This is what happens,” because that kind of reasoning dismisses the fact that he through omniscient omnipotence created the situation and is thus responsible for all consequences of the system. We’re left with a paradox where either we must either severely limit our definitions of omnipotence and omniscience, admit that this theology and this characterization of god are inconsistent, or be Calvinists and use Jesus-magic to deny that it’s a paradox at all.



Bingo.  Smartest Trash Cat I know by far.


----------



## PaintedMica (Oct 30, 2017)

GreenZone said:


> why are we even arguing about this point? there's so many historical bullshit its not funny there was no flood there were no camels at the time there were no Jews in Egypt the Pharaohs did not use slaves during that time period they were Farmers and Craftsmen earning money during the flood seasons
> 
> i swear if Jesus came back today he'd be like "i was trying to teach good morals to young children its all here in my fuckin sweet book of made up fairy tales staring my self insert OC" *holds up bible*



Funnily enough, if the Jews had been in Egypt and left via mass exodus, Egypt's economy at the time would've crashed. Negative bank account = No more pyramids


----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 30, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> Honestly, it's not just liberals, (what's wrong with that?) it's almost everyone. We tend to stick to our own belief and it is hard for us all at times to come out of our comfort zones.
> 
> Obviously, that doesn't excuse it, especially when you're trying to start a debate that you're shutting yourself off from.


I said "Progressive" Liberals. As in, those who claim to be Progressive Liberals but are in fact Regressive Segregationists, wanting to separate blacks from whites, men from women, +++. Sorry, I am not interested in seeing the world revert back to the 50's, where segregation and discrimination were practically part of law. Sorry, I am not interested in seeing ANY group being discriminated against, and that includes white men. A lot of Progressive Liberals are drowning in identity politics, blaming anyone but themselves for the problems they themselves create with their delusions of discrimination.

Some Christians act the same way, except they blame Atheism for our "lack of morals" and "degrading family and social values". Sorry, Atheism pretty much only means "lack of belief in a god, gods, deity or deities". It has nothing to do with brainwashing and indoctrination let alone the political and religious landscape of countries. You don't have a monopoly on morals or ethics either, let alone ideas. There is no proof of any gods existing. When you say "God exist!" and we ask you to prove it, the answer "God exist outside of our ability to comprehend him" you're not giving an answer.

Suggestion: Debate a Socialist on economics. They retreat to their little hole faster than you can say "Economics". Or a Christian on the ethics and morals of their god's actions. Both isles are different, but similar in the manner of how they act to things they may not have the mental capacity to wrap their heads around.

If someone start a debate I expect them to at the very least have an understanding of someone's different viewpoint. Knowing and understanding where someone comes from is not the same as acknowledgement and/or agreement, so keep that in mind.



Felix Bernard said:


> Much of the atheist straw men that say “the Bible is incoherent because all these translations - QED”


And which strawmen are you talking about? Not everyone is as good as putting their arguments and criticism forward. If you want good arguments I'd recommend checking out Richard Dawkins.

However, if something can be understood in words, it can be translated. Doesn't matter how obscure it is or what language is used.
*
Corinthians 6:14:*
Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?
*Corinthians 15:33:*
Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.”
*Corinthians 7:13-14:*
If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
*Psalm 14:1:*
To the choirmaster. Of David. The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.

Calling non-believers bad company, unclean, corrupt, doing abominable deeds and are unlawful? The Bible is full of such nice verses on non-believers.

If this god figure of yours actually cared about his own legitimacy he would show himself to those who don't believe in his existence or even deny it. But he doesn't. He only "shows" himself to a select few of his most devout believers, and they are far and few in between. If he is all powerful, all understanding, all wise and all knowing he would understand the nature of free thought, being wise to not interfere with it, and have the knowledge and foresight to where free thought can and will lead to.

Jesus' messages were basically "Show respect for your fellow man", "Do not commit crimes" and "Love thine family". Pretty damn straightforward if you ask me. Jesus is a good role model. A decent amount of Christians however, are not. Our issues lie not with your role model, but his followers. A decent amount of them don't like Atheists based on their lack of beliefs alone. Some are outright hostile. I've seen kids getting kicked out of their homes by their parents because they either don't believe in their god or even questions the existence of any gods.

Now, here's the thing. Literally any idea can and will be criticized, picked apart and analyzed in the free market of ideas. Everything from Nazism to Confucianism to Buddhism. If you throw your idea(s) out there, expect people to agree with you, and expect people to disagree with you. Whether that criticism have any merit would depend on the fundamental basis for that criticism, if it have any ground to stand on or not, aka have any merit. Christianity will always be on the chopping block because it's an ideology that's rather mainstream, just like some of  the other religions.

Let me ask you this: If you had children and they all didn't believe in your god let alone were Christians later in life, what would you do?


----------



## Telnac (Oct 30, 2017)

GreenZone said:


> no atheists say "the bible is incoherent" because it depicts events that never happened like talking about camels before they were even domesticated and made up jewish kingdoms and kings
> 
> also don't forget that Rome recorded everything if a bug farted they made a note of it also the impossibility of the flood or Noah being 400 years old
> 
> the bible however has been shown to take actual natural events but blow them way out of proportion like the parting of the sea


Aside from Rome (which is an odd reference in relation to Noah) everything you mentioned predates the Babylonian Exile and can be explained by the fact that the exiled Jews took an oral history & wrote it down for preservation. Does the presense or absence of camels in the story of Joseph rob it of any spiritual truths?  No. 

Secondly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There are enormous gaps in our knowledge of the ancient world. How do we know the Egyptians didn’t have slaves during the time of the Exodus?  Lack of evidence showing slavery?  The lack of slaves would be unusual, given how common slavery was in neighboring kingdoms at that time.  (Side note: the Bible never claimed that the Jews built the pyramids, only that they were slave builders using & making clay bricks, which is not what the Pyramids were built by.)

The ancient Egyptians are notorious for whitewashing their history, systematically removing all references to old pharohs who were out of favor. Why would they preserve the history of a group of slaves who betrayed them and humiliated their pharoh? Would they not destroy all evidence of them being there in the first place?

Now, back to Rome, they were good record-keepers but nothing like we are today and a vast majority of those records were lost when Rome fell and the Dark Ages began. (See my earlier post about that.) Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because earliest Roman records of Jesus don’t appear until decades after His crucifixion doesn’t mean He didn’t do and say exactly what is claimed in the Gospels.


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 30, 2017)

Telnac said:


> Aside from Rome (which is an odd reference in relation to Noah) everything you mentioned predates the Babylonian Exile and can be explained by the fact that the exiled Jews took an oral history & wrote it down for preservation. Does the presense or absence of camels in the story of Joseph rob it of any spiritual truths?  No.


Nope, but it shows that this super perfect book that is supposedly never flawed has flaws.


Telnac said:


> The ancient Egyptians are notorious for whitewashing their history, systematically removing all references to old pharohs who were out of favor. Why would they preserve the history of a group of slaves who betrayed them and humiliated their pharoh? Would they not destroy all evidence of them being there in the first place?


No, but ancient history would show what is not written. If something as big as that happened, such as water parting and the killing of armies, wouldn't we find some kind of evidence that it happened, like a sudden influx of fossils in water?


Telnac said:


> Just because earliest Roman records of Jesus don’t appear until decades after His crucifixion doesn’t mean He didn’t do and say exactly what is claimed in the Gospels.


There actually has been a debate on whether or not Jesus even existed. That would probably explain why such a big event was never recorded. Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ - RationalWiki



Telnac said:


> absence of evidence is not evidence of absence


And lack of knowledge is not proof of god, but a proof of lack of knowledge.
Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ - RationalWiki



Spoiler: Evidence creationist excuse:



The main issue is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" but (and this is the important part) the burden of saying something happened or existed should _always_ be on those who make the claim. David Kusche's criticism regarding the Bermuda Triangle is applicable regarding both the idea of "historical" (however you want to define that) Jesus and any of the Christ Myth theories:
_Say I claim that a parrot has been kidnapped to teach aliens human language and I challenge you to prove that is not true. You can even use Einstein's Theory of Relativity if you like. There is simply no way to prove such a claim untrue. The burden of proof should be on the people who make these statements, to show where they got their information from, to see if their conclusions and interpretations are valid, and if they have left anything out._


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 30, 2017)

Telnac said:


> I’ve posted my beliefs in response to the OP, not to debate my views but to share them. If someone wants to attack my beliefs in this area, I won’t respond because I would be responding out of emotion and not rationally. It pointless for me to debate this because this topic is too close to me


What happened to you not responding?


Telnac said:


> There’s nothing wrong with sharing your beliefs but not entering a debate over them. If someone else wants to debate my views they’re free to do so. I just won’t be joining the fray because emotionally charged responses aren’t helpful IMO.


Looks to me like you are entering a debate.

And you said you're not even interested in listening to the other side and won't be responding.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 30, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> I've seen kids getting kicked out of their homes by their parents because they either don't believe in their god or even questions the existence of any gods.
> 
> </snip>
> 
> Let me ask you this: If you had children and they all didn't believe in your god let alone were Christians later in life, what would you do?


You make some excellent point and I wish I had time to respond to them all but as a parent I had to respond to this. 

I’ve seen parents kick kids of of their house for questioning the faith too and it’s 100% wrong. 

_Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever._
1 Timothy 5:8
 (Yes, it’s ironic that the Bible says parents who kick out children for being unbelievers are worse than unbelievers.)

I’ve made it 100% clear to my son that he will decide what to believe and that I will love him regardless of what he chose. Thus far, he has chosen to believe but if that should change I’m not going to throw him out of the house. I’ll pray for him and do my best to be a positive example but I can’t force him to believe. Uktimately that is something he needs to decide for himself.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 30, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> What happened to you not responding?
> 
> Looks to me like you are entering a debate.
> 
> And you said you're not even interested in listening to the other side and won't be responding.


I’m not debating my sexuality or my views thereof; I entered this debeate because this thread seems to have moved on from that topic and is back to the old “does God exist” argument. That’s somehing I’m always happy to debate!

[Edit] You’re putting words in my mouth. I never said I’m not going to listen to the other side. I always try to listen when I have the time to do so. I only said I wouldn’t respond b/c the topic of sexuality & the faith is too close to me and that there is no point in responding when I am responding out if emotion & not with rational arguments.


----------



## sharprealmcomics (Oct 30, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> With all due respect, is this a request to get people to start reading the bible and going to church every Sunday?


i worship a squirrel im good lol


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 30, 2017)

sharprealmcomics said:


> i worship a squirrel im good lol


Hah, I worship a walnut. Beat that.


----------



## sharprealmcomics (Oct 30, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> Hah, I worship a walnut. Beat that.


Then my squirrel god well eat your god! XD 1000 foot Giant squirrel Battles a 1000 foot giant walnut XD


----------



## Telnac (Oct 30, 2017)

sharprealmcomics said:


> Then my squirrel god well eat your god! XD 1000 foot Giant squirrel Battles a 1000 foot giant walnut XD


I might just question my sanity if I witnessed such a battle.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 30, 2017)




----------



## Yakamaru (Oct 30, 2017)

Telnac said:


> You make some excellent point and I wish I had time to respond to them all but as a parent I had to respond to this.
> 
> I’ve seen parents kick kids of of their house for questioning the faith too and it’s 100% wrong.
> 
> ...


Yeah, man. It's insulting to see parents' ideologies get in the way of their love for their child. Like, really? You kick your kid out because he/she doesn't believe the same way you do? What the fuck is wrong with you?

You'd think a parent's love for their child was unyielding, consistent and unconditional. But it's none of those, unfortunately. Gay? Get kicked out. Don't believe the same way? Get kicked out. Parents want you to be gay, but you're not? Get kicked out. And yes, I've seen and heard such stories, in a lot of different ways. 

You prioritize your own ideology over the well-being, happiness and love of and for your child. Not every parent is a good one. Some are outright shitty as hell. But parents none the less. And I despise you and your very existence. Your child does not deserve any of that shit.


----------



## It'sBlitz (Oct 30, 2017)

After reading through this, I feel that the problem is that A) @Felix Bernard is riding too high up on his horse, and B) everyone else keeps trying to debate with him on the conversation on hand, whereas he has already made his stance quite clear, and subsequently has made himself out to sound like a hypocrite.


----------



## Saiko (Oct 30, 2017)

It'sBlitz said:


> B) everyone else keeps trying to debate with him on the conversation on hand, whereas he has already made his stance quite clear, and subsequently has made himself out to sound like a hypocrite.


I can’t help it. It’s so rare that I get to debate theology in an appropriate setting. ;-;


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 30, 2017)

It's quite a position to put yourself in.

Become something you can't accept (or it's some hidden recruitment tactic project for school), hide your life to the point you can't tell others around you by deceit (or deceive others with false narrative), then tell everyone else how wrong they are.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 30, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> Nope, but it shows that this super perfect book that is supposedly never flawed has flaws.


I never claimed it has no flaws. It is full of spiritual truths and I believe it was true as originally writtten from the best knowledge of those writing it. I believe it is God’s Word in that it was inspired by God and contains spiritual truths as revealed by God.

What it is not is a science book or a history book. It is a historical source, but like any ancient historical source it is subject to the perceptions and recollections of those writing it.




Akartoshi said:


> And lack of knowledge is not proof of god, but a proof of lack of knowledge.
> Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ - RationalWiki
> 
> 
> ...


Ah, the Burden of Proof fallacy. Burden of proof only applies when one is attempting to prove something to a skeptic.  My only assertion is about what I believe. I don’t care if you accept or reject my beliefs.  I am under no command by God to prove God’s existence to you or anyone else.  I will defend what I believe from attacks by skeptics but I am no obligation to prove what I believe is true.

You & others are claiming that key parts of the Bible are untrue on the basis that there is no evidence that it is true. You yourself stated it quite well - lack of evidence is only proof of a lack of knowledge. I never claimed that a lack if knowledge is proof of God or proof of anything else other than a gap in our knowledge.

My faith in God is based on what God has done in my life. That’s proof enough for me. It’s not my problem that it’s not proof enough for you.

[Edit] I forgot your point about the battles. Actually, evidence of battles is surprisingly hard to find. I recall that we recently just found the battle site of a key battle in the War of the Roses, and what was found was really badly degraded. That was a battle we had ample written and circumstantial evidence for that only happened a few hundred years ago. The Exodus happened more than 3,000 years ago and any evidence, if it still exists, is likely buried under hundreds of meters of sediment somewhere in the Red Sea (which is a huge area to search!)


----------



## Saiko (Oct 30, 2017)

Telnac said:


> I never claimed it has no flaws. It is full of spiritual truths and I believe it was true as originally writtten from the best knowledge of those writing it. I believe it is God’s Word in that it was inspired by God and contains spiritual truths as revealed by God.
> 
> What it is not is a science book or a history book. It is a historical source, but like any ancient historical source it is subject to the perceptions and recollections of those writing it.
> 
> ...


Yeeeaaaah, I was actually just talking about this to someone a moment ago. It’s certainly important for anthropologists and archaeologists to research some of this stuff, but the theist/atheist debate isn’t remarkably interesting or persuasive, at least not at our levels of expertise. Both sides too easily devolve into ad hoc reasoning, and everyone just yells, “but you can’t prove it!” at each other. It’s more fruitful to discuss the potential characteristics and morality of a god or to discuss morality without one.


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 30, 2017)

Telnac said:


> Ah, the Burden of Proof fallacy. Burden of proof only applies when one is attempting to prove something to a skeptic.  My only assertion is about what I believe. I don’t care if you accept or reject my beliefs.  I am under no command by God to prove God’s existence to you or anyone else.  I will defend what I believe from attacks by skeptics but I am no obligation to prove what I believe is true.


Basically, no matter what, even if one had solid proof and a logical explanation, you're going to hold on to illogical theories regardless.

That's fine. But I'm done here. No point talking to a brick wall. I'll sum up your points, but don't expect me to debate further.


Telnac said:


> You & others are claiming that key parts of the Bible are untrue on the basis that there is no evidence that it is true. You yourself stated it quite well - lack of evidence is only proof of a lack of knowledge. I never claimed that a lack if knowledge is proof of God or proof of anything else other than a gap in our knowledge.


No. I'm not claiming the bible is untrue because of what's not written in it. I'm claiming the bible is untrue because of what is written in it.

For example: There are so many contradictions in the bible. This has nothing to do with if ___ is true or not, but has to do with the bible not being correct, and flawed.

Also, what I meant, was that most Christians would see that we do not know about the history or meaning of ____, because we do not understand it. Therefore, they simply fill the blanks in with "God's work!" For example:

History of man... uncertain. That must mean god did it! Since we do not have a 100% understanding, reject whatever research has been done in place of god.
Universe is so huge and unfathomable... We'll never be able to understand it because God did it!
Gaps in history... God did it!

You see how Creationism rejects science in place of a theory with no evidence besides "we do not understand this, let's use god to fill in the blanks."? You probably don't. You don't even care. I don't know why I am wasting my time bothering to reply further. I was going to write more, but I'm just wasting my energy. Good day


----------



## quoting_mungo (Oct 30, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> Let me give an example:
> *Insert Greek here*
> Translation 1: “On the second day of the week Sally went to the fisher’s market.”
> Translation 2: “On Monday Sally went to the market that sold fish.”
> ...


As someone who has worked a fair bit as a translator, and has like a quarter of a Master's degree in the field (I had to drop out after about a semester of the Master's program due to health issues), your example is simplifying the issue to the point of being misleading. Words have literal meanings, overlap, and connotations, and they rarely line up neatly between languages. That's a major source of drift in meaning between translations, though not the only one.

Taking your example, what if Monday isn't the second day of the week in Greek culture (I don't know - I'm not Greek)? It's not in Swedish; we consider Monday the first day of the week, so if the word used in the original text means "second day" rather than being the name for the second day, you're already looking at potential for confusion.

There is also a difference in how "the fish market" and "the market that sells fish" can be read. The former suggests it's a market exclusively or nearly so for selling fish and maybe other seafood, while the latter could feasibly be suggesting that the area has multiple multipurpose markets, but only one of those has fishmongers. In order to pick the most accurate translation, you would have to have enough knowledge both regarding the source language's sentence structure and the actual circumstances around Sally's trip to the market (such as the nature of the physical market she went to, something the isolated sentence might not conclusively indicate) to determine which reading is closest to what the writer intended to communicate. And so on.

A translation will practically never cover all the little nuances of the original, and suggesting that translations don't generally change the meaning of a text is doing yourself, as the consumer of that text, a disservice. Because of this, looking at old texts from a linguistic/anthropological perspective (the cultural context and meaning of words also shifts over time, so by necessity you end up with something that isn't "pure" linguistics) is both interesting and important if you want to broaden your understanding of not just what the text _says_ but what it _means_.


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 30, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> As someone who has worked a fair bit as a translator, and has like a quarter of a Master's degree in the field (I had to drop out after about a semester of the Master's program due to health issues), your example is simplifying the issue to the point of being misleading. Words have literal meanings, overlap, and connotations, and they rarely line up neatly between languages. That's a major source of drift in meaning between translations, though not the only one.
> 
> Taking your example, what if Monday isn't the second day of the week in Greek culture (I don't know - I'm not Greek)? It's not in Swedish; we consider Monday the first day of the week, so if the word used in the original text means "second day" rather than being the name for the second day, you're already looking at potential for confusion.
> 
> ...


Very well said.

You also have to combine the fact that the bible has been translated by so many languages, from hebrew? - greek - latin - old english - modern english + any other variants I left out. With this amplification, it's no wonder there are  100+ versions in english.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 30, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> Basically, no matter what, even if one had solid proof and a logical explanation, you're going to hold on to illogical theories regardless.
> 
> That's fine. But I'm done here. No point talking to a brick wall. I'll sum up your points, but don't expect me to debate further.
> 
> ...


What you’re stating is the God of the Gaps argument, which not not what I’m asserting. That’s saying that Phenomenon X, which has no explanation (yet) in science must be explained by God. I’m of the belief that anything that can be tested by science will be ultimately explained by science. However, God cannot be tested by science therefore there is no way to prove or disprove His existence. Once everyone accepts that we can have more meangful discussions about the impact of religion in my personal life or in the history of the world or whatever.  You don’t have to believe in God to discuss the role faith has had for those who believe. 

I’m sad to see you exit this debate. I was looking forward with discussing these things with you further.


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 30, 2017)

Telnac said:


> I’m sad to see you exit this debate. I was looking forward with discussing these things with you further.


I also enjoy debating, even if I come across as blunt (My english is not the best and I don't like to sugarcoat my speech) but ultimately, I do not think that either side is really accomplishing what they want - if we are really accomplishing anything at all. For me, I am biased against religion because of what I've had to experience with it in my past (I grew up in Sharia Law Russia, parents kicked me out when I was 14 for my beliefs) and I very much dislike religion in general. It's hard for me to admit, (even if there might be some true parts,) parts of this and that in the bible.

At the same time, I'm sure it is the same for the reverse. I understand, from Felix's posts, that he feels like it's a minority, and that all of the responses might have made him/you all feel upset, or that this kind of thing is something you have such a strong opinion about that you won't change, so you don't.

And neither does my side.

So, ultimately, what do we accomplish in these debates? Absolutely nothing.

Actually, we do accomplish one thing.

We are dividing each other with all of these posts.

From the very first post that was made, it started to annoy some people. You can tell that people are getting heated up. If not, I assure you, some people were definitely upset with the posts taking place. It's starting to give a bad name to the opposing side. "Why are these Christians trying to ____" or "Why are these atheists so ____?" People are getting angry, impressions of others are being made, and ultimately, the debate that you are trying to spark has left many with negative impressions on each other or a community of people.

Now, I know that you do want us to listen, to consider Christianity, but the thing is, most of us have already heard about it all. I'm sure you already heard about arguments as to why creation is not real. The same goes here. We've all heard it all. We have all made our own decisions about Christianity, about Religion, about Sexuality. At the end of the day, I don't give two shits if you are gay. I don't care if you are Christian. I don't care if you are against the LGBT movement. I don't care if you're a liberal, a conservative, a whatever. I only care that this is a website where we all get to have fun playing silly little forum games about how the person above you went to the vet.

This is not the site to go for to try and get others to debate your political views. Be it LGBT, anti this, pro whatever, it's not the place. Sure, we occasionally have discussions like "Your opinion on anything," but those topics are not such an important role in life as religion is. And like I said before, what you are accomplishing by discussing this is nothing but more harm. You're also not going to change anyone's views, as, like I said before, we've all heard it. Nobody is going to suddenly become a christian because some guy online is preaching. No christian is going to become an atheist because one guy on FurAffinity explained how Evolution is true. You may influence someone slightly, but you aren't going to change anything.

TL;DR, this is not the website for political / religious / etc debates, this is a site to have fun. All of the recent posts have changed the forum atmosphere greatly, which is sad, because this is just a site where furries can gather and do stupid shit.

[edit: Fixed my bad grammar. One of the other problems I have in these debates is having to get out my translator to figure out what some people are saying xD excuse my english]


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 30, 2017)

Last paragraph X1000000


----------



## GreenZone (Oct 30, 2017)

Telnac said:


> Aside from Rome (which is an odd reference in relation to Noah) everything you mentioned predates the Babylonian Exile and can be explained by the fact that the exiled Jews took an oral history & wrote it down for preservation. Does the presense or absence of camels in the story of Joseph rob it of any spiritual truths?  No.
> 
> Secondly, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There are enormous gaps in our knowledge of the ancient world. How do we know the Egyptians didn’t have slaves during the time of the Exodus?  Lack of evidence showing slavery?  The lack of slaves would be unusual, given how common slavery was in neighboring kingdoms at that time.  (Side note: the Bible never claimed that the Jews built the pyramids, only that they were slave builders using & making clay bricks, which is not what the Pyramids were built by.)
> 
> ...




no Egypt is not notorious for white washing even during Exodus Egypt was Greek controlled not Nubian controlled

i highly recommend you watch Agora





Christianity at the time is like extremist Islam now it was very hate filled fundamental and had no respect for other religions if you didn't believe in the Christ God they make up bullshit about your religion until the cows came home trying to paint you as rapists and baby murders zoophilics paedophiles etc etc

if you were not Christian you had no morals


----------



## GreenZone (Oct 30, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> As someone who has worked a fair bit as a translator, and has like a quarter of a Master's degree in the field (I had to drop out after about a semester of the Master's program due to health issues), your example is simplifying the issue to the point of being misleading. Words have literal meanings, overlap, and connotations, and they rarely line up neatly between languages. That's a major source of drift in meaning between translations, though not the only one.




i agree take Japanese for example

the word we translate for Husband actually more accurately translates to "property owner" and wife more closely to "Slave" however we obviously don't translate this as most would find it offensive and and in the context of the word we can replace it with "Husband" and "Wife" however its not its true meaning and loses its cultural meaning

a lot of studying old texts or even other languages is to understand why they chose their wording do the Japanese consider their wives Slaves or is it simply because of cultural practices used from say the Nara Period and the word was just never changed and remained the same for centuries/millennia


----------



## Telnac (Oct 31, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> TL;DR, this is not the website for political / religious / etc debates, this is a site to have fun. All of the recent posts have changed the forum atmosphere greatly, which is sad, because this is just a site where furries can gather and do stupid shit.


You make a good point and in the interest of keeping the peace I too will exit the debate. 

My intention was never to offend but to make the point that there are Christians in the fandom and that one doesn’t need to abandon the faith just because you like anthropomorpic animals. A secondary goal was to find other Christians in the fandon & connect with them. And yes, to debate just for the fun of debate. But the fun of debate isn’t worth wrecking the light-hearted vibe of FAF. In the future I’ll simply respond to posts and if someone wants to debate my views, I’ll invite them to do so privately.


----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 31, 2017)

Telnac said:


> My intention was never to offend but to make the point that there are Christians in the fandom and that one doesn’t need to abandon the faith just because you like anthropomorpic animals. A secondary goal was to find other Christians in the fandon & connect with them


This is a very different goal from what the thread here and what Felix has been trying to accomplish. If you are looking to justify how Christians can be furries, that post has already been made before. As well as that, if you are looking for other christian furs, Felix also already posted that thread.
forums.furaffinity.net: Christ in the Fandom?

The intent of this thread was NOT to state that people do not need to abandon their faith to be a a furry. It was not to find other Christian furs. The intent of this thread was to provoke discussion and challenge other's views.

I appreciate you stopping your debate. I hope Felix can move on too.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 31, 2017)

Thanks for the link!  I never saw that thread


----------



## Simo (Oct 31, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> 1.) Scripture says He cannot lie, Scripture says He cannot tempt or do evil.



I read this one passage in the Bible I really liked, and it really rang true: "And The Lord said, all Foxes must love and obey the Skunk, for he shall show them the earthy delights he has made plentiful on their way to heaven. To know a skunk, is to knoweth heaven while still on earth. Love all skunks as ye would love thyself, and allow them to lead you to the light."


----------



## Sarachaga (Oct 31, 2017)

Simo said:


> I read this one passage in the Bible I really liked, and it really rang true: "And The Lord said, all Foxes must love and obey the Skunk, for he shall show them the earthy delights he has made plentiful on their way to heaven. To know a skunk, is to knoweth heaven while still on earth. Love all skunks as ye would love thyself, and allow them to lead you to the light."


Praise the Skunk!


----------



## Astus (Oct 31, 2017)




----------



## Akartoshi (Oct 31, 2017)

Simo said:


> I read this one passage in the Bible I really liked, and it really rang true: "And The Lord said, all Foxes must love and obey the Skunk, for he shall show them the earthy delights he has made plentiful on their way to heaven. To know a skunk, is to knoweth heaven while still on earth. Love all skunks as ye would love thyself, and allow them to lead you to the light."


Well guess what? That was in the old testament. The new one overrides it!

Animals 4: And ye who is a skunk shall serve the fox willingly; thy shall bring them cookies and all shall be merry; for whoever steppeth in the path of a fox shalt be joyous and wise.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Oct 31, 2017)




----------



## quoting_mungo (Nov 1, 2017)

If you guys want to post memes and make up fake scripture, please create a thread for it. This is not that thread.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 1, 2017)

GreenZone said:


> no Egypt is not notorious for white washing even during Exodus Egypt was Greek controlled not Nubian controlled
> 
> i highly recommend you watch Agora
> 
> ...


That’s an interesting way of confessing what they were really into.


----------



## Astus (Nov 1, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> If you guys want to post memes and make up fake scripture, please create a thread for it. This is not that thread.



Isn't all scripture in the first place made up/written by humans? I mean even if "God" told it to them in their sleep or through hallucinations (like what happened at the temple of delphi where they found that gas was leaking into the place which gave the fortune tellers there hallucinations which started wars and such) the post above is a satirical representation of how people essentially view the concept of the Divine only on faith, without even conceptualizing and intellectual argument on the subject rather just using their social location as a cognitive distortion, seeking to fulfill what they have been taught and not believing what may in fact actually be.

Which brings me onto my next point; blind faith is not the right way to practice your religion. If you're the person who was taught by mommy and daddy/your community about your ideas of God and you consider yourself a Christian or whatever, you are basically saying you're a follower of Jesus. And as I've learned from studying the life of Jesus for a while at my catholic school here's a few things you need to be doing as a Christian

1. You need to donate your time and resources to those less fortunate than yourself as Jesus did in his walk of life 

2. You need to stand up against all forms of social injustice and inequality. Jesus did so when a temple charged people to pray and those who were poor couldn't pray, so he went into the temple and flipped over their collection table and whipped people with a cat of nine tails.

3. You should follow all the sacraments as they are listed to a T, any less and you are not Christian. 

There are few more but I think you get the point. What displeased Mr the most about learning about Christianity is that most don't even care about doing all the things that the Bible says, rather they just pick and choose the things they like and ignore the rest. The way Jesus interacts with people is much like a mix between anarcho-communism and Pufendorf's ideas on social morality (he was a Christian too) in _On the Duty of Man and Citizen. _Which basically means if you're Christian you shouldn't be following the greedy ideals of capitalism rather the more socialist ideas presented by a communist society. 

As people have already said, the Bible is essentially a glorified story book that has been changed so many times it's basically a "how do we control the masses?" Sociology book. If you want to read a book that hasn't been changed, read the Koran as its against the law of God to change what's in the book, and from there take a good look at their culture. You'll be pretty surprised to know that most of the stuff they do is what the Christians did in the past and don't even get me started on the Crusades and the counter reformation, probably two of the biggest and longest terrorist actions to date. 

If you want to be secure in your faith I suggest reading this (even though Aquinas' arguments can be disproven pretty easily) www.ccel.org: Summa Theologica - Christian Classics Ethereal Library the summa theologica. It's a super long book which is basically a philosophical proof of God. Quite honestly I think if you really want to get a true philopshical idea of God I'd go with Aristotle's idea of the primary mover as its a big harder to disprove using standard logical arguments.


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 1, 2017)

Astusthefox said:


> Crusades


Just a side note: The First Crusade was a response to the Islamic Caliphate aggressively and violently expanding for 450 years before there were any reactions from Christians. They conquered Spain, the Middle-East, large portions of Northern Africa and a decent chunk of Asia. They were also moving on Europe.

Calling it a terrorist action is quite frankly, false.


----------



## Astus (Nov 1, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Just a side note: The First Crusade was a response to the Islamic Caliphate aggressively and violently expanding for 450 years before there were any reactions from Christians. They conquered Spain, the Middle-East, large portions of Northern Africa and a decent chunk of Asia. They were also moving on Europe.
> 
> Calling it a terrorist action is quite frankly, false.



I'm talking about when like the templars, under the name of the Christian god, raped and pillaged along the way to make money, not the actual response to the Islamic influence pushing up towards current day Europe


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 1, 2017)

Astusthefox said:


> I'm talking about when like the templars, under the name of the Christian god, raped and pillaged along the way to make money, not the actual response to the Islamic influence pushing up towards current day Europe


Some did, yes. Some did not. It was literally a form of warfare, and still is, though to a much much smaller degree. Two examples would be the Vikings and Genghis Khan(latter one was VERY brutal and barbaric). African "rebel groups" today as a more modern example. It's not something new, though just as despicable and disgusting.

Is it vile and disgusting by today's moral standards? Yes. Was it a terrorist action? No. If the answer to the latter question is yes, then you will have to apply it to literally anyone who did it: Vikings, Genghis Khan, Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese, Kurds, Turks, Britons, Irish, Scottish, French, +++. No one's hands are clean. No one. There have been so much bloodshed up over the years you'd think we've learned.


----------



## Astus (Nov 1, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Some did, yes. Some did not. It was literally a form of warfare, and still is, though to a much much smaller degree. Two examples would be the Vikings and Genghis Khan(latter one was VERY brutal and barbaric). African "rebel groups" today as a more modern example. It's not something new, though just as despicable and disgusting.
> 
> Is it vile and disgusting by today's moral standards? Yes. Was it a terrorist action? No. If the answer to the latter question is yes, then you will have to apply it to literally anyone who did it: Vikings, Genghis Khan, Koreans, Chinese, Vietnamese, Kurds, Turks, Britons, Irish, Scottish, French, +++. No one's hands are clean. No one. There have been so much bloodshed up over the years you'd think we've learned.




Terrorism is define by dictionary.com as "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." The Templars were allied with the Catholic Church and sought to free the holy land from the spread of Islam, as well as develop their own power as a political entity. Their actions against the random Jewish, Christian, and Islamic citizens is definitely an act of terrorism. 

I see now though after doing some more research into the subject it falls more of a grey area during the first parts of the crusades, but later when they are renounced as a Catholic entity they still went around pillaging which is more an act of terror than an act of 'just war'

You're absolutely right though, lots of other people have done it all throughout the centuries, I was just bringing up the Templars because this is a discussion about Christianity and such and not about how the Japanese did barbaric things to the Chinese before WWII in Nanjing or how Genghis Khan raped pretty much every woman he could, it's quite obvious and quite sad that human history is littered with 'immoral' conduct that has to affect so many innocent lives... but that is human nature sadly


----------



## Simo (Nov 1, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> If you guys want to post memes and make up fake scripture, please create a thread for it. This is not that thread.



Didn't mean to derail things, but I think the whole thread has veered away from the talk of 'furry sexuality' and Christianity, given so many threads on Christianity, as of late.

And thus, I'll start a new thread for 'alternate' Furry Scripture : )

forums.furaffinity.net: The "Furry Bible" Alt. Furry Scripture Thread

Again, I don't wanna derail this thread, and thus, have stared a new thread, for whatever merriment it may bring, and by no means to declaim the validity of one's faith.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Nov 5, 2017)

Simo said:


> Didn't mean to derail things, but I think the whole thread has veered away from the talk of 'furry sexuality' and Christianity, given so many threads on Christianity, as of late.
> 
> And thus, I'll start a new thread for 'alternate' Furry Scripture : )
> 
> ...



Well played. Well played. God have mercy.


----------



## Astus (Nov 6, 2017)

AugustusTheClydesdale said:


> Do you have any statistics that prove that there is a vast LBGT community in the fandom? Being a researcher, I never like it when someone makes unsubstantiated claims without evidence.



This is a link to research done on furries by social psychologists http://furscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Fur-Science-Final-pdf-for-Website_2017_10_18.pdf 

It's full of fun statistics on the furry Fandom not for any particular reason, but because you mentioned you are a researcher and I know when I was told about this by the people who made it, I nerded out. Also it could shed a lot of light on the subject being discussed


----------



## defunct (Nov 6, 2017)

I've found that as my life becomes harder and I becomee less happy my attschment to the fandom becomes stronger and my homosexual thoughts and tendencies become stronger and more prevalent. I gave up fighting it years ago. As wrong as it is, Imy connection with God alwsys seems to deteriorate at the same time. I don't know wha's cause and what's effect or if it's just a terrible positive feedback loop. On the other hand, as my life becomes better my love for God increases my homosecual tendsncies nearly vanish altogether and my attachment t9 the fandom dissapates. I think a big part of my fur affinity is that's it's something I take solace in when I feel I've strayed too far from God's light.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Nov 6, 2017)

And before somebody starts making accusations again, @AugustusTheClydesdale is not an alt.


----------



## Deleted member 112695 (Nov 6, 2017)

Astusthefox said:


> This is a link to research done on furries by social psychologists http://furscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Fur-Science-Final-pdf-for-Website_2017_10_18.pdf
> 
> It's full of fun statistics on the furry Fandom not for any particular reason, but because you mentioned you are a researcher and I know when I was told about this by the people who made it, I nerded out. Also it could shed a lot of light on the subject being discussed



I really don’t understand how anybody could deny the LGBT community is vast in number and large in ratio in the furry fandom. I also don’t understand how anybody could deny the sexual activity of the fandom. Those two things alone makes his whole argument fall apart.


----------



## Simo (Nov 6, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> Well played. Well played. God have mercy.



Let's just hope he has more mercy than the Skunk! : P

Though all in all, the Skunk (me!) would be much more merciful, generous, kind and not nearly as guilt-inducing and judgmental, compared to Biblical 'morality'.


----------



## Astus (Nov 6, 2017)

Felix Bernard said:


> I really don’t understand how anybody could deny the LGBT community is vast in number and large in ratio in the furry fandom. I also don’t understand how anybody could deny the sexual activity of the fandom. Those two things alone makes his whole argument fall apart.



I mean outside the fandom people have sex, else there wouldn’t be any humans left on Earth ;p there have been some quite large stereotypes about furries being sex crazed because of the media getting the interviews they want. If you look at the statistics I provided, i’ll Just share two photos on the subject



 



 

As you can see there is a wide divide in people in the fandom as opposed to how it is in everyday society, which gives the illusion there are more people who are exclusively homosexual for example. The reason that there are many more people from the LGBT community in the furry fandom is because of how accepting the fandom itself is, and it offers a sense of community from those who are shunned from their families and friends because of what attracts them; queue in the fetish stuff in the fandom. So yeah.... stuff


----------



## Simo (Nov 6, 2017)

Astusthefox said:


> View attachment 23178
> 
> View attachment 23177
> 
> ...queue in the fetish stuff in the fandom. So yeah.... stuff



Oooooh, yep, I love the fetish stuff. Well, some of it...or, so much as to say, quirky little bit of stuff I like : ) Odd, the Bible doesn't say much about sex, aside from being married, and gay=bad. Just think if they had furry porn, back then, what might be covered.

Oddly, I'm surprised 'drama' didn't rank higher.  : P I bet they were just afraid to admit it!


----------



## Akartoshi (Nov 6, 2017)

Astusthefox said:


> I mean outside the fandom people have sex, else there wouldn’t be any humans left on Earth ;p there have been some quite large stereotypes about furries being sex crazed because of the media getting the interviews they want. If you look at the statistics I provided, i’ll Just share two photos on the subject
> View attachment 23178
> 
> View attachment 23177
> ...


Wow, I'm surprised. I thought Gays were majority in this fandom.
Also, it's very hard to pinpoint sources because there are tons of different sources that all state different things.


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 6, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> Wow, I'm surprised. I thought Gays were majority in this fandom.
> Also, it's very hard to pinpoint sources because there are tons of different sources that all state different things.


15,000 surveyees aren't exactly a good representation of the fandom at large. At all. Even if you increased it to a million it'd still leave a lot of room for potential error. None of the data we have represent me nor my views, but it's the data we have so far on people in general in the fandom of the ones surveyed.

You can't pinpoint anything anywhere really and apply it to the fandom at large unless you've asked like 80-100%% of the fandom in total.


----------



## Astus (Nov 6, 2017)

Simo said:


> Oooooh, yep, I love the fetish stuff. Well, some of it...or, so much as to say, the stuff I like! : )
> 
> Oddly, I'm surprised 'drama' didn't rank higher.  : P I bet they were just afraid to admit it!



I mean I fall somewhere into that liking that sort of stuff too... doesn't everyone in some way? ;p
And I think that was only included, drama, because it was a stereotype of the Fandom and when people saw it they assumed that's what they meant... I don't think anyone purposely causes drama in the Fandom rather it just happens like in everyday life within a community because the Furry Fandom is just a big community



Akartoshi said:


> Wow, I'm surprised. I thought Gays were majority in this fandom.
> Also, it's very hard to pinpoint sources because there are tons of different sources that all state different things.



The source I provided was statistical data accumulated from these sources 



The work they did was peer reviewed so really the only thing you have to ask yourself is if people lied on the surveys and if so how many, etc... but with such a large number of participants in the survey it's had to say generally it isn't accurate


----------



## Simo (Nov 6, 2017)

Astusthefox said:


> I mean I fall somewhere into that liking that sort of stuff too... doesn't everyone in some way? ;p
> And I think that was only included, drama, because it was a stereotype of the Fandom and when people saw it they assumed that's what they meant... I don't think anyone purposely causes drama in the Fandom rather it just happens like in everyday life within a community because the Furry Fandom is just a big community
> 
> 
> ...



Huh, very curious! I was mostly joking about the drama aspect. : ) One thing that is odd; On one paw, it is a very big community; on the other paw, it can also seem rather insular, and small. After a while, it's amazing how many furs know furs that you know, especially after several years in the fandom: it almost seems like it becomes a smaller community, in some way, even as you meet more furs, and the numbers grow?


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 6, 2017)

Astusthefox said:


> I don't think anyone purposely causes drama in the Fandom rather it just happens like in everyday life within a community because the Furry Fandom is just a big community


Nope. The fandom is a fandom, nothing more. You wouldn't say the "Star Trek Community" would you? No, you'd say "Star Trek fandom". The Furry fandom is literally just like any other fandom and should be treated as such.
www.merriam-webster.com: Definition of FANDOM
www.merriam-webster.com: Definition of COMMUNITY

You can and will have communities inside the fandom, but the fandom itself will never be a community. FAF is a community. FA is a community. Ferzu is a community. Servers on Discord are communities.

We literally have nothing in common apart from liking anthros. That does not make us a community. That makes us liking that ONE thing in common: A fandom. We are neither unified, we don't have common interests/hobbies, we don't have common policies nor do we have a common ideology let alone outlook on life.

And the reason I take these surveys with a grain of salt, but they are pretty much the only statistics we have.


----------



## Astus (Nov 6, 2017)

Simo said:


> Huh, very curious! I was mostly joking about the drama aspect. : ) One thing that is odd; On one paw, it is a very big community; on the other paw, it can also seem rather insular, and small. After a while, it's amazing how many furs know furs that you know, especially after several years in the fandom: it almost seems like it becomes a smaller community, in some way, even as you meet more furs, and the numbers grow?



thats essentially what makes the drama aspect such a big factor for people, because the fandom is largely diverse and many people know other people, it essentially causes a divide within the fandom itself... here’s another table for your amusement. 



As you can see there are some clear things furries do and don’t like about subgroups in the fandom. Furries don’t actually have very good evaluations of those with fetishes in the fandom despite how many different groups of those there are... so you could be in the fandom for several years and get to know a lot of people you like as well as dislike, and from there you essentially create a subgroup of drama in the fandom.

Relating it back to the thread it seems that furries really don’t appreciate sexual fetishism all that much but not to the extent apparently that they dislike vampires, babyfurs, and the nazifurs




Yakamaru said:


> Nope. The fandom is a fandom, nothing more. You wouldn't say the "Star Trek Community" would you? No, you'd say "Star Trek fandom". The Furry fandom is literally just like any other fandom and should be treated as such.
> www.merriam-webster.com: Definition of FANDOM
> www.merriam-webster.com: Definition of COMMUNITY
> 
> ...



I’m basically saying that people who have similar views or values (cultural ideals) such as those in a fandom, will tend to have stronger social connections and therefore generate more of a closed social group. Lets put it this way, if you’ve got two furries with shirts that say “im a furry” in a room full of random people, they’re more likely to gravitate towards eachother and hold similar values, much like individuals from a community in rural Idaho are likely to gravitate towards eachother in the same respect; because it is expected that they share similar cultural values. 

you’re right in the respect that the term, community, in conventional sociological ideology is widely contested between being part of a geographical area or sharing similar values of culutre. In the past people of similar culture would be confined to one specific area geographically, but with the internet those rules change since people can share values across oceans. Its not the easiest thing to describe, but personally I feel that based on current data and interpretation of the word, a community describes more of a group that describes people who identify with a specific trait.... much like the gay community, or the Christian community would be concerned. 

also yeah you do absolutely have to take them with a grain of salt because people lie all the time. Usually with an N value of greater than 5... ummmm >.> i think last i checked was 532.... that tends to be a pretty accurate representation of the general consensus... and the N value for the above studies was about 10k-ish by looking at where they got the data from, also putting into consideration that some may have taken the same tests twice


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 6, 2017)

Astusthefox said:


> thats essentially what makes the drama aspect such a big factor for people, because the fandom is largely diverse and many people know other people, it essentially causes a divide within the fandom itself... here’s another table for your amusement. View attachment 23180
> 
> As you can see there are some clear things furries do and don’t like about subgroups in the fandom. Furries don’t actually have very good evaluations of those with fetishes in the fandom despite how many different groups of those there are... so you could be in the fandom for several years and get to know a lot of people you like as well as dislike, and from there you essentially create a subgroup of drama in the fandom.
> 
> Relating it back to the thread it seems that furries really don’t appreciate sexual fetishism all that much but not to the extent apparently that they dislike vampires, babyfurs, and the nazifurs


It's missing Communist Furs.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 6, 2017)

It's funny how they attempt to throw the "fetish" term in the fandom, when the vast majority of fetishes are from non-fur sources.


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 6, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> It's funny how they attempt to throw the "fetish" term in the fandom, when the vast majority of fetishes are from non-fur sources.


Lol, no shit. 

Aaaand then you get shit like vore, gore, babyfurs, diaperfurs, scat, +++. Makes me wanna tear my eyes out.


----------



## Simo (Nov 6, 2017)

Huh, now I wonder if some people have a Jesus Fetish. (Sexually, I mean)


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 6, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Lol, no shit.
> 
> Aaaand then you get shit like vore, gore, babyfurs, diaperfurs, scat, +++. Makes me wanna tear my eyes out.



And do you think you can seriously say, those particular fetishes had roots in the fandom?  I wouldn't put any money on that bet.


----------



## Sagt (Nov 6, 2017)

Seems weird that furries supposedly hate vampires so much. It sounds like it could be a cool concept within the fandom actually, so long as the focus is on an ability to turn into a bat.

>.>


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 6, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> And do you think you can seriously say, those particular fetishes had roots in the fandom?  I wouldn't put any money on that bet.


Yes, I can say that.

A decent amount of people become way more sexually fetishized when they hit the fandom and go exploring. You don't have diaperfurs let alone babyfurs outside the fandom. Try finding some more mainstream vore/gore/rape/diaper/scat/+++ porn outside of the fandom. You'll have to look far and wide. In the Furry fandom? Can easily see it on the first fucking page when browsing. And I sit on the net A LOT. I swear to you, this fandom is one of the most sexually deviant in existence. Which is why I stay away from 95% of the shit I see. Got a decent amount of tags I've outright blocked because it's disgusting and/or just freakish.


----------



## Astus (Nov 6, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Yes, I can say that.
> 
> A decent amount of people become way more sexually fetishized when they hit the fandom and go exploring. You don't have diaperfurs let alone babyfurs outside the fandom. Try finding some more mainstream vore/gore/rape/diaper/scat/+++ porn outside of the fandom. You'll have to look far and wide. In the Furry fandom? Can easily see it on the first fucking page when browsing. And I sit on the net A LOT. I swear to you, this fandom is one of the most sexually deviant in existence. Which is why I stay away from 95% of the shit I see. Got a decent amount of tags I've outright blocked because it's disgusting and/or just freakish.



I can tell you from past research that diaperfurs and such... if you’re talking about people who are in the range of AB/DL (adult baby/diaper lover) does exist outside the fandom, in fact most of them aren’t part of the furry fandom because they find it disgusting in its own way. I don’t have statistics or knowledge of what people do outside of the fandom in terms of sex and such, but based off a gut feeling I would say that it’s probably relatively similar to whats in the fandom


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 6, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Yes, I can say that.
> 
> A decent amount of people become way more sexually fetishized when they hit the fandom and go exploring. You don't have diaperfurs let alone babyfurs outside the fandom. Try finding some more mainstream vore/gore/rape/diaper/scat/+++ porn outside of the fandom. You'll have to look far and wide. In the Furry fandom? Can easily see it on the first fucking page when browsing. And I sit on the net A LOT. I swear to you, this fandom is one of the most sexually deviant in existence. Which is why I stay away from 95% of the shit I see. Got a decent amount of tags I've outright blocked because it's disgusting and/or just freakish.



But people dipping below acceptable age limits in regards to sexual deviance started before the fandom existed, which is my point. Same with the diaper fetish stuff, which is much older than the fandom.  Scat? Also before Rape is a no-brainer.  

Vore I'll agree with, unless you consider cannibalism extended back through centuries of pre-existing.


----------



## Crimcyan (Nov 6, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Yes, I can say that.
> 
> A decent amount of people become way more sexually fetishized when they hit the fandom and go exploring. You don't have diaperfurs let alone babyfurs outside the fandom. Try finding some more mainstream vore/gore/rape/diaper/scat/+++ porn outside of the fandom. You'll have to look far and wide. In the Furry fandom? Can easily see it on the first fucking page when browsing. And I sit on the net A LOT. I swear to you, this fandom is one of the most sexually deviant in existence. Which is why I stay away from 95% of the shit I see. Got a decent amount of tags I've outright blocked because it's disgusting and/or just freakish.


You dont have to look that hard to find that stuff just look at most nintendo fanbases, pokemon and splatoon have all those things.


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 6, 2017)

Astusthefox said:


> I can tell you from past research that diaperfurs and such... if you’re talking about people who are in the range of AB/DL (adult baby/diaper lover) does exist outside the fandom, in fact most of them aren’t part of the furry fandom because they find it disgusting in its own way. I don’t have statistics or knowledge of what people do outside of the fandom in terms of sex and such, but based off a gut feeling I would say that it’s probably relatively similar to whats in the fandom


Yes, and the fandom tend to amplify it. The fetishes themselves didn't originate from inside the fandom. People inside the fandom tend to go exploring and end up finding their schtick which in turn at times make them a lot more open and vocal about it.

BabyFUR/DiaperFUR = Furry, hence the "fur" addition. You can't be a babyfur and exist outside of the Furry fandom, as the very term "babyfur" is a Furry-specific one. The original fetishes themselves however, exist outside the fandom, that is true.



-..Legacy..- said:


> But people dipping below acceptable age limits in regards to sexual deviance started before the fandom existed, which is my point. Same with the diaper fetish stuff, which is much older than the fandom.  Scat? Also before Rape is a no-brainer.
> 
> Vore I'll agree with, unless you consider cannibalism extended back through centuries of pre-existing.


Of course. That's not what I am saying. The fetishes themselves existed outside the fandom and before the fandom even existed. What I am saying is that people inside the fandom tend to be more sexually fetishized as they go exploring and are way more open about it.

Vore doesn't necessarily mean cannibalism, though it have similar traits: Eating someone. In the former's case, eating someone whole. Cannibalism is more for food, while vore more of a fetish.



Crimcyan said:


> You dont have to look that hard to find that stuff just look at most nintendo fanbases, pokemon and splatoon have all those things.


Would depend on where you look and how you look, but yes. Will most likely stumble over some real nasty shit at times. 

The other fandoms aren't as vocal or open about their kinks/fetishes when compared to this one, though there will always be exceptions to the rule.


----------



## Akartoshi (Nov 6, 2017)

Mods, can you just lock this thread... It's off topic constantly and in fact, has accomplished more by being off topic than staying on topic and discussing religion / sexuality.


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 6, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Yes, and the fandom tend to amplify it. The fetishes themselves didn't originate from inside the fandom. People inside the fandom tend to go exploring and end up finding their schtick which in turn at times make them a lot more open and vocal about it.
> 
> BabyFUR/DiaperFUR = Furry, hence the "fur" addition. You can't be a babyfur and exist outside of the Furry fandom, as the very term "babyfur" is a Furry-specific one. The original fetishes themselves however, exist outside the fandom, that is true.
> 
> ...



The fandom gets away with it, because nobody (for the most part) can be affected by personal art.  But I will say, putting "Fur" in front of something else doesn't really make it any more unique than the RL human versions. 

It was the RL diapers that caused the issues at Rainfurrest, and I don't recall much fursuiting going on with those individuals.  They were humans doing human things.  

I do agree with the fandom allowing it to be a cringe more acceptable, but seriously it's still weird


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 6, 2017)

-..Legacy..- said:


> The fandom gets away with it, because nobody (for the most part) can be affected by personal art.  But I will say, putting "Fur" in front of something else doesn't really make it any more unique than the RL human versions.
> 
> It was the RL diapers that caused the issues at Rainfurrest, and I don't recall much fursuiting going on with those individuals.  They were humans doing human things.
> 
> I do agree with the fandom allowing it to be a cringe more acceptable, but seriously it's still weird


Nope, it's not unique. It does however tell whether or not you're a Furry and whether or not they have a connection.

Rainfurrest was a total shitshow, and a hilarious one at that. Question is, did they like diapers before they got into the fandom, or was the fandom a CAUSE of them liking diapers? I'm more interested in what the fandom causes rather than the origins of shit, as the causes are rather important. Even if they were only going around wearing diapers they are still Furries.


----------



## Astus (Nov 6, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Nope, it's not unique. It does however tell whether or not you're a Furry and whether or not they have a connection.
> 
> Rainfurrest was a total shitshow, and a hilarious one at that. Question is, did they like diapers before they got into the fandom, or was the fandom a CAUSE of them liking diapers? I'm more interested in what the fandom causes rather than the origins of shit, as the causes are rather important. Even if they were only going around wearing diapers they are still Furries.



phoenix.corvidae.org: Oh No! 'Rainfurrest' is Might Stop Being a Thing! 

reading on the subject from another forum


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 6, 2017)

Astusthefox said:


> phoenix.corvidae.org: Oh No! 'Rainfurrest' is Might Stop Being a Thing!
> 
> reading on the subject from another forum


Ah yes, Zaraphayx. I love that guy. Every post I've read from the guy is bloody HILARIOUS.

Rainfurrest was the biggest shitshow IMO so far. When you gather all the social rejects and socially inept in one place, Rainfurrest happens. Rainfurrest happens when you gather all the MORONS with ZERO social skills in one place.

And they are fucking over the rep of Furries. IMO this fandom needs a purge. A purge of all the social rejects and socially inept.


----------



## Astus (Nov 6, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Ah yes, Zaraphayx. I love that guy. Every post I've read from the guy is bloody HILARIOUS.
> 
> Rainfurrest was the biggest shitshow IMO so far. When you gather all the social rejects and socially inept in one place, Rainfurrest happens. Rainfurrest happens when you gather all the MORONS with ZERO social skills in one place.
> 
> And they are fucking over the rep of Furries. IMO this fandom needs a purge. A purge of all the social rejects and socially inept.



Yeah Rainfurrest was pretty bad, it wasn't the result of a large amount of idiots though, it rather was the result of a few people being complete assholes jerks and ruining it for the rest of the crowd. It reminds me of when there was this Christian guy in one of my RP chats who kept interjecting and saying that we couldn't talk about sex in any way shape or form because it make satan happy or some crap


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 6, 2017)

Astusthefox said:


> Yeah Rainfurrest was pretty bad, it wasn't the result of a large amount of idiots though, it rather was the result of a few people being complete assholes jerks and ruining it for the rest of the crowd. It reminds me of when there was this Christian guy in one of my RP chats who kept interjecting and saying that we couldn't talk about sex in any way shape or form because it make satan happy or some crap


Calling them jerks are offensive to jerks, mate. Call them what they factually are: Socially inept morons. Due to their complete social and mental ineptitude to understand social cues and/or completely lacking any form of common sense.

The minority tend to ruin it for the majority. Rainfurrest is one such instance.





Welcome to Rainfurrest.


----------



## Simo (Nov 6, 2017)

Astusthefox said:


> It reminds me of when there was this Christian guy in one of my RP chats who kept interjecting and saying that we couldn't talk about sex in any way shape or form because it make satan happy or some crap



Aw, but even Satan needs to be happy, sometimes!


----------



## Astus (Nov 6, 2017)

Yakamaru said:


> Calling them jerks are offensive to jerks, mate. Call them what they factually are: Socially inept morons. Due to their complete social and mental ineptitude to understand social cues and/or completely lacking any form of common sense.
> 
> The minority tend to ruin it for the majority. Rainfurrest is one such instance.



I was trying to be nice and not call them a bad name for the sake of calling them a bad name ;p but yeah, the majority does get their ass kicked by the minority when it comes to those things. Morons implies that they have a genetic deficiency though (thinking of eugenics terms), it'd be more appropriate to assume they learned their shitty behavior and assume they can get away with it




Simo said:


> Aw, but even Satan needs to be happy, sometimes!



That's up for debate ;p


----------



## Simo (Nov 6, 2017)

Astusthefox said:


> That's up for debate ;p



Huh!

Well, pleased to meet you...won't you guess my name?


----------



## ACaracalFromWork (Nov 6, 2017)

oh gosh what were you guys still doing in here.... beer bottles and strange stuff everywhere.


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 6, 2017)

Astusthefox said:


> I was trying to be nice and not call them a bad name for the sake of calling them a bad name ;p but yeah, the majority does get their ass kicked by the minority when it comes to those things. Morons implies that they have a genetic deficiency though (thinking of eugenics terms), it'd be more appropriate to assume they learned their shitty behavior and assume they can get away with it


www.merriam-webster.com: Definition of MORON

The former definition/term is outdated and pretty much no longer used. Moron = A very stupid individual.

They either learned their shitty behaviour from somewhere, or they didn't learn anything about social cues at all. My bet's on the latter.


----------



## quoting_mungo (Nov 6, 2017)

Things we are not going to be doing in this thread: 
* Calling particular kinks or subgroups gross/terrible/disgusting etc.
* Discussing furry cons' demises


----------



## Akartoshi (Nov 6, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> Things we are not going to be doing in this thread:
> * Calling particular kinks or subgroups gross/terrible/disgusting etc.
> * Discussing furry cons' demises


*actually discussing religion and trying to accomplish anything (as I explained already, the only thing we are accomplishing by staying on topic is getting upset at each other.)



Akartoshi said:


> I also enjoy debating, even if I come across as blunt (My english is not the best and I don't like to sugarcoat my speech) but ultimately, I do not think that either side is really accomplishing what they want - if we are really accomplishing anything at all. For me, I am biased against religion because of what I've had to experience with it in my past (I grew up in Sharia Law Russia, parents kicked me out when I was 14 for my beliefs) and I very much dislike religion in general. It's hard for me to admit, (even if there might be some true parts,) parts of this and that in the bible.
> 
> At the same time, I'm sure it is the same for the reverse. I understand, from Felix's posts, that he feels like it's a minority, and that all of the responses might have made him/you all feel upset, or that this kind of thing is something you have such a strong opinion about that you won't change, so you don't.
> 
> ...


----------



## quoting_mungo (Nov 7, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> *actually discussing religion and trying to accomplish anything (as I explained already, the only thing we are accomplishing by staying on topic is getting upset at each other.)


No, discussing religion is completely acceptable and on topic.


----------



## Lexiand (Nov 7, 2017)

Akartoshi said:


> *actually discussing religion and trying to accomplish anything (as I explained already, the only thing we are accomplishing by staying on topic is getting upset at each other.)



When I saw this thread's title I knew some people were going to get upset.
I was thinking that some people are going to be mature about it but I guess not.


----------



## Akartoshi (Nov 7, 2017)

SveltColt said:


> When I saw this thread's title I knew some people were going to get upset.
> I was thinking that some people are going to be mature about it but I guess not.


I'm not too sure if you are suggesting I'm being immature for saying that, or that other people on this thread are being immature. If you are suggesting I'm being immature, I'm just stating a fact which I already explained so many times. If you are saying other people are immature, I think that everyone here has discussed this topic without being immature, despite it being a sensitive issue.

Also, was it necessary for you to post that?


----------



## Simo (Nov 7, 2017)

quoting_mungo said:


> No, discussing religion is completely acceptable and on topic.



_Acceptable_ being the key word : P But it's long since drifted from being germane to its subject: The Furry Fandom/Chistianity/Sexuality.

And the OP has long since shown any real sign of being interested in it; so while it may be 'acceptable' it certainly seems to be a thread that has planted the seeds of acrimony, and blossomed into _Les Fleurs du mal_, metaphorically. But maybe that was the (unconscious?) intent of the thread, all along, on some level: one wonders.


----------



## Akartoshi (Nov 7, 2017)

Simo said:


> _Acceptable_ being the key word : P But it's long since drifted from being germane to its subject: The Furry Fandom/Chistianity/Sexuality.
> 
> And the OP has long since shown any real sign of being interested in it; so while it may be 'acceptable' it certainly seems to be a thread that has planted the seeds of acrimony, and blossomed into _Les Fleurs du mal_, metaphorically. But maybe that was the intent of the thread, all along, on some level: one wonders.


Thank you. That was what my point was, and what I had been trying to say for 4 posts.


----------



## Astus (Nov 7, 2017)

While not speaking directly about it, I mean in all ways the actions of people who have fetishes discusses sexuality in the Fandom... and religion was tosses into the fray a few times in an existential sense where one would argue based on the events seen in the fandom, do they really think that if furries were any sort of traditional Christians or any other sort of religion that these events would happen? Chances are that, no furries mainly seem to be focused in the liberal aspects of the religion as opposed to the core values that guide what it is that they're doing. If you don't embody the ideas of whatever doctrine you're following you don't really have a right to call yourself one of them, or at least not call yourself one in essence. Which is why there are so many fake Christians around who don't embody the full ideas of Christ shown in the bible, rather they pick and choose what they like as a means to an end.


But we've been through all of that already and this thread has run its course as its at the point where side ideas can easily become relevant. It is time to lock up the thread as Akartoshi said before and let another one bloom eventually as is bound to happen


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Nov 7, 2017)

Astusthefox said:


> While not speaking directly about it, I mean in all ways the actions of people who have fetishes discusses sexuality in the Fandom... and religion was tosses into the fray a few times in an existential sense where one would argue based on the events seen in the fandom, do they really think that if furries were any sort of traditional Christians or any other sort of religion that these events would happen? Chances are that, no furries mainly seem to be focused in the liberal aspects of the religion as opposed to the core values that guide what it is that they're doing. If you don't embody the ideas of whatever doctrine you're following you don't really have a right to call yourself one of them, or at least not call yourself one in essence. Which is why there are so many fake Christians around who don't embody the full ideas of Christ shown in the bible, rather they pick and choose what they like as a means to an end.
> 
> 
> But we've been through all of that already and this thread has run its course as its at the point where side ideas can easily become relevant. It is time to lock up the thread as Akartoshi said before and let another one bloom eventually as is bound to happen


Uh, isn't the bible supposed to be up for interpretation? I'm not a Christian myself, but I know that there's no right or wrong way. Anybody who says otherwise is close-minded or has a more nefarious intent with their rhetoric.


----------



## defunct (Nov 7, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> Uh, isn't the bible supposed to be up for interpretation? I'm not a Christian myself, but I know that there's no right or wrong way. Anybody who says otherwise is close-minded or has a more nefarious intent with their rhetoric.


The idea that it's up from interpretation comes from Christ's declaration that the "Greatest Commandment", to love your neighbor as you love yourself, is worlds more important than the other commandments. There are many right ways to be a Christian, but there is a wrong way, and that's to be cruel to others


----------



## Astus (Nov 7, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> Uh, isn't the bible supposed to be up for interpretation? I'm not a Christian myself, but I know that there's no right or wrong way. Anybody who says otherwise is close-minded or has a more nefarious intent with their rhetoric.



If you can interpret the word of God anyway you wanted to... I mean don't you see a flaw with that? If God is all powerful and all knowing like the bible claims, then why wouldn't the word be written in such a way that all can understand what it means? 



Nastala said:


> The idea that it's up from interpretation comes from Christ's declaration that the "Greatest Commandment", to love your neighbor as you love yourself, is worlds more important than the other commandments. There are many right ways to be a Christian, but there is a wrong way, and that's to be cruel to others



I know plenty of Christians who are cruel people in action but profess the word of the Lord over and over again till their face is blue. That's what I meant above by fake Christians... I mean if everyone embodied the ideas of Christ we'd be essentially living in a society where the fortunate give to the unfortunate and no person is above another, essentially a social and economic communism, the community preservation above self.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Nov 7, 2017)

Astusthefox said:


> If you can interpret the word of God anyway you wanted to... I mean don't you see a flaw with that? If God is all powerful and all knowing like the bible claims, then why wouldn't the word be written in such a way that all can understand what it means?
> 
> 
> 
> I know plenty of Christians who are cruel people in action but profess the word of the Lord over and over again till their face is blue. That's what I meant above by fake Christians... I mean if everyone embodied the ideas of Christ we'd be essentially living in a society where the fortunate give to the unfortunate and no person is above another, essentially a social and economic communism, the community preservation above self.


How do you know how the bible is supposed to be interpreted? How does anyone know how the bible is supposed to be interpreted?


----------



## -..Legacy..- (Nov 7, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> How do you know how the bible is supposed to be interpreted? How does anyone know how the bible is supposed to be interpreted?



Nobody does.  People only see what they want to see.  Confirmation Bias at its finest.


----------



## defunct (Nov 7, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> How do you know how the bible is supposed to be interpreted? How does anyone know how the bible is supposed to be interpreted?


The message is relatively clear if you read it...
At least I think so


----------



## Crimcyan (Nov 7, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> How do you know how the bible is supposed to be interpreted? How does anyone know how the bible is supposed to be interpreted?


I seen so many people take the same bible passage and they each said it means something different and argued it to each other. Thats when I realized trying to learn about a faith is almost a waste of time with all the mixed messages they give off.


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Nov 7, 2017)

Nastala said:


> The message is relatively clear if you read it...
> At least I think so


Well, I hope that you're not gay, eat shellfish or wear clothing with more than one thread in them. Because, if you interpret the bible literally, that's the rules you must follow.
Thing is, interpreting the bible literally doesn't allow for nuance. Why should you be forced to respect a parent who beats the living hell out of you? Should a homeless man choose to starve to death instead of foraging for food? And don't you dare seek a better life for yourself, because coveting is also forbidden.


----------



## Simo (Nov 7, 2017)

God must have no mercy...this thread marches on like a zombie!


----------



## defunct (Nov 7, 2017)

FluffyShutterbug said:


> Well, I hope that you're not gay, eat shellfish or wear clothing with more than one thread in them. Because, if you interpret the bible literally, that's the rules you must follow.


Those all apply to me .Those rules are all from the old testament and later revoked by Jesus himself, which many Christians like to conveniently ignore so they can bash gays. I wish that weren't the case, because it causes an exclusive attitude that makes gays feel they don't belong in Christianity, and I think that's just wrong.
(Also I promise I'll get to finishing that drawing for you I've just got a lot going on at the moment)


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Nov 7, 2017)

Nastala said:


> Those all apply to me .Those rules are all from the old testament and later revoked by Jesus himself, which many Christians like to conveniently ignore so they can bash gays. I wish that weren't the case, because it causes an exclusive attitude that makes gays feel they don't belong in Christianity, and I think that's just wrong.
> (Also I promise I'll get to finishing that drawing for you I've just got a lot going on at the moment)


The issue is, a lot of people seem to forget that only the new testament is actually canon. Whether it's ignorance or deliberate.
(And you were doing a drawing? I forgot. XD Heh, I always get confused whenever avatar icons are updated.)


----------



## Astus (Nov 7, 2017)

Nastala said:


> Those all apply to me .Those rules are all from the old testament and later revoked by Jesus himself, which many Christians like to conveniently ignore so they can bash gays. I wish that weren't the case, because it causes an exclusive attitude that makes gays feel they don't belong in Christianity, and I think that's just wrong.
> (Also I promise I'll get to finishing that drawing for you I've just got a lot going on at the moment)



That depends on what faith you follow 

And on that topic don't you think it's weird that Jesus said and did all this stuff, and was later found to be a heretic by the Jewish church and sentenced to death for claiming he is God in physical form... then, 60 years later, about two generations and still under harsh rule by the Romans, people start to write ahout Jesus and put words where people don't actually know if they were spoken or not... for all we know John and all the other gospel writers could've easily made up stuff about some crazy person who thought they were God.


----------



## Saiko (Nov 7, 2017)

Astusthefox said:


> If you can interpret the word of God anyway you wanted to... I mean don't you see a flaw with that? If God is all powerful and all knowing like the bible claims, then why wouldn't the word be written in such a way that all can understand what it means?


I don’t know why god wouldn’t, but he certainly didn’t. Otherwise we wouldn’t have denominations, Catholicism, Protestantism, and the like.

Few people claim that you can literally interpret it however you want, but it’s well-known that there are a fuck ton of ambiguities.


----------



## Simo (Nov 7, 2017)

Nastala said:


> Those all apply to me .Those rules are all from the old testament and later revoked by Jesus himself, which many Christians like to conveniently ignore so they can bash gays. I wish that weren't the case, because it causes an exclusive attitude that makes gays feel they don't belong in Christianity, and I think that's just wrong.
> (Also I promise I'll get to finishing that drawing for you I've just got a lot going on at the moment)



I'm curious here as to how explicitly Jesus revoked these. The OP claims Jesus specifically condemns homosexuality. 

In ways the Jesus parts of the bible seem almost tacked on...as if they added him in and he has nothing to do with the rest of the book but somehow got added in to soften it up.


----------



## defunct (Nov 7, 2017)

Astusthefox said:


> That depends on what faith you follow
> 
> And on that topic don't you think it's weird that Jesus said and did all this stuff, and was later found to be a heretic by the Jewish church and sentenced to death for claiming he is God in physical form... then, 60 years later, about two generations and still under harsh rule by the Romans, people start to write ahout Jesus and put words where people don't actually know if they were spoken or not... for all we know John and all the other gospel writers could've easily made up stuff about some crazy person who thought they were God.


I mean if a dude went around claiming to be the son of God and telling people they're allowed to eat shellfish and wear clothes with more than one thread and work on Sunday if they want to, all the while being proclaimed as king of Jews by his followers, I can imagine the... wait, Jewish Church? I think you might have something wrong...


----------



## defunct (Nov 7, 2017)

Simo said:


> In ways the Jesus parts of the bible seem almost tacked on...as if they added him in and he has nothing to do with the rest of the book but somehow got added in to soften it up.


It is completely tacked on lol


----------



## Telnac (Nov 7, 2017)

The way I understand it is that Leviticus is the book of religious law. It mostly contains instructions for worship, sacrafice and whatnot. I believe Jesus fulfilled most of this law by His sacrafice on the cross. Deuteronomy is the book of civil law. It mostly contains instructions for how Israel and its inhabitabts should behave. I believe many of these laws simply don’t apply to Gentiles.   Keep in mind that back then, the concept of separation of church & state wasn’t a thing so the line between religious & civil laws gets a bit blurry. 

So which of these laws still apply?  Jesus said (paraphrasing) to treat others as you’d have them treat you and to love God with all your mind, body and strength. As for the finer details, the early Church grappled with these issues and many of the Epistles were written to clarify things. That’s why they're important for Christians today. And yes, ppl disagree vehemently about these issues. However I don’t think it’s appropriate to say someone isn’t a true Christian if they disagree with you on these matters. I leave such judgment up to God.

Ok, we’ve beaten this dead horse again & again. Can we please just agree to disagree and let this thread die?


----------



## FluffyShutterbug (Nov 7, 2017)

Oy.....


Telnac said:


> The way I understand it is that Leviticus is the book of religious law. It mostly contains instructions for worship, sacrafice and whatnot. I believe Jesus fulfilled most of this law by His sacrafice on the cross. Deuteronomy is the book of civil law. It mostly contains instructions for how Israel and its inhabitabts should behave. I believe many of these laws simply don’t apply to Gentiles.   Keep in mind that back then, the concept of separation of church & state wasn’t a thing so the line between religious & civil laws gets a bit blurry.
> 
> So which of these laws still apply?  Jesus said (paraphrasing) to treat others as you’d have them treat you and to love God with all your mind, body and strength. As for the finer details, the early Church grappled with these issues and many of the Epistles were written to clarify things. That’s why they're important for Christians today. And yes, ppl disagree vehemently about these issues. However I don’t think it’s appropriate to say someone isn’t a true Christian if they disagree with you on these matters. I leave such judgment up to God.
> 
> Ok, we’ve beaten this dead horse again & again. Can we please just agree to disagree and let this thread die?


I agree. At this point, anything that could be said has already been said.


----------



## Astus (Nov 7, 2017)

Nastala said:


> I mean if a dude went around claiming to be the son of God and telling people they're allowed to eat shellfish and wear clothes with more than one thread and work on Sunday if they want to, all the while being proclaimed as king of Jews by his followers, I can imagine the... wait, Jewish Church? I think you might have something wrong...



That stuff was all Jewish ideology if I remember correctly, since it's all in the dead sea scrolls.... 

Yeah the ruling religious force at the time in the most powerful nation, Rome, was the Jews. If any one person wanted a martyr to go against the church who they thought was corrupt... I mean who better than the guy who got up and recited the old word of God in first person? 'I am here to cure the sick' as opposed to 'god will come to cure the sick'. I can't remember the passage but hell I mean if you wanted to write a story on how to be a martyr, that was Jesus


----------



## Yakamaru (Nov 7, 2017)

This thread needs some Deer Jesus love!


----------



## defunct (Nov 7, 2017)

Astusthefox said:


> That stuff was all Jewish ideology if I remember correctly, since it's all in the dead sea scrolls....
> 
> Yeah the ruling religious force at the time in the most powerful nation, Rome, was the Jews. If any one person wanted a martyr to go against the church who they thought was corrupt... I mean who better than the guy who got up and recited the old word of God in first person? 'I am here to cure the sick' as opposed to 'god will come to cure the sick'. I can't remember the passage but hell I mean if you wanted to write a story on how to be a martyr, that was Jesus


I don't think the Jewish faith had a governing body at the time, it was the Roman government itself responsible for Jesus's trial and crucifixion


----------



## defunct (Nov 7, 2017)

This thread also needs some Gun Jesus love
I want to see someone make a fursona for Ian McCollum


----------



## Astus (Nov 7, 2017)

Nastala said:


> I don't think the Jewish faith had a governing body at the time, it was the Roman government itself responsible for Jesus's trial and crucifixion



History of the Jews in the Roman Empire - Wikipedia

Because I'm too lazy to find an academic source.... 

The Jews themselves were the majority religion in the area, so obviously politics and such were based off of the Jewish faith, it didn't have to be that in name because when you have a primarily jewish group of people ruling.... I mean look at the US with Christianity


----------



## defunct (Nov 7, 2017)

Astusthefox said:


> History of the Jews in the Roman Empire - Wikipedia
> 
> Because I'm too lazy to find an academic source....
> 
> The Jews themselves were the majority religion in the area, so obviously politics and such were based off of the Jewish faith, it didn't have to be that in name because when you have a primarily jewish group of people ruling.... I mean look at the US with Christianity


oh I see what you mean


----------



## Telnac (Nov 7, 2017)

Let. This. Thread. Die!

The OP has been discussed to death.  If you want to discuss stuff other than the OP *please *do us all a favor and start a new thread.


----------



## ellaerna (Nov 7, 2017)

Astusthefox said:


> Yeah the ruling religious force at the time in the most powerful nation, Rome, was the Jews.


Yeah... no.
According to your own article from your latest post, Judaism was a "permitted religion" but it was hardly the ruling faith.
1) It's silly to say Jews were the primary ruling force. That would be Sol Invictus which was the pagan religion practiced by the emporer
2) Technically, yes, the Jews were a plurality in Judea, but it's inaccurate to say that they constituted the government as they had a provincial government with Herod as the king, and if the government had been as Jewish as you think it was, Herod would not have spent his entire reign trying to placate the populace irritated at his clear preference for Roman ideology.
3) Furthermore, by 70ce following a revolt, the provincial government was abolished and Judea was fully integrated into Rome. At no point is it accurate to say they were self governing during that time period and Rome was definitely not a Jewish nation, not even in a "unspoken rule" way like how the US is a Christian nation.

I have no issues with the points about Christianity and Christ you're making, but some of this does read about a hair's breadth away from "Christ Killer"  rhetoric. Just wanted to clear the history up.

(edited to fix an autocorrect error)


----------



## Astus (Nov 7, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> Yeah... no.
> According to your own article from your latest post, Judaism was a "permitted religion" but it was hardly the ruling faith.
> 1) It's silly to say Jews were the primary ruling force. That would be Sol Invictus which was the pagan religion practiced by the emporer
> 2) Technically, yes, the Jews were a plurality in Judea, but it's inaccurate to say that they constituted the government as they had a provincial government with Herod as the king, and if the government had been as Jewish as you think it was, Herod would not have spent his entire reign trying to placate the populace irritated at his clear preference for Roman ideology.
> ...



Okay one, I completely messed up what I meant... I meant the ruler of Rome basically allows the religion to be practiced as the areas dominant religion, it's quite obvious laws would be made in regard to the religion, especially if laws were made say to remove the religion because someone doesn't follow those ideals...

Second, yeah he would've spent his reign trying to get rid of them because like so many other times in history, religion controls the masses and since the kews the majority in those location, the king lost power to priests, which would lead into the third point, around 70 CE is when the first of the gospels was written, by persecuting the Romans for killing the son of God, it allowed the Jews in the area to push back and create a martyr for their cause, essentially creating Christianity in the process; the followers of Christ. Of course it's just speculation in my part, seeing as any intelligent person would cover up their tracks if doing such a thing so people don't realize their new belief system was made just to stage a Jewish revolt against the Roman people... later considering how Christianity became the prominent religion all throughout the Roman Empire later.... yah


----------



## ellaerna (Nov 8, 2017)

Astusthefox said:


> Okay one, I completely messed up what I meant... I meant the ruler of Rome basically allows the religion to be practiced as the areas dominant religion, it's quite obvious laws would be made in regard to the religion, especially if laws were made say to remove the religion because someone doesn't follow those ideals...
> 
> Second, yeah he would've spent his reign trying to get rid of them because like so many other times in history, religion controls the masses and since the kews the majority in those location, the king lost power to priests, which would lead into the third point, around 70 CE is when the first of the gospels was written, by persecuting the Romans for killing the son of God, it allowed the Jews in the area to push back and create a martyr for their cause, essentially creating Christianity in the process; the followers of Christ. Of course it's just speculation in my part, seeing as any intelligent person would cover up their tracks if doing such a thing so people don't realize their new belief system was made just to stage a Jewish revolt against the Roman people... later considering how Christianity became the prominent religion all throughout the Roman Empire later.... yah


Okay. Pause and let me make sure I understand all this. 
You think that instead of an actual religion started by a guy who may or may not have been crazy, Christianity was actually just a elaborately concealed Jewish conspiracy to start a revolt against the Romans? A revolt that had nothing to do with Christianity or Christ but was rather the culmination of rising tensions between Rome and the Jews? Did...did I read that correctly?

Not to mention that none of the revolts, of which there are many, had anything to do with Christ. Specifically the last and best known revolt, the Bar Kokhba revolt, in which Bar Kokhba was declared the messiah specifically to drive a wedge between Jews and Jewish Christians (as they were called at the time) since they were considered more dangerous to the Jewish faith than the Romans. 

Like...that's some bold speculation.


----------



## Astus (Nov 8, 2017)

ellaerna said:


> Okay. Pause and let me make sure I understand all this.
> You think that instead of an actual religion started by a guy who may or may not have been crazy, Christianity was actually just a elaborately concealed Jewish conspiracy to start a revolt against the Romans? A revolt that had nothing to do with Christianity or Christ but was rather the culmination of rising tensions between Rome and the Jews? Did...did I read that correctly?
> 
> Not to mention that none of the revolts, of which there are many, had anything to do with Christ. Specifically the last and best known revolt, the Bar Kokhba revolt, in which Bar Kokhba was declared the messiah specifically to drive a wedge between Jews and Jewish Christians (as they were called at the time) since they were considered more dangerous to the Jewish faith than the Romans.
> ...



Yeah, quite a conspiracy theory isn't it? People are posses off at the Roman government, they killed some guy, and slowly people plant the roots for a division in the religious system so that about 200 years later they eventually get a separation in the religion while at the same time painting the Romans as evil people as well as putting blame on the Jews for allowing such a thing to happen sealing people's commitment to the Christian faith.... 


As you can tell I'm having fun saying random crap because this thread is dead and I want random people who see this after the thread gets locked to have a yearning to post a reply, but not be able to because it was locked


----------



## Crimcyan (Nov 8, 2017)

Something has been bothering me for a bit, does anyone remember the whole world ending stuff in September? Alot of Christians said the world was supposed to end on sept 23 due to all of the event's that were happening like the solar eclipse, hurricanes. So beacuse they were wrong about the world ending doesn't that debunk some of the bible?
I tried to talk to a friend about all this at the time it was happening, but I ended up scaring them away from me, for a week they wouldn't talk to me.


----------



## ellaerna (Nov 8, 2017)

Astusthefox said:


> As you can tell I'm having fun saying random crap because this thread is dead and I want random people who see this after the thread gets locked to have a yearning to post a reply, but not be able to because it was locked


I have seen people on this forum legitimately believe weirder, so I actually didn't realize you were just shooting the shit. Nothing can be taken for granted any more in this God forsaken place.


----------



## Simo (Nov 8, 2017)

Skipping ahead to the modern era, here in the US: What's odd, is that it has been right leaning Christian groups who have out up the most resistance and spent the most money (untold millions), trying to stop gay marriage, or any sorts of other rights, and have done so for decades: in fact, they still have not given up. But as many huge, well funded Christian lobbying groups as there are, and mega-churches, and such, who allegedly have Jesus, places in the US with a high Jewish population have been more in support of gay rights. (NYC, Baltimore, &c.) It's weird, because even though you have the old testament and the Torah, I've never had Jewish people bashing me as evil, or trying to convert me; in fact, living a mostly Jewish neighborhood, I found most people very liberal and supportive, and that the conservative, Orthodox element just kinda kept to themselves, and didn't go about screeching and preaching about how bad gays are, and how they will ruin society, and such.

So even if one bases their faith on the old testament, the new one, both, or a pile of rocks, the results sure do seem to vary.


----------



## defunct (Nov 8, 2017)

Crimcyan said:


> Something has been bothering me for a bit, does anyone remember the whole world ending stuff in September? Alot of Christians said the world was supposed to end on sept 23 due to all of the event's that were happening like the solar eclipse, hurricanes. So beacuse they were wrong about the world ending doesn't that debunk some of the bible?
> I tried to talk to a friend about all this at the time it was happening, but I ended up scaring them away from me, for a week they wouldn't talk to me.


If a university publishes a single article about a scientific study they did that is later found to be untrue, does all of their past research become worthless? Trying to debunk your friends' religions, especially with unsound logic, is not a good way to keep your friends. Christianity is a religion rooted more deeply in ideology than it is in fact. Almost all of the parables in the Bible were made up simply to demonstrate how a person should behave, and trying to use objective facts to "debunk" a book written essentially to instruct people to be nice to each other is nonsense


----------



## Crimcyan (Nov 8, 2017)

I was going to say something as a reply but there is already way to much shit going on here. Its all just pages of useless arguing.
No one here is going to agree on anything so whats the point anymore


----------



## Akartoshi (Nov 8, 2017)

Crimcyan said:


> I was going to say something as a reply but there is already way to much shit going on here. Its all just pages of useless arguing.
> No one here is going to agree on anything so whats the point anymore


That has been my point lol... nothing is getting accomplished here.


----------

