Religion in the Furry Community

[john_shadowblade]

I take what I like to call the individualistic approach.(which according to alot of people I talk to is on par with satan worship) I was raised Roman Catholic, went through the hell that is catholic school and all that fun stuff, but the more I learned about it the more I questioned it. Whenever I questioned something I got either a confusing lecture that danced around the subject, or I got in trouble from a teacher. Then seeing the way the church handles things just put me right off. On top of that after doing some family research it looks like my family was betrayed by the pope back in the 14th century so there's that.

However some of the main points still make sense to me, so I can't just throw everything and say to hell with it. And no offense to the Protestants out there, but alot of the guys I know around here are just plain nuts.

 

[CaptainCool]

What 'main points' do you mean?
Also, I'm sure those protestants think the same way about you, and that is part of what makes religion so hilarious X3

 

[Kitsune Cross]

I like the part of the bible when god constantly kills everybody and claims to be a nice guy

 

[Lucius_Felix]

What about the nature of the universe would lead you to expect that its creator was NOT a tremendous douchebag?

If God cared about people being raped and enslaved, he'd do something about it.

 

[Kit H. Ruppell]

What about the nature of the universe would lead you to expect that its creator was NOT a tremendous douchebag?

If God cared about people being raped and enslaved, he'd do something about it.

YHVH is the personification of all the evils of the character's inventors. The list goes on and on.

 

[Lucius_Felix]

Don't blame people for everything. We rape and enslave, but we don't cause cancer and we didn't invent roaches.

 

[Captain Howdy]

I think I may have posted this somewhere, but I think I found this hilariously relevant.

Jehovah's Witnesses had come to my door, and after a strange conversation, they gave me a book that explained whatever their bullshit was. My favourite part was their description of why evil existed.

Evil exists, because satan is the actual ruler of this world, and not god(?).

 

[Lucius_Felix]

Evil exists because it has increased the fitness of evil people in their environment.

Same reason we have thumbs.

 

[jtrekkie]

What about the nature of the universe would lead you to expect that its creator was NOT a tremendous douchebag?

If God cared about people being raped and enslaved, he'd do something about it.

What about the universe? In a word, harmony. Or, for the Sagan fans, Cosmos. But it seems you're taking the cynical approach.

Without going to far into philosophy, just think about this. Do you want freedom, or Utopia?

 

[Butters Shikkon]

What about the universe? In a word, harmony. Or, for the Sagan fans, Cosmos. But it seems you're taking the cynical approach.

Without going to far into philosophy, just think about this. Do you want freedom, or Utopia?

You'd imagine having both wouldn't be too hard for the immortal all powerful sky dude.

:3c Or maybe he's a liar.

 

[jtrekkie]

Of course not, but I'm talking about you all. People are incomplete, and frequently impetuous. Therefore, incapable of both.

 

[Nikolinni]

You'd imagine having both wouldn't be too hard for the immortal all powerful sky dude.

:3c Or maybe he's a liar.

How does one retain the freedom to do whatever one wants, even if it results in harm or violence, yet also maintain a Utopia where everyone is happy? Would be quite the task, I'd imagine. That's like saying you're going to simultaneously give everyone full freedom AND full equality. You can't. With full freedom comes the sacrifice of full equality, and with full equality comes the sacrifice of some freedoms.

 

[Captain Howdy]

How does one retain the freedom to do whatever one wants, even if it results in harm or violence, yet also maintain a Utopia where everyone is happy? Would be quite the task, I'd imagine. That's like saying you're going to simultaneously give everyone full freedom AND full equality. You can't. With full freedom comes the sacrifice of full equality, and with full equality comes the sacrifice of some freedoms.

Wouldn't this fall under the "he's all powerful" umbrella?

 

[CaptainCool]

How does one retain the freedom to do whatever one wants, even if it results in harm or violence, yet also maintain a Utopia where everyone is happy? Would be quite the task, I'd imagine. That's like saying you're going to simultaneously give everyone full freedom AND full equality. You can't. With full freedom comes the sacrifice of full equality, and with full equality comes the sacrifice of some freedoms.

So being an assface to people is part of being free now?
I disagree. Here in Europe we learned ages ago that freedom should be limited for the well-being of society. That you can do and say what ever you want, as long as you don't piss people of our oppress them.

 

[jtrekkie]

So being an assface to people is part of being free now?
I disagree. Here in Europe we learned ages ago that freedom should be limited for the well-being of society. That you can do and say what ever you want, as long as you don't piss people of our oppress them.

Define ages, please? Gratuitous sarcasm aside, yes. You are either free, or you are not. If you are, then you own your decisions, and you own the consequences.

 

[Fallowfox]

How does one retain the freedom to do whatever one wants, even if it results in harm or violence, yet also maintain a Utopia where everyone is happy? Would be quite the task, I'd imagine. That's like saying you're going to simultaneously give everyone full freedom AND full equality. You can't. With full freedom comes the sacrifice of full equality, and with full equality comes the sacrifice of some freedoms.

If we all lived in a Utopia why would it matter if we weren't free? We'd be content and would not want for it.

This is, of course, not the only surprising situation to attribute to benevolent divine agency. The existence of horrific diseases is quite strange, as is the creator's decision to produce a universe of perhaps infinite size, in which human life took 14Gy to emerge, but is only possible upon a fraction of a thin sphere on the surface of a speck of grit whose torrid interior produces earthquakes and volcanism.

Weird.

Define ages, please? Gratuitous sarcasm aside, yes. You are either free, or you are not. If you are, then you own your decisions, and you own the consequences.

False dichotomy.

 

[Captain Howdy]

If we all lived in a Utopia why would it matter if we weren't free? We'd be content and would not want for it.

This is, of course, not the only surprising situation to attribute to benevolent divine agency. The existence of horrific diseases is quite strange, as is the creator's decision to produce a universe of perhaps infinite size, in which human life took 14Gy to emerge, but is only possible upon a fraction of a thin sphere on the surface of a speck of grit whose torrid interior produces earthquakes and volcanism.

Take your thesaurus and piss off :v

 

[jtrekkie]

If we all lived in a Utopia why would it matter if we weren't free? We'd be content and would not want for it.

This is, of course, not the only surprising situation to attribute to benevolent divine agency. The existence of horrific diseases is quite strange, as is the creator's decision to produce a universe of perhaps infinite size, in which human life took 14Gy to emerge, but is only possible upon a fraction of a thin sphere on the surface of a speck of grit whose torrid interior produces earthquakes and volcanism.

Weird.

A surprising situation is expected. Because you can't anticipate the goals or perceptions of the Almighty, you can't anticipate actions either. It's the same reason why its so hard to make a judgment on aliens. Obviously anthropomorphizing (this has got to be the only place where you can use that word and people don't cringe) doesn't provide any useful information so you have to guess whether they are even looking. Thus, the Fermi paradox.

False dichotomy.

I disagree. It is a boolean question, and demands a boolean answer. You may cut it up into more specific criteria. However, the sum of which is still a boolean question with a boolean answer.

 

[Fallowfox]

A surprising situation is expected. Because you can't anticipate the goals or perceptions of the Almighty, you can't anticipate actions either. It's the same reason why its so hard to make a judgment on aliens. Obviously anthropomorphizing (this has got to be the only place where you can use that word and people don't cringe) doesn't provide any useful information so you have to guess whether they are even looking. Thus, the Fermi paradox.




I disagree. It is a boolean question, and demands a boolean answer. You may cut it up into more specific criteria. However, the sum of which is still a boolean question with a boolean answer.

If the expected prediction is an 'unexpected' situation, then that's not a falsifiable proposition. In which case it lends us no explicative power, and should be rejected. Why should we warp our current understanding of the cosmos and its history to accommodate a hypothesis that not only lacks credence but is not even capable of ever getting any?
On the other hand alien life's existence is a subject we can consider, because the mechanisms by which life might emerge and be spread in this cosmos are compatible with our current knowledge. There is the possibility of creating instrumentation which could actually discern whether an extra solar planet has an oxidising atmosphere in chemical disequilibrium, which would be indicative of living chemistry. There's even the possibility of detecting life in the plumes of cryovolcanoes, by way of flying a satellite over the Tiger-stripes of Enceladus.



The question of whether we are free isn't digital, because the freedom I may experience in one country could be very different to another in a mosaic fashion, by which some regions can be more or less free than others, rather than 'only free' or 'only not free'.
In any case the original argument in which Nikolinni explained the imperfections of life as a result of our freedom is a rationalisation. It makes me wonder why any divine agency would want their creations to be free if it were to mean suffering...to which the answer is 'it's surprising', which doesn't resolve the problem.

 

[jtrekkie]

A most learned responce. Presumably to achieve some purpose, the likes of which is impossible to deduce, which is my point. Of course all things can be considered, none can be settled, save the empirical. Therefore we come to the infuriating limit of science, which is the realm of the phylosopher.

A similar situation exists with the aliens. As was demonstrated in A New Kind of Science, we are unable even to recognize another kind of life so one can hardly make theoretical observations, although this situation could be remedied. I should point out however that I was referring to intelligence, which can hide.

For the freedom part, you still have the same problem. In the case of law, as far as I know restraints are always in the form of some kind of promise of punishment. Because of this you decide if you wish to trespass and receive the punishment. For this reason, I maintain that you are always free. The legal stuff is just stamp collecting.

BTW I'm writing this on a cell phone and I can't see the text very well, just in case I said something incomprehensible.

Edit: I wasn't paying enough attention to who was posting what. I was just searching Google for a philosopher. I was going to ask if you were referring to Giuseppe Nicolini when I saw a furry in the image search.

 

[Fallowfox]

A most learned responce. Presumably to achieve some purpose, the likes of which is impossible to deduce, which is my point. Of course all things can be considered, none can be settled, save the empirical. Therefore we come to the infuriating limit of science, which is the realm of the phylosopher.

A similar situation exists with the aliens. As was demonstrated in A New Kind of Science, we are unable even to recognize another kind of life so one can hardly make theoretical observations, although this situation could be remedied. I should point out however that I was referring to intelligence, which can hide.

For the freedom part, you still have the same problem. In the case of law, as far as I know restraints are always in the form of some kind of promise of punishment. Because of this you decide if you wish to trespass and receive the punishment. For this reason, I maintain that you are always free. The legal stuff is just stamp collecting.

BTW I'm writing this on a cell phone and I can't see the text very well, just in case I said something incomprehensible.

Edit: I wasn't paying enough attention to who was posting what. I was just searching Google for a philosopher. I was going to ask if you were referring to Giuseppe Nicolini when I saw a furry in the image search.

In which case we can envisage a universe in which any attempt to wrong somebody else is foiled by divine agency, provided that the will to do harm is not compromised this would preserve notions of freedom.

To the crux of the matter though, I think users were actually contesting that, if you are a magic all powerful god, you can make a universe which is devoid of suffering but which still permits its inhabitants to behave as they wish- it just wouldn't be physically possible that their behaviour would result in unpleasant feelings.

 

[tisr]

If we all lived in a Utopia why would it matter if we weren't free? We'd be content and would not want for it.

This brings into the question of Brave New World and the Pleasure Machine. In the case of Brave New World, the citizens of the World State have limited freedoms in exchange for Benthamite Utility, where pleasure is maximized and pain is minimized. The World State is a Pleasure Machine, and even though these pleasures are shallow pleasures, such as orgies and drugs, the citizens have been conditioned to accept these pleasures. This Hedonistic Utilitarianism centers around pleasure chosen by a lack of knowledge of available choices, rather than chosen pleasure.

In Brave New World, all happiness is engineered and simulated, which brings into the question whether a Pleasure Machine is ethical or desirable. A really good book on the idea of Pleasure Machines is Infinite Jest, where a fatally entertaining film has been made such that people who have watched the film want to rewatch it over and over until they die.

For the freedom part, you still have the same problem. In the case of law, as far as I know restraints are always in the form of some kind of promise of punishment. Because of this you decide if you wish to trespass and receive the punishment. For this reason, I maintain that you are always free. The legal stuff is just stamp collecting.

However, in most cases of religion, both the 'law' and the 'punishment' are unreasonably defined.

For example, if a robber asked a person to give him money or choose to die, and the person refuses to give money and therefore is killed. Even though the person makes a choice not to give and money, the person is not at fault for causing his own death. Rather, the robber is for enforcing such an unfair system on the person.

 

[tisr]

Ugh buttons. Doublepost.

 

[jtrekkie]

I think we all are on the same page, pretty much. What I was trying to get at is that we don't know ultimately what is important, or maybe what we value is different. Maybe I could say we don't know what the effect of utopia might be?

PS I really wish you hadn't brought that book up. I had almost forgotten about it.

 

[Acton]

Getting back to the original question: Christianity is to broad, for I am nether Catholic or Evangelical (having a major fall out with modern day mega church movement). I say I am Reformed on by doctrine but Anglican in my practice.