• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Water Draco

Next LondonFurs?? Please stay tuned
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

GTWT Survivor
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.
 
F

FluffyShutterbug

Guest
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.
 
F

FluffyShutterbug

Guest
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

You can't just quote yourself! -Me
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

GTWT Survivor
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.
 
S

silveredgreen

Guest
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

You can't just quote yourself! -Me
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

you have been booped by the web potater foxxo
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.
 
E

ellaerna

Guest
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

Feathered
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]
 

Felix Bernard

Chemist, Conservative, Mark Levin fan
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.
 
F

FluffyShutterbug

Guest
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

Next LondonFurs?? Please stay tuned
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

Asexual coywolf and amateur writer.
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

Professional Watermelon Farmer
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.
 
Last edited:
L

-..Legacy..-

Guest
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

GTWT Survivor
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

Well-Known Member
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.
 
F

FluffyShutterbug

Guest
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.
 

Felix Bernard

Chemist, Conservative, Mark Levin fan
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.
 

Felix Bernard

Chemist, Conservative, Mark Levin fan
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

Chum bucket with the u
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?
 
Top