or your moms vagina..

but even before that, before my mother her self was born, or her mother, God was already thinking of me, and you for that matter.....

..i spent like 5 minutes writing out a nasty cruel post saying how much bullshit god is and how religion fucked up the world, and how i hate the segragation it creats. but im just going to say "no, i draw good cause i inherited it from my dad" and leave it at that..its not you im mad at, and ill keep it that way..

I can understand how some can inherit artistic talent, and some just learn it out of nowhere....... but no one in my family draws, or sews, or sculpts, so for me atleast, it comes from God.

and after hearing your apology, I went to your account, seeing you for the nice person you truly are, and I saw your journal. you have nothing to fear from me, I'm a christian that believes everyone deserves love, forgiveness, and acceptance. I also looked at your gallery, and I like your art style, so would you mind if I watched you? I wanted to ask first just to make sure that there wouldn't be any hard feelings between us. ^^

yeah. you can watch me

im just sorry that this was how we met. i hope that isnt how you will remember me and my artworks
i dont want to be "that chick i ran into on FA that was a tottal bitch that one time but has nice art"

no no, it's fine ^^ you're a nice person who's just in a bit of pain, and reacted to it, I understand completely. I'm looking at this as a chance for a new start, maybe even later a friendship

and on the other hand I hope you don't remember me as "that delusional, overly friendly catholic girl"

I love seeing all this understanding and kindness on the Internets. It's so uncharacteristic of the fandom especially. There needs to be more of this.

Grüß Gott!

You're a pretty cool person. Consider yourself watched. :3

Ad majorem Dei gloriam inque hominum salutem

..i want to apologize for my post.

even this rewriten one wasnt right...i should have just said nothing at all
..im sorry

I accept your apology, and thank you for taking the time to even write it out. There are no ill feelings I promise you.

it seems a bit depressing that you can't just have you know. Gained it....the talent on your own? And your god wishes to see how you express and play out events?

Because if it knew what was going to happen already. What's the point of anything?

He gave me the gift of talent, though, I still have to practice to improve it.... Sort of like, giving a kid a tip when playing a video game (for this example, a code to make use of a rare item, or something).... It's a gift that few know about....but, if the kid doesn't do anything with the gift, then it's useless....

God gave me talent, and the gift of drawing, but I still had to make use of it through my own merit

In this comis I was just giving credit where I believe credit is due

But of course, you're intitled to your opinion, thank you for being civil about it though

it's still a depressing prospect I think all humans can gain any talent if they try hard enough

I don't see how you could find it depressing.... Since we can't know what talents God has in store for us, He could have a multitude of talents to give us, and we'd only know He gave them, if we tried... even if we're unaware of where the talent came from

But of course, we're all entitiled to our own beliefs and opinions. You can find this depressing, but I find it a relief to know that my God has a plan for me... It takes the pressure off (again, just my belief ^^)

Eh my perspective is if there is a god. Than they just let things play out. And it's up to everyone to make their dreams a reality...rather than already having preset destiny...which is dull if it's set in stone. Because there's no surprise for the creator. Rather just for the people living their lives

*nods contentedly* I can respect your view. I'm not sure how my God works his ways, but I'm content in not knowing... If someday He reveals it to me (whether unexpectedly, or by me seeking the answer) then that would be fine by me, but otherwise, I'll leave my life in His hands.

By the way, it's been nice talkingn with you, often when discussions of this sort happen over the web, it's not very pleasant. Usually I get insulted and (figuratively) yelled at... But I'm glad we've been able to talk calmly this whole time.

I'm a very calm person. However I am one who wants to know. To really understand...and know the world around me. Rather than just assume.

You should not be...content with not knowing. Ignorance is never a good thing dear.

I am currently studying astrophysics to help and chart out gravitational tugs over the next millions of years as well as learn more about "near by exoplanets" (exo planets orbit other stars other than our own) Within the 20-200 light year range (5.5trillion miles per light year ) ._. and well basically leave information behind for fellow humans in the future to make use of. And if things don't go well due to lack of budgets within Nasa I'll move on to biochem. And try to find a cure for something....I have always been one to help other's and would like to leave a impact on the world before I fall victim to old age or other reasons.

When I mentioned contentedness, I was talking about in finding my own talents, strengths and weaknesses.... It IS good to learn about the world while we're in it. But we each have our own ways to travel those paths.

I'm glad you have goals to benefit the world, and I wish you much luck in your efforts. ^^

Very cool prayer and one that most furries can adapt to suit there furry related questions to God.


Thanks for sharing this with the rest of us

This is a very nice little picture. :) It's cute, sweet and sincere. Very cool, indeed.

I like this. I thought for a long time about how far one could take this fandom and remain Catholic. I mean, apart from the hypersexual stuff that is so characteristic of it, how far could one go without any problems? But then I realized I was taking it all too seriously, and that it could really even add to my admiration of God and his creation. I'm proud of being human, and proud of being a furry. So, as with everything, moderation; and they can still work together.

I sense no conflict in being Catholic and furry. The local Catholic high school mascot is a cougar. Our books in grade school once featured stories with animal characters.
They say St. Francis preached to the animals when no one else would listen. St. William had a wolf working for him, St. Brigid tamed a fox for a Swedish king, and St. Patrick resurrected a horse. So I'm right at home.

Add to that, St. Francis befriended a wolf that had been terrorizing the people of Gubbio. And St. Anthony of Padua preached to the fish, and also held aloft the Eucharist which a donkey adored!

And of course three of the four evangelists are represented as beasts! The Lion for St. Mark, the Ox for St. Luke, and the eagle for St. John. God created animals and it is no surprise that they play a role in our imagery and understanding of the fabric of the cosmos in which we live, as well as our relationship to our Creator!

Dominus tecum

Legend has it that the wolf of St. William of Vercelli still roams the mountain where the stone was quarried for his monastery. The wolf seeks out those who are in dire need who invoke name of the Blessed Virgin.

I am not familiar with St. William of Vercelli or of his wolf. This is something about which I would like to learn more!

Dominus tecum

His stautue is displayed in The Vatican and features a wolf. The wolf devoured the donkey carrying the stone quarried for the monastery. Realizing he had interfered in God's work, the wolf bowed and accepted the donkey's burden. I think the story may be the basis for Hanna-Barbera's Loupy De Loop theatrical cartoon series produced concurrent with The Flintstones. Loupy was "The Big Good Wolf" who was usually abused by everyone he tried to help, but he never fought back though often much larger than his antagonists.

I'd never heard of Loupy, and I certainly hadn't heard of this wolf who God used to teach us all the proper virtue of humility! Thank you so much for sharing, what a delightful, and touching bit of light!

Dominus tecum

wait, how does one preach to fish?

St. Anthony of Padua stood on the wharves, the fish lined up in rows, their heads at the water's surface, and he preached to them of their duties and purpose. When he was finished, all the fish dispersed.

Dominus tecum

Personally I think it is rather pathetic to believe that you got your artistic talent from some sort of magical skybeing.
You got your skills yourself. On your own accord. You also inherited this talent in some way.
Either way, it is all you. And it is something to be proud about! Don't waste your time praying to a fairytale monster that, accoring to it's own book, killed thousands of people.
Praying doesn't do anything. Actually trying to be a better person is what helps humanity.

It is true that she wouldn't have the artistic skills she currently practices if she hadn't taken the time to develop the skill which she was given by God. But that does not change the origin of the skill, for all such things come from our Creator in Heaven. The good we do only has meaning when done in cooperation with His grace. This does happen even when we don't consciously realize it.

Since you are an atheist, I am curious why you believe helping humanity has any intrinsic value? What constitutes "being a better person"? What standard can you even discover that gives meaning to these statements?

Dominus tecum

The problem here is that I simply don't see any sort of evidence that this god exists to begin with. And to be honest, I do find it rather pathetic that you think that we can't do anything good without god, you are essentially saying that we are all worthless and that no human being has ever done something good on their own. That is an incredibly sad thought in my opinion.

Why do I believe that helping humanity has any sort of value? Because I think it is the right thing to do. Because I believe that if we all work together and actually try to understand each other we can actually achieve a peaceful unity of all human beings.
Being a better person... Having morals? Having a general understanding that causing harm to others will ultimately cause harm to yourself as well?
On the other hand, what do you think about these things? Do you really need an old book and a magical being in the sky to know that killing others and being a bad person isn't good? If that is true I am honestly quite scared of you.

Dominus est cum quemquam

You do not understand the issue I am trying to raise. I am making the point that as an atheist you cannot even define what "being a better person" is. You criticize others for being "evil" or whatnot without any way of saying what makes something evil other than that you do not like it. When you actually realize why morals require an agency that can enforce an "ought" instead of just there mere expression of human will ala Schopenhauer, you will realize that we can talk about good and evil and makes sense. When you talk about good and evil, we have no idea what you are talking about because you have no basis on which to say "X is good" and "Y is bad", etc...

Dominus tecum

And I have no idea what you are talking about when you are talking about your imaginary friend because you never bothered defining what it even is.
"Good" and "evil" are nothing but concepts made up by man. They are words, just like "god" is nothing but a word.
An evil person is someone who stands him/herself against humanity in some way. Being good as far as I'm concerned is about working together with humanity, united and peacefully.

The fact that you lack the natural empathy to know what 'being a good person' is without some sort of authoritative figure telling and watching you speaks volumes to how much of a nasty person ultimately are. Are you saying if you thought no one is watching you'd steal, cheat and lie?

Not even close. I merely point out that atheists have no reference point from which to even speak of right and wrong. Without a reference point, morality cannot help but be subjective, which means that one cannot speak of universal right and wrong. The theistic position however allows for an objective moral standard which is more what most people feel naturally.

Dominus tecum

First off, nothing like some sweeping statements and self-dictated social laws to try and back up your argument! Claiming what 'most people feel naturally'? What is that based off, exactly?

Atheists, or anybody for that matter, have empathy for a reference point when it comes to right and wrong. Meanwhile your 'mightier than thou' reference point, whether you like it or not, isn't even proven to exist.

Either way, let's not forget all the 'wonderful' things that have been done in the name of religion with it's stellar moral standard. An awful lot of murder, theft and 'sin' has been done in the name of gods. But what would I know about right and wrong eh? Must have been some universal good for all of that.

Empathy does not by itself provide an objective moral standard. Feelings do not consistently determine right or wrong. And if you demand proof of God's existence before you will give credence to our claims of an objective moral standard, then you need to provide to us the criterion that must be satisfied for you to believe that God's existence has been proven. I'm not going to bother with that discussion unless you can offer some level of evidence you would consider sufficient.

The fact that religious people have violated their stated objective moral standard in no way changes the fact that there is one. It just proves that even people who theoretically know said standard do not always follow it. But that is a non-sequitor since we already know that people do not follow civil laws either (ever broken the speed limit?).

Dominus tecum

It gives more of an objective moral standard than believing the words printed in a book. A book that was written by man and therefore based off the (what you seem to like to call inferior) 'natural objective moral standard' anyway.

Ignoring that for just one moment, if a religious man is free to ignore this apparent moral standard by committing morally reprehensible crimes (murder, rape, theft), what purpose does it serve? It doesn't prevent a bad person from doing bad things. It doesn't help a good person do good things. This makes heeding it a choice. And if it's a choice than how is it any more useful than any other source for deciding right and wrong? It's also strange that what's considered morally wrong in religion is also what the majority of people from any background consider morally wrong.

If it's freedom of choice to do good and bad, then how is it so unbelievable for a non religious man to do good? It could also be said that a religious man does good due to expecting some reward at the end of it all, or being fearful of divine punishment. Whilst an atheist can be said to fear punishment (albeit, on a much smaller scale of punishment), they do good because they want to. There is no divine carrot on a stick.

On the topic of evidence, there is none you can give, because there is no divine power. If there was any to give it would have already been presented and settled. Let's ignore that for now though. The burden of proof is not mine to bare. Asking me to provide a check-list so you can then tick it is not how it works. It's not something I'm claiming exists so why would I know how to prove it? What's the check list for me to prove my imaginary friend to you?


I feel like I also should just point out here, that I'm not doing this to be bitter or mean or anything like that. Text on the internet can sometimes come across in a much meaner tone than meant. A debate is always a good thing.

To demonstrate that empathy cannot provide an objective moral standard only requires examining several key issues of our day: Abortion, Homosexual Marriage, Drug Use, etc... I point these out not because we should debate these issues here, but to show that there is a great disparity in views to whether these things are morally right or not. Those who cannot point to a Divine Lawgiver as the source and authority for their moral standard cannot conclude that there is an objective morality; they can only conclude that morality is subjective and that what's okay for some is okay and what's not okay for some is not okay, etc...

You ask me what purpose it serves and then refer to the "divine carrot on a stick" which is a rather amusing turn. The purpose of morality is to show us how to act rightly and justly, that is, how to act with true sacrificial love, that is, how to act as God created us to be. I don't believe that God just put down a bunch of restrictive laws to amuse Himself. I believe that these moral laws, when we live by them, instill in us peace and true joy. Even non-Christians who live by high moral standards akin to the Christian standard have lives marked by the inner peace that eludes most modern men (Gandhi, Buddha, etc...)

You seem to think that Christians only do good deeds because of the fear of punishment or the hope of reward. There is certainly some of that. But many Christians do good because of love itself. They love God and wish to do His will out of pure love. And they do good to their fellow man because they love their neighbor as themselves. This is the greatest commandment, "Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, all thy soul, and all thy mind." And the second is like it: "Love thy neighbor as thyself." That is what Christianity teaches with those words printed in a book, and with the lives of thousands and thousands of saints throughout the centuries (and millions more who are saints but we just don't know it yet).

And on the topic of evidence, you just demonstrated that you will not believe no matter what evidence is provided to you. You do not realize that I asked the question in order for you to ask yourself what it would take for you to believe that God exists. All you reply with is, "He doesn't exist!" That is not examining the evidence. That is sticking your head in the dirt so you won't see anything. Seriously, if you are so confidant that God doesn't exist, why not ask yourself what it would take for you to believe that He does?

Because otherwise talking with you about God is no more efficacious than talking with a Solipsist about a reality outside his mind.

And I hope you appreciate that when it comes to debate, that you must on this place be open to considering that we Catholics may actually be right. If you aren't interested in considering what we have to say, then you shouldn't be posting here. If you aren't interested in considering what we have to say, then you are here to demean and belittle Catholics and what we believe. Debate where both sides just hurl rocks at each other isn't debate. And that kind of conversation does not last long on this group.

Dominus tecum

You're right in saying that what's okay for some people, isn't okay for others. But it's also true that what's okay for some religions, isn't okay for others. What puts your interpretation of god's law above other interpretations? And how do you decide which of his many, many laws to ignore? Something I assume you do. What about the other god's throughout time? How do you choose to ignore them and their morals? The Christian god's laws are not the only 'holy laws' that have been written.

You bring up a few things that are questionable when it comes to morals (Homosexual Marriage, Drug use, Abortion) and I find it quite strange how two of those three are only really disputed as being 'wrong' by the religious community, with nothing more than 'god said so' (more often than not, interpreting what god said in order to fit their -own self guided morals-). Drug use doesn't even really factor into being a moral issue. It's simply a lack of understanding of the effects of some drugs mixed in with a little 'a country doing heroin all day wouldn't get a lot done at all'. Moving on.

I would also like to highlight that Buddha did not need nor follow the ideas of any god. Yet in your own words he lived a full, happy, peaceful and good life. I would actually go as far to say the Buddhist philosophy on gods is spot on. http://www.buddhanet.net/ans73.htm
Before you reason that it's because his morals just so happened to fall in-line with Christian morals, I'd like to take a minute to go over a few things. Christianity covers a lot of different, conflicting religious sects. When the term 'Christian Morals' is said, it's a meaningless catch-all. Depending on the situation it's used in, parts are ignored and others highlighted in attempts to strong-arm a view-point.
The over-arching 'common' holy laws/morals/whatever you want to call it have also updated throughout the ages to fit with what the Everyman feels is right and wrong, possibly in attempts to cling to this argument. The holy moral 'standard' does not exist, it always fits with the modern day. The holy morals that you're in fact following to this day are now based off of civil-laws, empathy and general understanding of each other. No sane person would follow -The Bible- these days. By which I mean the unedited, non-family-friendly version. The Westboro Baptist Church (A low-blow, I know) could be said to follow Christian Morals (as they have interpreted them) to the literal letter. The very nature of a non-defined entity is that it can be bent and twisted to fit anything needed. It's meaningless.


I think you might have misunderstood what I meant about evidence. I'm not saying that I will refuse to believe 'no matter what'. I just know you can't convince me because there is no evidence to prove the existence of god. And I know there is no evidence because if there was it would already have been presented to not just me, but to the world and entire scientific community and that would be that. I also gave you your answer as to what it would take to convince me. It's the exact conditions to be met to prove my imaginary friend to you. How were you convinced?



Furthermore, no, I don't have to be open to anything you say. I'm not here to belittle or demean what anybody believes, anybody can believe what they like, you're just wrong about morals.

On the subject of morality I do not think you quite grasp what I have been trying to convey, or that you have grasped it but do not see the issue with it. I have stated that atheists cannot speak of an objective moral standard because they lack a reference point by which that standard can be defined. We Catholics do have such an objective moral standard that can be applied and understood for human action. Whether or not particular Catholics have obeyed this standard or not does not change the fact that we do have a standard. Whether other Christian denominations have or have not agreed with Catholics on what that standard is also does not matter for this discussion because this is the Catholic Furries group and as such I have neither need nor inclination to defend or argue their choices or how they justify their standard.

Since atheists lack a reference point which can determine an objective moral standard they can only conclude that morals are subjective based on personal preferences, which I believe you have agreed with by your line, "You're right in saying that what's okay for some people, isn't okay for others." My point on Abortion, Drug Use, and homosexuality was not to debate the rightness or wrongness of either, but to highlight the fact that these are issues on which there is a great deal of disagreement. You have proved that by stating the opposite position on each from the Catholic faith. That said, regarding your comment that only religious people oppose abortion I would like to point you to: http://www.l4l.org/ and http://www.godlessprolifers.org/ Further, your claim that we believe what we believe on those questions because "God said so" demonstrates that you have not bothered to inquire why we actually believe what we do on any of these subjects.

Your impression of changing moral standards of the Church is not historically accurate. The moral teachings of the Catholic Church have been consistent for the last two-thousand years. While some new issues have arisen in that time, the same principles to understand them have been employed time and time again. For instance, reading through the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Catechism of the Council of Trent one will find the same teachings in both with the exception of issues which were not known at the time of Trent but are known now.

Buddha sought Wisdom in order to obtain peace in his life. While obviously not agreeing on all points, there is much to be admired in authentic Buddhism and much that points toward the authentic Christian moral doctrine. I recommend reading some of G.K. Chesterton's essays on the subject to better appreciate this dynamic. The point of course being that non-Christians have shown that they can have peace in their lives when they live their lives in a way that parallels Christian virtue. If religion made no difference in people's moral thinking as you suggest then no one would bother to follow Buddha (or Jesus Christ or Mohammed for that matter) because everyone would be the same as Buddha (and so forth). But it's because Buddha is a moral philosopher whose beliefs are credited with helping people find inner peace that he's famously known. And the reason it actually does is because it addresses man as he is, a spiritual being. Buddha did not have all the truth, but what truth he did have is honored and shared by Christians. One need only look at the Jesuit missionaries in the Far East to see the truth of that.


Moving onto the subject of evidence I would like to pose a counter question first. Scientists have demonstrated to their satisfaction that the Universe is several billions years old. Yet there are millions around the world who still believe that the world is much, much younger than that. Does this mean that there is no evidence to prove the age of the Universe in the billions?

I believe there is plenty of evidence that the Universe is billions of years old. And I also believe that there is plenty of evidence for the existence of God. What you are missing from your argument is the human factor: we have the ability to accept or reject the evidence set before us. Generation after generation has been presented the evidence for God's existence and generation after generation has ignored it outright. Have you ever read a book arguing for the existence of God or one that demonstrates the reasonableness of belief in God? I suspect you have never done so. Why then do you say there is no evidence when you have never even bothered to honestly examine the evidence that is available? I recommend the following books as excellent places to go for good arguments in favor of Theism: "Reasons to Believe: Why Faith Makes Sense" by Richard Purtill, "New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy" by Robert J. Spitzer, and "Answering the New Atheism" by Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker. I also recommend "Heretics", "Orthodoxy", and "The Everlasting Man" by G.K. Chesterton whose wit and love of paradox never fail to illumine our mind's eye to the nature of the world.

Now let us turn to your 'condition for belief', that of proving that your imaginary friend is real. This 'condition' does not qualify as a serious attempt or even a condition at all. Unless you are talking about a friend only you can see ala "Drop Dead Fred" we both know that your imaginary friend is nothing more than a whim of your creative conscious self. It has no substance other than what is already in you. It does not exist separate from you but is reified only in your thoughts and actions. It has no will and no self. By using something along these lines as your 'condition' shows that you believe God is nothing other than an imaginary friend for me and for other Catholics and other believers. It shows that you have not seriously attempted to discern what it would take for you to believe.

As to your reason for being here, you now state that your only reason for being here is to tell us that we are wrong about morality. Fine. You have done so. If you wish to engage us in a conversation or even a debate about ideas, then you must be open to the possibility that you are wrong, or at least demonstrate an interest in understanding why we believe as we believe. You admit you aren't open to our thought at all, which means you are not here to engage in a constructive discussion. This leaves only the possibility that you wish to make yourself feel morally superior to Catholics by criticizing us for what we believe and calling us insane for believing as we do. I hope that I am wrong and that you are posting out of a genuine sense of astonishment that anyone could believe as we do about morality or anything else. But I just don't see it.

This account is primarily for Catholic Furries. Please do not abuse our hospitality by engaging in endless (and fruitless) debate and/or thinly veiled calumny.

Dominus tecum

I've grasped your argument just fine, thank you. But let's just recap before I go.

>You first try to take a literal moral high ground to put yourself higher than someone who (You assumed) to be atheist. I can't speak for lollazer, but I'm not even an Atheist. I am no 'thiest'.

>You claim to have a superior moral standard but haven't actually shown how it's any more valid than any other set of morals laid down by any other governing body or celestial being.

> I've asked you twice to provide proof as to the existence of your god, the entire thing your argument is based on, and asked once in regards to "What convinced you?". You've presented nothing in the way of proof. A question is not an answer.

> This is posted in on an open forum, if you don't want people to talk to you or comment on your group, don't have a public group on an open website.

I've not called you insane, or belittled anything regarding religion, just because I don't mindlessly believe what you say doesn't mean I'm insulting you. I've asked about and pointed out what I consider to be holes in your reasoning for a higher moral standard, that's -it-. You're making this claim, of course you're going to have to answer for it.

Lollazer is an atheist and has been posting as a troll for some time. Your arguments were in much the same vein and typical for what most of us have come to expect from atheists. And saying that there is no divine power certainly seems like a strong indication that you are an atheist.

As far as placing myself on a high moral ground, the only one that I'm aware of is the fact that Catholics have one and that Atheists cannot. I am the first to admit that I certainly have many ways in which I can do a better job following that moral standard. But that does not change the logic of the current topic. And since I believed the topic was Catholic moral standard vs. Atheist "moral standard", I saw no reason to delineate why ours is better (since there is no such thing as an atheist moral standard). If you wish to discuss comparative moral standards we actually have to have something to compare. Atheism cannot provide that.

Actually, asking questions back on the issue of evidence is the proper course of action. A post in an "open forum" is insufficient space to even begin to lay out the evidence, which is why I recommended to you several good books which are able to better lay out small subsets of the evidence. If you wished to present the evidence for the age of the universe you would have no choice but to resort to something similar because the evidence cannot be shortened without losing its power to convince (or at the very least compel). So no, I'm not going to provide you a list of evidence but I will direct you to resources where you can find the answers. If you have no intention of following up on them, why should I believe you have any interest in even reading any evidence I post here in the first place?

This may be an "open forum" but it is an administrated forum and one set up for the purpose of bringing Catholic furries together. Would you think it appropriate for me to go on the Atheist Furs account and post in their journals that they are wrong without providing any evidence while simultaneously demanding evidence from them? I would consider that extremely rude behavior and any Christian doing that deserves the slapping around they'd get for it.

As for your claim that you aren't insulting me or belittling religion...

"The fact that you lack the natural empathy to know what 'being a good person' is without some sort of authoritative figure telling and watching you speaks volumes to how much of a nasty person ultimately are."

"Either way, let's not forget all the 'wonderful' things that have been done in the name of religion with it's stellar moral standard."

"No sane person would follow -The Bible- these days."

I think your words speak for themselves. Good Night.

Dominus tecum

And to be brutally honest here, I believe that the catholic church is one of the most evil forces on earth.
The fact that the pope went to Africa to tell the people there that "AIDS is pretty bad but concoms are worse", effectively ruining YEARS of educational work there is a disgrace.
The fact that the chruch still judges people like homosexuals and labels them as second class citizens with a disorder/birth defect is a disgrace.
For shame!

Grüß Gott!

Would you be interested in talking about his over private message? This sounds like a common misunderstanding of the Church, and I'd be happy to help you learn more about it.

Ad majorem Dei gloriam inque hominum salutem

Love this prayer! :D

And never mind about lollazer--I've learned from experience that you can't persuade everyone with logic and reason. I was, but not everyone agrees on what constitutes sound logic. The best we can do (and I must confess I still need to learn it myself) is to set a good example for them to see and otherwise just to pray for them.

Thank you so much for your comment! And don't worry, we've taken care of that above poster. And I agree, the best way is to live the Christian life first. If we cannot do that, then not only won't we convince anyone, but we shouldn't!

Dominus tecum

You're welcome! As I said, I still need to do that in practice, and I know it isn't easy, but at least in my head I believe it. Otherwise people will see through our hypocrisy.

Grüß Gott!

Amen. What good is a good gift if it's used for evil. Keep up the good work, folks. Good to see you again, Tatta.

Ad majorem Dei gloriam inque hominum salutem

Boy, there are a lot of really hostile furries.

I fear there are. Be sure to pray and offer up your daily sufferings for all of them

You're right, that's a good thing to do for them. I like to pray every night that God will bring the world back to His love. :)

I see this Prayer and it good keep good working hard

We can all of us do this by prayer, penance, and good works!

Dominus tecum

A really beautiful illustration with a really beautiful message! I think this is just wonderful! To God be the Glory!

Thank you very much! We have ended up getting a lot of negative feedback on this one, which you may have noticed, so I'm glad to have someone say something courteous about it. Indeed, praise and glory to God!

Well, keeping foreign men as slaves is okay, committing genocide against an entire nation is cool, and marrying your rapist is a requirement. Also, you must eat the body and drink the blood of Jesus. Christianity isn't creepy at all.

Well hey, at least Catholicism doesn't endorse abortion. So I'm not feeling so bad our track record.

Hey, all that other shit is perfectly fine, so long as you don't get an abortion with a creature that doesn't even live. Oh, you know, keeping black people as slaves it okay, and by law you should marry your rapist, and if got tells you to commit genocide against an entire nation of people, that's coolio! But GOD FORBID someone gets an abortion! I'm curious where in your book it says anything against abortion. Why is it, if unborn fetuses are considered human beings to Christians, why is it only a fine for causing a woman to have a miscarriage in the bible?

Remember that stuff with the Puritans? But, no... I bet you're just going to pull the No True Scotsman fallacy on that one, aren't you?

It's cute when you leave comments like that. We've gotten lots of them before. Most people on this site, even people of the non-religious nature, have a policy of politeness when commenting or at least not trolling. You're only doing damage to your reputation. Anyone who comes by this page can read your comments and it won't help what people think of you any. Now, because of your attitude I'm letting you know that you won't be commenting here again. If you do then you will be blocked. You've been warned.

Well, I'm happy for you Jesus furs ;3

Amen.

Amen ✝️⛪️