Reasons against furry.

[Taura LearFox]

ur...@netcom.com (Scott Whitmore) asked me to name reasons
why christians are against me.

Rather than do that I decided to name facts that chrisitan
religion goes against furry:

1. In the bible, love of animals are unacceptable and will be
punushed with death.

2 Christian churches are okay, furry sites are to be burned down
(also according to the good book)

3 A typical christian will snear at you if you say you love animals
(don't believe me? okay I dare you to try it in public)

4 Christian religion has a LOT of refferances on controlling sex,
A female having sex with anyone else but a christian married male
will be killed. Having sex with furries... (you don't want to know)

Still don't believe me? it's all in the good book.

5. If you live in a chriistan family, chances are you're going to be
kicked out if you say to them how much you love furries.
(I'm living proof of that)

6. If you draw any furry having sex (which I did over a thousand times
atleast) you will have to be killed. (read the bible, it's all there).

While I rest a moment to write up more reasons...
Please remeber that all the above are facts and experiances.
No one is being judged and information are all factual.

7. The general public favors chrisitanity... don't believe me? do
something condradictory to the above and find out :>

8. The goverment favors chrisitanity, CDA is proof.

9. Chrisitanity is generally intolorant to furries. Don't believe
me? Then how many people do you know have told their chrisitian
familes they wanted to have sex with an animal and be accepted?

10. and the number 1 reason chrisianity is against furry...
Exon, Chrisitan coilition, Clinton, every every chrisitian I know
in LA is against Furry. You don't believe me? look at the facts.

I sincely hope this clarifies things for ur...@netcom.com (Scott
Whitmore) and others like him who ask me ignorant question that
are so ignorant, it isn't even funny.

-Taura

\=/\=\=/\=\=/\=\=/\=\=/\=\=/\=\=/\=\=/\=\=/\=\=/\=\=/\=\=/\=\/=\/=\/
"In a world of darkness, where love and hate collide, are
the players that strive each moment to make it right."
-Taura

"Christians contribute no more hatred to the world than any
other group you might care to name, and I defy you to
prove otherwise."
-ur...@netcom.com (Scott Whitmore)

E-mail #1: lea...@vulpine.com (Primary)
E-mail #2: tl...@interserv.com (Secondary)
BajorMUCK: leopard.velox.com 4800
WWW: http://www.deltanet.com/users/learfox/index.html (home page)
\=/\=\=/\=\=/\=\=/\=\=/\=\=/\=\=/\=\=/\=\=/\=\=/\=\=/\=\=/\=\/=\/=\/

[D.M. Quozl Falk]

"Here we go again...", said the little skunk doing a classic Reagan
impersonation...

Taura LearFox (lea...@vulpine.com) wrote:
: ur...@netcom.com (Scott Whitmore) asked me to name reasons

: why christians are against me.

: Rather than do that I decided to name facts that chrisitan
: religion goes against furry:

Of which most of what you said had to do with _bestiality_...

: 1. In the bible, love of animals are unacceptable and will be
: punushed with death.

More accurately, _sex_ with animals...

: 2 Christian churches are okay, furry sites are to be burned down

: (also according to the good book)

"Pagan sites"...

: 3 A typical christian will snear at you if you say you love animals

: (don't believe me? okay I dare you to try it in public)

This is misleading, especially if you equate love with sex... There are
_many_ animal lovers who have _no_ sexual interest in animals....

: 4 Christian religion has a LOT of refferances on controlling sex,

: A female having sex with anyone else but a christian married male
: will be killed. Having sex with furries... (you don't want to know)

This is, incidentally, absolutely correct.

: Still don't believe me? it's all in the good book.

: 5. If you live in a chriistan family, chances are you're going to be
: kicked out if you say to them how much you love furries.
: (I'm living proof of that)

That's sad. I've personally never have _had_ that problem, particularly
since my mum _has_ read "Omaha"... (Though to be fair, she thinks
bestiality is distasteful, and not a topic I bother to bring up...)

: 6. If you draw any furry having sex (which I did over a thousand times

: atleast) you will have to be killed. (read the bible, it's all there).

Tangental, but somewhat accurate...

: While I rest a moment to write up more reasons...

: Please remeber that all the above are facts and experiances.
: No one is being judged and information are all factual.

However, I _will_ side with Genesis (Eve Cooke, that is) in that not all
Christians are of that mindset... And not all Christians are alike, just
as not all furryfans are alike!

: 7. The general public favors chrisitanity... don't believe me? do

: something condradictory to the above and find out :>

Correct, but which form? There are some 500 registered congregations
throughout the U.S., with the largest being Roman Catholicism (of which
my family, but not myself, belongs to)... More than 75% of the U.S.
population are of one Christian denomination or another, but not all
Christians are _practicing_ Christians-- Most aren't!

: 8. The goverment favors chrisitanity, CDA is proof.

The Government, _by_law_, cannot favour any religion one way or another.
This, however, doesn't stop _individual_ members, though... The general
populace, though (which isn't just Christians), are bothered by sex in
general....

: 9. Chrisitanity is generally intolorant to furries. Don't believe

: me? Then how many people do you know have told their chrisitian
: familes they wanted to have sex with an animal and be accepted?

Now _here_ I have a *REAL* problem with, and that is: being a furry fan
_does_not_equate_ bestiality! Having an interest in furries
_does_not_mean_ wanting to have sex with furries!

I'm tolerant of bestiality and furry sex, but to me, 't'ain't da be-all,
end-all of being a furry fan, nor even the main reason for my furryness...

: 10. and the number 1 reason chrisianity is against furry...

: Exon, Chrisitan coilition, Clinton, every every chrisitian I know
: in LA is against Furry. You don't believe me? look at the facts.

And alot of furry fans in L.A. just happen to be Christians... Most of
L.A. is Christian (like most of the continent), and yet L.A. is the most
_socially_ liberal region I know of (except for Orange County)....

: I sincely hope this clarifies things for ur...@netcom.com (Scott

: Whitmore) and others like him who ask me ignorant question that
: are so ignorant, it isn't even funny.

Considering you apparently didn't bother to read _her_ whole post, it was
Genesis Eve Cooke posting through a friend's account... I'm also going to
have to agree that it's _you_, Taura, that is ignorant, and rather
prejudiced based on your own experience with your family. Not everyone-
In fact, not even _most_- have such an uptight family as yours...

I've had sex ed at the age of 7 (I'm 30), thanks to my mum giving me a
book on the subject suitable for my age; I was molested by one of my
uncles at age 10; I lost my virginity officially at age 22, and have not
been in any position to continue sexual contact in 8 years. Sex has never
been something that bothered me, and _very_ little offends me (ie:
anything invoking harm/violence, death, and child pornography/abuse), and
I have _no_ interest in male anatomy. I am _not_ a Christian (or of _any_
organised faith), but I do have a firm, if _different_, belief in God...

However, I think Jesus had the right idea, and that is he favoured those
who were _honest_ with themselves, and lived accordingly. He spent his
time with the social pariahs in Israeli society, and spoke ill of the
dishonest prostelisers (the Pharisses), as they spoke of one thing and
did another. It _should_ be noted that very little of the Bible actually
had anything to do with Jesus _specificly_, and it's only because of the
(misguided, IMO) belief in Jesus=God that more is attributed to him...
Jesus, the human Rabbi (which he _was_, BTW), was perhaps the greatest
Teacher ever to have lived, and he led _by_example_, not by code... It is
others' vanities embellishing the Bible, IMO, that have done the most harm...

Will I go to Hell? I don't think so- I know what I am, and how I live my
life. I'm anything _but_ "perfect"...

I am a furry fan.

....Quozl!

--
Presidential Candidate for the Third Millenium! Quozl for Prez in 2000!
Dennis M. Falk, aka "Quozl Mephit" : 221 Huntoon St. Eureka, CA 95501-4115 USA
Writer, Furry fan, Cartoon fan, Music lover : "A Novel Experience!"
Skunks, skunks, skunks! : Tiny Toons forever! : Snapple me!

[D.J. Green]

In article <4s703k$a...@news03.deltanet.com>,

Taura LearFox <lea...@vulpine.com> wrote:
>ur...@netcom.com (Scott Whitmore) asked me to name reasons
>why christians are against me.
>
>Rather than do that I decided to name facts that chrisitan
>religion goes against furry:
>

>1. In the bible, love of animals are unacceptable and will be
> punushed with death.

"Furries" are not animals, per se. I think it's safe to say that a
sizeable percentage of furry fans are no interested in bestiality.

>2 Christian churches are okay, furry sites are to be burned down
> (also according to the good book)

Excuse me? If you can cite me any Bible verse that says anything about
"furry sites are to be burned down," I will be startled.

>3 A typical christian will snear at you if you say you love animals
> (don't believe me? okay I dare you to try it in public)

I kind of doubt that. I'd guess that there are many Christians out there
who love their cat/dog/bird/fish/hamster/cutefuzzy pet.

>4 Christian religion has a LOT of refferances on controlling sex,
> A female having sex with anyone else but a christian married male
> will be killed.

Most Christians do not believe themselves bound by Mosaic (or the stricter
Levitic) Law. At least for me, I am more interested in the two
commandments Jesus gave: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and
all your soul, and all your mind. Love your neighbor as yourself.' I take
the Ten Commandments as guidelines. Nowhere in there is the death penalty
for adultery mentioned.

Even Jesus forgave a prostitute and *stopped* a crowd (of practicing Jews)
from stoning her to death.

>Having sex with furries... (you don't want to know)

Are furries mentioned in the Bible? Funny, I must have missed that
passage.

>Still don't believe me? it's all in the good book.

I don't believe you, and I've *read* the Bible. Start quoting me scripture
verses, and I might start giving you credence. Make sure to make specific
references to the New Testament, as that is the foundation of
Christianity.

>5. If you live in a chriistan family, chances are you're going to be
> kicked out if you say to them how much you love furries.
> (I'm living proof of that)

And you base your entire doctrine of hatred on one example? My parents
know that I'm interested in furries, as does my brother. Not one of them
has excommuicated me. My brother and I still talk on the phone. My mother
wants me to visit her this Christmas. My father wants me to serve as the
best man (along with my brother) when he gets married this summer. That
doesn't sound particularly like being kicked out to me.

>6. If you draw any furry having sex (which I did over a thousand times
> atleast) you will have to be killed. (read the bible, it's all there).

Gimme a verse.

>7. The general public favors chrisitanity... don't believe me? do
> something condradictory to the above and find out :>

And this has what to do with your argument?

>8. The goverment favors chrisitanity, CDA is proof.

Likewise. Remember also that the government is elected by the people.
Remember, as well, that the CDA has been injoined by the courts, which are
*part of the government*.

>9. Chrisitanity is generally intolorant to furries. Don't believe
> me? Then how many people do you know have told their chrisitian
> familes they wanted to have sex with an animal and be accepted?

Furry fandom does *not* equate to bestiality. Furry fandom is *not*
equivalent to having sex with animals, or even with furries.

>10. and the number 1 reason chrisianity is against furry...
> Exon, Chrisitan coilition, Clinton, every every chrisitian I know
> in LA is against Furry. You don't believe me? look at the facts.

I've been waiting for you to present some facts. All I've seen are wild
claims with nothing to back them up.

>I sincely hope this clarifies things for ur...@netcom.com (Scott
>Whitmore) and others like him who ask me ignorant question that
>are so ignorant, it isn't even funny.

I don't want to make ad hominem attacks, Taura, but you are the ignorant
one here. To be blunt, you are hypocritical, prejudiced, and bigoted.
There *are* practicing Christians in furry fandom, whether or not you
choose to believe that. Many Christians are kind, gentle people, who try
only to live their lives as well as they can, who aren't a part of the
vocal minority that you see.

I am sorry that your deep, unreasoning hatred for this vocal minority has
blinded you to any good that Christians might have in them. I am sorry
that you feel a need to slander Christians at every opportunity that you
get. I can only hope that, sometime, you will learn to listen, to yourself
and to others, and realize how ugly this part of you is.

If you, and others like you, would preach tolerance, then I would ask that
you first show it.
--
Flash! Saran Wrap factory on 10th Street explodes! Film at 11.

[Keith Wood]

In article <4s703k$a...@news03.deltanet.com>,

lea...@vulpine.com (Taura LearFox) wrote:
[ur...@netcom.com (Scott Whitmore) asked me to name reasons
[why christians are against me.
[
[Rather than do that I decided to name facts that chrisitan
[religion goes against furry:

[Inanities deleted . . . ]

[While I rest a moment to write up more reasons...

[Please remeber that all the above are facts and experiances.
[No one is being judged and information are all factual.

[I sincely hope this clarifies things for ur...@netcom.com (Scott

[Whitmore) and others like him who ask me ignorant question that
[are so ignorant, it isn't even funny.

Gee, Taura, I hate to ruin a good diatribe, but you need to cut back
on the caffeine . . .there are ordained priests who have written (and
published) Furry stories.

But please, don't let facts get in your way NOW . . .

--
================================================================
Keith Wood -- Brass Cannon Productions -- Producer/Host:
The Computer Program, Flying Time!, Infinity Focus . . .
and introducing --== Stop, Look and Listen Up! ==--
Associate Producer: Genevra, Colin, Heather, Nicole and Ethan
(with Kyla Littlejohn)
================================================================

[Scott Whitmore]

Taura LearFox (lea...@vulpine.com) wrote:
: ur...@netcom.com (Scott Whitmore) asked me to name reasons
: why christians are against me.

Actually, it was Genesis Cook who asked you that, in e-mail;
she uses my account. In this post, however, you're dealing with
her aforementioned priest-to-be boyfriend. (Just so you know...)
And this was just too delicious to let go.

: Rather than do that I decided to name facts that chrisitan
: religion goes against furry:
: 1. In the bible, love of animals are unacceptable and will be
: punushed with death.

First, to address your actual comment. Bestiality is condemned by the
Bible, it is true. But: (1) it is a HUGE unsupported assumption to say
that "love of animals" means having sex with them. State precisely
what it is you are defending and don't throw in emotional connotive
words just to get sympathy. (2) Since the Biblical prohibition is in
the OLD Testament, it is accepted not only by Christians but also by
Jews and Muslims. Together, those three religions comprise what, maybe
half the world's population? In fact I can't think of ANY religion of
any size that thinks sex with animals is OK. So why single Christians out?

I have a bone to pick, too, with the fact that you equate "love of
animals" (i.e. sex with animals) with furry fandom. I'm not going to
go off on that topic now, since it's been so well covered by others,
but suffice to say that being furry need not have anything to do with
sex. It certainly doesn't in my case.

: 2 Christian churches are okay, furry sites are to be burned down

: (also according to the good book)

What the hell are you talking about? I've read the whole Bible and I've
never seen mention of furries at all, let alone what should be done with
their 'sites.' Please offer me a reference.

: 3 A typical christian will snear at you if you say you love animals

: (don't believe me? okay I dare you to try it in public)

A lot of Christians are animal lovers, which is to say that they care for
animals as pets, livestock, endangered species, etc. You may even find
Christians who believe they have totem animals or "furry" attributes or
whatnot. But you'll find VERY few who approve of sex with animals. *I*
dare *you* to find many NON-CHRISTIANS who do.

: 4 Christian religion has a LOT of refferances on controlling sex,

: A female having sex with anyone else but a christian married male
: will be killed.

It is permissible for a woman to be married to a non-Christian man (1
Cor. 7:12). And adultery, that is, having sex outside your marriage,
is another one of those activities condemned by the vast majority of
ALL religions and civilizations. According to the Bible, the way that
Man is happiest, the way Man was meant to be, is in a lifelong monogamous
relation between one man and one woman. Other applications of sex --
which is a very holy and powerful part of human nature -- are harmful.
And as for being killed, well, you won't find adultery punishable by
death in ANY modern country with a preponderance of Christians, now will you?

: Having sex with furries... (you don't want to know)

Furries are not real. They are fictional. Sex with fictional characters
is called masturbation. Get it straight.

: Still don't believe me? it's all in the good book.

The people who compiled the Bible into its present form assigned to it
these handy devices called "chapters" and "verses." If you quote me
chapters and verses defending your wild claims, then maybe we can settle
them.

: 5. If you live in a chriistan family, chances are you're going to be

: kicked out if you say to them how much you love furries.
: (I'm living proof of that)

I am truly sorry that you have had a negative family experience over the
innocent (in and of itself) subject of furry fandom. As the saying goes,
Christians aren't perfect. (You'd think they'd try harder, but oh well.)
But I doubt you'd get much different of a response from most people in
general.

: 6. If you draw any furry having sex (which I did over a thousand times

: atleast) you will have to be killed. (read the bible, it's all there).

Where?

: While I rest a moment to write up more reasons...

: Please remeber that all the above are facts and experiances.
: No one is being judged and information are all factual.

Of course.

: 7. The general public favors chrisitanity... don't believe me? do

: something condradictory to the above and find out :>

The general public favors itself. And the vast majority of people don't
favor bestiality. So what kind of a reaction could you expect?

: 8. The goverment favors chrisitanity, CDA is proof.

The CDA could, in theory, force online copies of the Bible offline. It's
true there are some short-sighted people (who happen to be Christians) who
support CDA because it'll supposedly crush "Cyber-Porn" (the latest
menace to society whipped up by the Press), but that is a philosophical
and not a religious difference of opinion. None of my close friends who
are Christians, that I know of, support CDA, and I sure don't.

: 9. Chrisitanity is generally intolorant to furries. Don't believe

: me? Then how many people do you know have told their chrisitian
: familes they wanted to have sex with an animal and be accepted?

I've answered this already. See above.

: 10. and the number 1 reason chrisianity is against furry...

: Exon, Chrisitan coilition, Clinton, every every chrisitian I know
: in LA is against Furry.

I wouldn't know if Exon or Clinton personally are Christians or if they
support/oppose furry fandom, or even care about it at all. The Christian
Coalition, if someone took the time to explain it to them properly, would
most likely neither support nor oppose furry fandom. And I doubt every
Christian in El Lay even KNOWS, let alone cares, about it.

And besides, don't judge an entire major world religion on the actions of
a relative few (over the centuries, there have been billions of Christians).
It's not very rational.

: You don't believe me?

Based on the parade of self-justifying propaganda you've tried to tell us
is fact, no.

: look at the facts.

I wish we could.

: I sincely hope this clarifies things for ur...@netcom.com (Scott

: Whitmore) and others like him who ask me ignorant question that
: are so ignorant, it isn't even funny.

: -Taura

I think it's very funny. :)

: "Christians contribute no more hatred to the world than any

: other group you might care to name, and I defy you to
: prove otherwise."
: -ur...@netcom.com (Scott Whitmore)

Why not include that other quote:
"Taura, you're like a Klansman, and Christians are your niggers."
(That one's mine, BTW, not Gen's.)

--Uriel aka S.W.

[Lenester Taxidean]

In message <4s7ojr$m...@shellx.best.com> - nebu...@best.com (D.J.

Green)13 Jul 1996 02:00:43 -0700 writes:

>I don't want to make ad hominem attacks, Taura, but you are the ignorant
>one here. To be blunt, you are hypocritical, prejudiced, and bigoted.
>There *are* practicing Christians in furry fandom, whether or not you
>choose to believe that. Many Christians are kind, gentle people, who try
>only to live their lives as well as they can, who aren't a part of the
>vocal minority that you see.
>
>I am sorry that your deep, unreasoning hatred for this vocal minority has
>blinded you to any good that Christians might have in them. I am sorry
>that you feel a need to slander Christians at every opportunity that you
>get. I can only hope that, sometime, you will learn to listen, to yourself
>and to others, and realize how ugly this part of you is.
>
>If you, and others like you, would preach tolerance, then I would ask that
>you first show it.

This is hilarious. Despite the fact that this post is quite sensible,
and I agree with it completely (despite being outspokenly
anti-religious), I have to point out that you've followed the
guidelines of the flaming rules posted earlier to a T, even down to
the use of the phrase 'ad hominem.' ;>

-
Lenester Taxidean | li...@asis.com | http://asis.com/~liefc/
-
TCotF 1.1
FMts4amrsw/Mrm2amw/MAo3m A>++ C>+ H/+ M++++ W>++ Z>+ Sm+/f++/m
RLCT- co+++ d+ f++ i+++ a19 e- h>+ p* sm
-

[Penh Gwyn]

In article <4s7ojr$m...@shellx.best.com>, D.J. Green <nebu...@best.com> wrote:
>In article <4s703k$a...@news03.deltanet.com>,
>Taura LearFox <lea...@vulpine.com> wrote:

>>2 Christian churches are okay, furry sites are to be burned down
>> (also according to the good book)
>
>Excuse me? If you can cite me any Bible verse that says anything about
>"furry sites are to be burned down," I will be startled.

>>Still don't believe me? it's all in the good book.

>
>I don't believe you, and I've *read* the Bible. Start quoting me scripture
>verses, and I might start giving you credence. Make sure to make specific
>references to the New Testament, as that is the foundation of
>Christianity.

While not technically in the Bible, such verses are found in the
book of Bucky, one of the lost books of the Bible, so Taura's sort of
right. I mean, it could have easily been in the Bible, except it was
only discovered in 1732 by a goatherder who was trying to hide the body
of a rival and stumbled across the tattered scrolls in a long-forgotten
cavern in upstate New York. Any day now, a new council could be convened
to vote on its inclusion.
In fact, a few sects here and there, chief among them the New Modern
Post-Mormonites of Ogden, UT, already include it in their version of the
Bible. They are a rare exception, however, and the book of Bucky has been
largely forgotten by the Christian world. Oddly enough, a small tribe in
Papua New Guinea has made it the entirety of their own version of the
Bible. No one knows where they obtained their copy, nor why it's written
in Pig Latin. This subject is a sort of hobby of mine, and I've been
trying for years to arouse interest in serious study. Anthropologists
have thus far expressed little interest in exploring the subject, sadly.
They show the blind resistance to new ideas typical of the narrow-minded
fools who have been holding back the advance of science for centuries.
They give lame excuses like, "You're making this up, right?" and "I told
you to stop calling me! The police are tracing this call right now!" and
"Was that you outside my window last night, you psycho?" I shall
persevere, however, and some day soon, the book of Bucky will take its
rightful place alongside Ruth and Ethel. Or is that Esther?
Anyway, the book of Bucky makes numerous references to matters furry,
all of them quite negative. Examples (translated by me, (c)1996 -- I know
a lawyer, so don't even think of copying me!) follow:

"If any man should read 'Genus,' the wrath of the Lord shall smite
him, and the plagues of Egypt shall render him like unto miserable."
-- Bucky 3:18

"Look ye not upon the Press of the Antarctic, for it is an abomination
unto My eyes."
-- Bucky 10:13

"Thou shalt not suffer a church of fur to stand. Purify it with
cleansing fire, and make thou certain to douse it thoroughly with water
before thou doth leave, for oftentimes embers do smoulder unseen. Stir it
mightily, then douse it again. Only thou can prevent forest fires."
-- Bucky 12:2-5

"Consort ye not with the lovers of animals, for they are unclean and an
abomination unto the Lord. Verily, I know not what I was thinking when I
created them."
-- Bucky 15:1-2

It kind of goes on in that vein at length, before veering off into
matters of personal hygiene, alfalfa growing, comments on the mating
habits of certain migratory birds, and a series of vague prophecies that
point to a climactic battle between Pretty Good and Kind Of Wicked which
will take place in a small hidden valley in an unexplored region of the
Middle Eastern desert, and thus will go unnoticed by the world at large
(it'll end in a tie -- sorry to ruin the surprise, but I hate to keep
people in suspense). It ends with a couple of recipes for fig bread.
I hope this report will help spread interest in the book of Bucky, and
if anyone out there happens to be a practicing anthropologist, you might
want to think about studying the McLagla tribe. Please?

-- Penh Gwyn, Amateur Anthropologist and Philologist Extraordinaire

[D. A. Graf]

Scott Whitmore <ur...@netcom.com> wrote:
[long and wonderfully apt post from Scott snipped for bandwidth]

: Why not include that other quote:

: "Taura, you're like a Klansman, and Christians are your niggers."
: (That one's mine, BTW, not Gen's.)

: --Uriel aka S.W.

Tygger cheers Scott and others on from left field. "GOGOGOGOGOGO!!!"

--Tygger

--
******************************************************************************
gr...@primenet.com http://www.av.qnet.com/~canuss/tygger

ftp://svansmoj.ctrl-c.liu.se/furry/images/artists/tygger
******************************************************************************
"Masquerade! Paper faces on parade...."

Full cast of Phantom of the Opera, Act II, Scene I, Andrew Lloyd Webber

[j.serdy]

[ please read lower for further references to Bucky ]

Penh Gwyn (penh...@shell.wco.com) wrote:
: In article <4s7ojr$m...@shellx.best.com>,

: D.J. Green <nebu...@best.com> wrote:
: >In article <4s703k$a...@news03.deltanet.com>,
: >Taura LearFox <lea...@vulpine.com> wrote:

[ stuff just not worth repeating ]

: >I don't believe you, and I've *read* the Bible. Start quoting me scripture

: >verses, and I might start giving you credence. Make sure to make specific
: >references to the New Testament, as that is the foundation of
: >Christianity.
:
: While not technically in the Bible, such verses are found in the
: book of Bucky, one of the lost books of the Bible, so Taura's sort of
: right. I mean, it could have easily been in the Bible, except it was
: only discovered in 1732 by a goatherder who was trying to hide the body
: of a rival and stumbled across the tattered scrolls in a long-forgotten
: cavern in upstate New York. Any day now, a new council could be convened
: to vote on its inclusion.

there are numerous references to the supposed author of this lost book,
Bucky Fellini, in ancient texts scattered thoughout monastic libraries in
europe and asia. besides being a biblical author and quite a good farmer
(he taught the picts hydrologic physics, which got them started down the
road to irrigation) he discovered the secret to honey brown ale and spent
many years teaching the brewing process to europe's monestaries, which
explains his ubiquitous presence in their histories

it is unfortunate that Bucky took a public stance against furries in his
scriptual writings, but anecdotal evidence suggests that his posturings
were motivated from shameful denial of his own zoophilia and
homosexuality. this translation from the personal diary of friar mohan,
estimated from carbon-14 datings to be written in the twelfth century:

"...The mare came to a stop in the middle of the field, and stubbornly
refused to move or plow anymore. I became agitated, and looked to Bucky
for advice - the field had to be plowed for the planting next morn. Bucky
brought me around to the rear of the horse and raised her tail, showing
that she was in estrus and frustrated at the lack of male horses in the
area. with his hands he manipulated her and the horse responded willingly
to his ministrations. within a few minutes the mare was satisfied and
willing to resume plowing the field again..."

there are others, more prurient references elsewhere, not necessarily
suitable for posting to this newsgroup, but suffice to say the evidence
is substantial and widespread enough to support the guilt/denial theorum.
so it is interesting to note the hard-line stance against furries in the
following quotes from Bucky, and how they contrast sharply with his real
life. it seems to me a good example of how things set out in the
scriptures may not reflect the honest spiritual feelings of the author,
instead reflecting a hypocritical puritanical stance that may have
suffered from third-party editorial revisionism over the years

[ edit ]

: Anyway, the book of Bucky makes numerous references to matters furry,

it is hard to pass up such lovely reporting in this newsgroup without
comment. I hope my additional insight into Bucky's life have been
revealing and helpful, and may raise again discussion of the controversy
his public works have brought to aspects of furry culture :)

: -- Penh Gwyn, Amateur Anthropologist and Philologist Extraordinaire

--
-------
http://www.netaxs.com/~scary
"I'd like... I'd like nothing better but to thank everybody in the world
who was never never better uh than a little bitty squirrel. Good night,
pizza lovers..." - Gibby Haynes, "White Man Sings The Blues", P
-------

[Boyce G. Kline Jr.]

From the Admiral's Desk:

Taura, I find it unfortunate that some Christians that you have run into
have treated you with unkindness, hatred and bigotry. However, I find
that it does your own image no good to use these same unpleasant traits
that you rail against against Christians in kind. I myself am a Born
Again Christian as are some artists out there who do furry art and
stories (for example, G. Raymond Eddy of "Galen the Saintly" fame).

You mention in your angry, hate filled message above that all these
reasons why the Christian religion is against furry can be found in the
Bible. I am interested in seeing your references that you have used.
Please supply to me via e-mail and this news group the book, chapter and
verse where the information can be found in the Bible. It would be
greatly appreciated.

Your post here does not coincide with the quote in your signature. You
have done NOTHING to strive to make this world of darkness right. You
have mearly added to the problem yourself.

Look forward to hearing from you soon and God Bless.

Sincerely,

Admiral Boyce Garald Kline Jr.
Chief of Star Fleet Operations
Star Fleet Headquarters
1707.016.2121

"Illegitimi Non Carborundum."*

*("Don't let the bastards get you down.")

[furplay]

You mean to say that artists like Dan Flahive,Jay Naylor,Dennis
Clark,and G. Raymond Eddy (+ who knows how many others) are doomed to
burn in Hay-ell for drawin' them there critters? Where there's all
that wailing and gnashing of teeth (no,I'm not referring to SDCC)?

Ohhhhhhhhh nooooooooooo!

[Stormwind]

Taura LearFox <lea...@vulpine.com> wrote:
>Rather than do that I decided to name facts that chrisitan
>religion goes against furry:
>
>1. In the bible, love of animals are unacceptable and will be
> punushed with death.

could we clarify our terms here? i
get the distinct impression that you
*mean* one thing, but what you're
typing is so general as to have several
interpretations.

love != sex. one can have sex without
love; one can love something without
having sex with it. which term did
you *mean* to use?

>2 Christian churches are okay, furry sites are to be burned down
> (also according to the good book)

wow. i knew the bible was supposed to
predict all kinds of things, but this
is the first i've heard that the bible
specifically mentions muck.furry.org
as well as furtoonia and SPR.

please clarify what you *meant* when
you write "furry sites".

>3 A typical christian will snear at you if you say you love animals
> (don't believe me? okay I dare you to try it in public)

i said that in front of my parents.
several times. they didn't bat an
eye. what they *heard* was, "i care
a lot about animals". which is true.

again, your choice of terms is very
confusing. did you mean to say
"sexually attracted to animals" instead
of "love animals"?

taura, if you have this much trouble
communicating with those of a religious
bent, it's no wonder you receive hate
mail from them.

>4 Christian religion has a LOT of refferances on controlling sex,
> A female having sex with anyone else but a christian married male

> will be killed. Having sex with furries... (you don't want to know)

actually, it's worse than that. if
you have sex with a christian married
male *to whom you are not married*, i
believe the punishment was stoning.
the bible is very sexually repressive,
more repressive of women than men.

however, i think that in the usa you'd
have a hard time finding anyone who's
recently been stoned to death for committing
adultery. or anyone who supports that
view anymore.

>Still don't believe me? it's all in the good book.

there's a lot in the good book...we
ripped it apart pretty thoroughly in
mythology class; it's also quite true
that the bible is very good at contradicting
itself in many places.

>5. If you live in a chriistan family, chances are you're going to be
> kicked out if you say to them how much you love furries.
> (I'm living proof of that)

if you live in a *restrictive* christian
family, odds are they're going to have
problems with a number of things, including
any announcements that you're living with
someone without marrying them, that you're
homosexual, or that you're interested in
bigamy or polyamory.

i know a number of christian people who
are...surprise surprise...quite openminded
people. i know of at least one christian
person who has some *very* weird kinks himself.
i suspect that what you're doing is lumping
the strident and strict religious sects
all into one pile, thereby doing anyone
following christian beliefs a grave disservice.
next time someone who's heavily religious
starts criticising you, as a reference point
you might want to inquire what religious sect
he follows.

>6. If you draw any furry having sex (which I did over a thousand times
> atleast) you will have to be killed. (read the bible, it's all there).

i've never seen any writings pronouncing
that drawings of erotica involving other
species is punishable by death. you're
stretching here.

>7. The general public favors chrisitanity... don't believe me? do
> something condradictory to the above and find out :>

i do, every day. i am a bonafide heathen
pagan, even after surviving four years of
catholic school. they learned to tolerate
those with other beliefs; i learned that
not all catholics are alike, and not all
christians are alike. there are hardnosed
idiots and open minds alike in every crowd.

>8. The goverment favors chrisitanity, CDA is proof.

ahhh, you really need to stop watching
x files so much. the cda is proof of
nothing more heinious than a bunch of
politicians trying to get reelected by
pandering to the fears of a generation
of parents that don't understand the
concept of personal responsibility.

>9. Chrisitanity is generally intolorant to furries. Don't believe
> me? Then how many people do you know have told their chrisitian
> familes they wanted to have sex with an animal and be accepted?

this comes as no surprise. i know of
plenty of gay people who can't tell their
families because they will be rejected.
likewise, i know of people who cohabitate
who can't tell their parents that they
have a lover they're not married to.
you're expecting too much from a group
of people that have serious difficulty
dealing with simple everyday things, taura.

take homosexuality. it's only been in
the last 15 years the homosexuality has
really "come out". it used to be defined
as a mental illness by psychologists; that
was only officially altered in psychiatric
textbooks LAST YEAR.

if the strict religious right are SUCH
slow learners that it takes them THIS LONG
to get a grip on something like that,
aren't you expecting a little too much
from them? give them a little time to
adjust to and digest the concept of
homosexuality before you tackle the next
phase.

>10. and the number 1 reason chrisianity is against furry...
> Exon, Chrisitan coilition, Clinton, every every chrisitian I know

> in LA is against Furry. You don't believe me? look at the facts.

what facts? when did you walk up to clinton
and explain that Furry (the muck; i assume
that's what you're referring to here) is a
place where people can get together and role
play anything from a human to a dragonfly?
he might think you're a little weird, sure,
but i haven't seen any tapes where he runs
away from you shrieking that furry fandom
must be shut down at all costs.

taura, this shouldn't have to be pointed out,
but...
as long as you don't give other people a chance
and don't sit down and talk to them rationally
and calmly about things like furry fandom,
how can you expect them to treat you in a calm
and rational fashion? as long as you keep
labelling people in a fashion they find insulting,
those people will continue to think of you as
a threat to their way of life.

this is something many pagans had to learn
the hard way. indeed, even now some people
are astonished when they hear me describe
myself as a pagan...to which i just shrug,
grin, and ask with a smile, "what were you
expecting?"

--
stormwind

hell's amazon
lord of the frozen realm

[? the platypus {aka David Formosa}]

>Taura LearFox (lea...@vulpine.com) wrote:
>: Rather than do that I decided to name facts that chrisitan
>: religion goes against furry:

>: 1. In the bible, love of animals are unacceptable and will be
>: punushed with death.

So why is Saint Franciss of Assii consdered a saint, his love fro
animules was well know. He would even address them as siblings.

[...]

>: 3 A typical christian will snear at you if you say you love animals
>: (don't believe me? okay I dare you to try it in public)

I have, most of them say things like "So do I", "My dogs like one of the
famly" ect... just what anyone else would say.

[...]

>: 6. If you draw any furry having sex (which I did over a thousand times
>: atleast) you will have to be killed. (read the bible, it's all there).

More over the bible is not the end all of christanaty, all religions
(bar fundermentlisum) are evolving living things that change with the
time the bible (or koran, or triparca or ect) are snap shots of the
relgion at that time.

>: 7. The general public favors chrisitanity... don't believe me? do
>: something condradictory to the above and find out :>

Wich genral public? The mygorty of australians are agnostics.

--
Please excuse my spelling as I am agraphic. dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au
Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep. Its Lucky to be Ducky
"Like be one with your oneness"-Shirley McLoon "I don't know, Tommy"-Chucky
Some times "Test Patten" is the best show on TV.

[Wanderer]

Having taken one tack, I might as well investigate the other ... :)

> lea...@vulpine.com (Taura LearFox) wrote in article
<4s703k$a...@news03.deltanet.com>...

> 1. In the bible, love of animals are unacceptable and will be
> punushed with death.

Reference under sodomy, since it's mentioned twice in the Bible ... once
in Genesis, once in Exodus. That's sex, folks, not just love. Besides,
Exodus only says what to do if the person is caught in the act.:>

>
> 2 Christian churches are okay, furry sites are to be burned down
> (also according to the good book)
>

Ahhhh ... no. Sorry, but unless you worship a furry god or actively
perform a religious service of some sort at the site, the judgement about
temples doesn't apply.

> 3 A typical christian will snear at you if you say you love animals
> (don't believe me? okay I dare you to try it in public)
>

If all you say is "I love animals", you won't get much reaction around
here. (Or anywhere else that airs Geraldo, but that's another story:>)
It's when you describe *how* you love them that you get into trouble.

> 4 Christian religion has a LOT of refferances on controlling sex,
> A female having sex with anyone else but a christian married male
> will be killed. Having sex with furries... (you don't want to know)
>

Actually, the sex references are almost exclusively in Genesis and Exodus.
Most of the rest of the Bible is surprisingly Victorian about the whole
thing.

> Still don't believe me? it's all in the good book.
>

> 5. If you live in a chriistan family, chances are you're going to be
> kicked out if you say to them how much you love furries.
> (I'm living proof of that)
>

Then your family wasn't all *that* Christian.

> 6. If you draw any furry having sex (which I did over a thousand times
> atleast) you will have to be killed. (read the bible, it's all
there).
>

Sorry, no. That section refers to the creation of an idol, and as you do
not (I assume) make burnt offerings to the art, it doesn't apply.

> While I rest a moment to write up more reasons...
> Please remeber that all the above are facts and experiances.
> No one is being judged and information are all factual.
>

Not quite all ... and I'm citing the KJV here.

> 7. The general public favors chrisitanity... don't believe me? do
> something condradictory to the above and find out :>
>

The general public is indifferent to Christianity ... what you and a lot
of others run into is a leftover piece of the Inquisition.:/

> 8. The goverment favors chrisitanity, CDA is proof.
>

The CDA is about as Christian as the Red Scare. Both have nothing to do
with religion and everything to do with control.

> 9. Chrisitanity is generally intolorant to furries. Don't believe
> me? Then how many people do you know have told their chrisitian
> familes they wanted to have sex with an animal and be accepted?
>

One or two ... but that isn't my secret to tell.

> 10. and the number 1 reason chrisianity is against furry...
> Exon, Chrisitan coilition, Clinton, every every chrisitian I know
> in LA is against Furry. You don't believe me? look at the facts.
>

As I am not in LA, I can only offer apologies to you on behalf of the more
accepting ranks of actual Christians ... as opposed to what attacked you
out in sunny CA.

Yours with a kind heart,

The Christian,

Wanderer

wand...@why.net
wand...@whytel.com

[D.M. Quozl Falk]

Wanderer (wand...@why.net) wrote:
: Having taken one tack, I might as well investigate the other ... :)

[some snips here and there- some pretty good comments... :) ]

: > lea...@vulpine.com (Taura LearFox) wrote in article
: <4s703k$a...@news03.deltanet.com>...
: > 1. In the bible, love of animals are unacceptable and will be
: > punushed with death.
: Reference under sodomy, since it's mentioned twice in the Bible ... once
: in Genesis, once in Exodus. That's sex, folks, not just love. Besides,
: Exodus only says what to do if the person is caught in the act.:>

You sure Exodus? I'm not _that_ up on the Bible (grew up listening to
religious programming on the radio, though), but did you skip Leviticus?
Seems there was more there, too...

: > 4 Christian religion has a LOT of refferances on controlling sex,

: > A female having sex with anyone else but a christian married male
: > will be killed. Having sex with furries... (you don't want to know)
: >
: Actually, the sex references are almost exclusively in Genesis and Exodus.
: Most of the rest of the Bible is surprisingly Victorian about the whole
: thing.

Ah, I'm quite sure Leviticus had more of this...

: > 6. If you draw any furry having sex (which I did over a thousand times

: > atleast) you will have to be killed. (read the bible, it's all
: there).
: >
: Sorry, no. That section refers to the creation of an idol, and as you do
: not (I assume) make burnt offerings to the art, it doesn't apply.

There's also the notion of lust in one's heart as being sinful, and is a
sin of the same calibre as Adultry, as that's what it's considered. This
is why I can see her point on this matter-- And why I'm not all that
surprised at hearing others believing that if you give animals "boobs",
there _must_ be some bestial desire, there, hence "skunkfucker"
comments... (Note I didn't say I _agree_ with the sentiment, but I _have_
encountered it...)

: > 9. Chrisitanity is generally intolorant to furries. Don't believe

: > me? Then how many people do you know have told their chrisitian
: > familes they wanted to have sex with an animal and be accepted?
: >
: One or two ... but that isn't my secret to tell.

More power to them! :)

: > 10. and the number 1 reason chrisianity is against furry...

: > Exon, Chrisitan coilition, Clinton, every every chrisitian I know
: > in LA is against Furry. You don't believe me? look at the facts.
: >
: As I am not in LA, I can only offer apologies to you on behalf of the more
: accepting ranks of actual Christians ... as opposed to what attacked you
: out in sunny CA.

And otherwise well-said, though I could contend the stereotype of
California as a hot'n'sunny place...

....Quozl!
(In usually cold`n'foggy Eureka, Ca.)

[Boyce G. Kline Jr.]

From the Admiral's Desk:

Taura, Taura, Taura,

I thought you would have had the intestinal fortitude to reply to my
last post in this string on the news group as well as via e-mail but
apparently not.

In your first e-mail, you stated "Please don't tell this to me. If you
wish others to stop doing hateful and harmful things in the name of your
religion, please read

http://www.deltanet.com/users/learfox/rel-faq.htm

It's a copy of an old distribution we had in HS and I found it to be
very worth reading for everyone

Saying that I say hateful things and doing whatever christians do to me
is a lie and that makes you a liar."

I have yet to look at this supposed "Religious FAQ" page but I can
promise you that I will and I WILL make commentary about it on this news
group. Since this is a copy of an old distribution you had in high
school, I would be interested in knowing the source of this information
sheet. So I imagine would others on this news group.

Your last sentence "Saying that I say hateful things and doing whatever
christians do to me is a lie and that makes you a liar." I found to be
both amusing and trite. As others have already pointed out to you, you
DO say hateful things and you DO do whatever you claim Christians (the
word is capitalized, by the way) to to you. Saying that this is a lie
does not negate these obvious truths, nor does it make me a liar.

Moving on to your second e-mail, you said,

"I'm sorry you see it that way. However I'm afraid that the way you
precieved (sic) it will someday hurt you and others too.

The quotes from the bible (sic) maybe (sic) obtained from a library... I
wish to point out a few lines:

* If a female has sex with an animal she will be killed.

* If anyone has thoughts of having same sex he/she will be killed.

* If she has toughts (sic) of anything related to sex out of marrage
(sic) she will be killed.

The above can be found in the good book."

I'm not quite sure how to interpret your second sentence in the second
post, but you are entitled to your opinion.

As to your "quotes", they were given without reference to book, chapter
or verse. This is poor form when trying to make points in debate and
simply stating that something is so without such references greatly
weakens the credibility of your arguement. As the one trying to make
their point, the burden of proof falls on YOU, NOT on I going to my copy
of the Bible to try to verify or rebuff your statements.

However, I believe that these quotes are from the Book of Exodus and
pertain to Jewish religious law.

Going over your "quotes" one by one:

* If a female has sex with an animal she will be killed.

Furries are intelligent beings capable of rational thought and consent.
If furries actually existed (which unfortunately they do not as far as
WE know...), this intelligence lifts them above the level of animals and
elevates them to the level of BEINGS. Therefore, this "quote" would not
be applicable.

* If anyone has thoughts of having same sex he/she will be killed.

This quote is off topic and is not applicable in this arguement as it
does not directly relate to furriness vs. non-furriness but sexual
practice arguements, which believe it or not is fodder for a completely
different arguement.

* If she has toughts (sic) of anything related to sex out of marrage
(sic) she will be killed.

Again, this quote is off topic and is not applicable in this arguement.

Taura, you strike me as a young woman that has been hurt deeply in the
past and I can feel nothing but pity for you in this regard. But, be
advised. Hate filled and prejudiced statements like your "Reasons
against furry" post WILL be responded to by me and others as we will
stand up for ourselves and our beliefs. In future, if you wish to start
a controversy like this in a public forum, expect ALL of the arguement,
until its resolution, to be in that public forum. When asked politely,
as I asked you, please send your responses to my posted articles to the
news group AS WELL AS to my e-mail box.

I await your reply as well as proof of your arguements to my first post
by your supplying of applicable Bible books, chapters and verses.

I will pray for you and hope that you will find comfort and peace. God
Bless!

Sincerely,

Admiral Boyce Garald Kline Jr.
Chief of Star Fleet Operations

Region One

[Captain Packrat]

Daphne Lage wrote:
>
> BTW, I may have been raised Catholic, but I've been far from it since
> I graduated grade school... I personally do not believe in the concept
> of organized religion. I find the idea of *having* to go to a
> *special* place run by *special* people and repeat *special* chants to
> talk to God offensive. God is everywhere. I can talk to Him whenever,
> however, and wherever I feel like it... and as far as I can tell...
> God doesn't seem to have a problem with me doing that... and God
> doen't have a problem with me being a furry either.

Amen, sister! ;)

Having spent 13 years in "Christian" schools, I got PLENTY of that "this
is the way your supposed to pray" garbage. I always thought it
interesting how they'd make someone stand up and pray in front of the
class (I hated that), even though it says in the Bible to pray in private
(Matthew 6:5-6).

I finally tired of the retoric, and taught myself Hebrew and Greek, so I
could go digging around in the original languages and learn on my own.
(And some of what I found would get me burned at the stake (mmmmmmm, steak!)
for heresy not too long ago.)

> Although... it *is* annoying when I do feel like talking to God, and
> all I get is the answering machine... ;P

*We're sorry, your prayer could not be completed as dialed. Please hang
up and pray again.* :)

(or if you're of the polytheistic type:)
*We're sorry, all of our gods are busy right now. Your prayer is important
to us. Please stay on the line and the next available deity will assist
you shortly.* :)

(or)
*If your prayer is about money, press 1. If it is about love, press 2.
For spiritual enlightenment, press 3. To speak to the operator, press 0.*

Captain Packrat
(Captain on FurryMUCK)

"...the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost would never throw the Devil
out of Heaven as long as they still need him as a fourth for bridge."

O. .O
==V==

[Daphne Lage]

? the platypus {aka David Formosa} <dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au>
wrote:

>>Taura LearFox (lea...@vulpine.com) wrote:
>>: Rather than do that I decided to name facts that chrisitan
>>: religion goes against furry:

>>: 1. In the bible, love of animals are unacceptable and will be
>>: punushed with death.

>So why is Saint Franciss of Assii consdered a saint, his love fro

>animules was well know. He would even address them as siblings.

You're confusing Catholosisim (sp?) with Christianity. Christians are
totally different from Catholics, even though they both read the same
books :)

Now don't flame me if I get this wrong... I'm just going by what I
remember... Please feel free to correct me. (Now let's see if those 8
years in Catholic school amounted to anything)

1) Christians believe that Jesus and God are the same entity, as in
Jesus Christ *is* God. That's why you usually hear them ask "Do you
accept Jesus as your saviour?" Catholics strictly believe that Jesus
and God are separate, God sending his only son Jesus to save mankind.
Catholics *do not* worship Jesus as God.

2) Christians do not accept the power and authority of the Pope while
Catholics live on his every word.

3) And to answer your question... The concept of saints is Catholic.
Christians *do not* recognize saints, so pointing out St. Francis
would be moot since only the POPE can decree sainthood upon an
individual (and that's after the investigation committee confirms the
performance of "proper" miracles. I kid you not.) And we all know how
Christians feel about the Pope...

That's all I can remember but there are many other differences as
well.

BTW, I may have been raised Catholic, but I've been far from it since
I graduated grade school... I personally do not believe in the concept
of organized religion. I find the idea of *having* to go to a
*special* place run by *special* people and repeat *special* chants to
talk to God offensive. God is everywhere. I can talk to Him whenever,
however, and wherever I feel like it... and as far as I can tell...
God doesn't seem to have a problem with me doing that... and God
doen't have a problem with me being a furry either.

Although... it *is* annoying when I do feel like talking to God, and

all I get is the answering machine... ;P

-- Daphne Lage

"The only thing you can change is yourself,
but sometimes that changes everything." - Anonymous

****************************************************************

egor...@intercall.com
http://www.intercall.com/~egoraven/

Specializing in anthropomorphic fantasy art, erotica,
comic book illustration, and computer/graphic design

Artist of the ICZER-3 mini-series by CPM comics, TALL
TAILS by GRU Inc., and regular contributor to FRED PERRY'S
GOLD DIGGER ANNUAL by Antarctic Press

Regularly attends ConFURence East and West and many
conventions in-between

Portfolios, comics, color prints, calendars,
original art, and t-shirts available!

e-mail me for a complete listing!

***************************************************************

[G. Sean Brandenburg]

kei...@sedona.net (Keith Wood) wrote:

>Gee, Taura, I hate to ruin a good diatribe, but you need to cut back
>on the caffeine . . .there are ordained priests who have written (and
>published) Furry stories.

C.S. Lewis comes to mind...

[c.groark]

In article <4sbc05$3...@news1.intercall.com>,

Daphne Lage <egor...@intercall.com> wrote:
>
>You're confusing Catholosisim (sp?) with Christianity. Christians are
>totally different from Catholics, even though they both read the same
>books :)
>

Even that's not entirely true, Daphne. The King James Version of the
Bible is not acceptable to Catholics. It must be the Douay-Rheims
translation. This leads to interesting difference: The Catholic version
does not include the quote about "The Power and the Glory," for example.

>Now don't flame me if I get this wrong... I'm just going by what I
>remember... Please feel free to correct me. (Now let's see if those 8
>years in Catholic school amounted to anything)
>
>1) Christians believe that Jesus and God are the same entity, as in
>Jesus Christ *is* God. That's why you usually hear them ask "Do you
>accept Jesus as your saviour?" Catholics strictly believe that Jesus
>and God are separate, God sending his only son Jesus to save mankind.
>Catholics *do not* worship Jesus as God.

Not quite right to my recollection. Catholics are supposed to believe in
the Holy Trinity, a troika of God the Father, God the Son (Jesus) and God
the Holy Ghost. All three entities being separate but equal. (Hmmm, that
phrasing rings a bell for some reason...<grin>)

> >2) Christians do not accept the power and authority of the Pope while
>Catholics live on his every word.

True, but Catholics in the U.S. accept the Pope as their spiritual leader
and go right ahead and do the things he vehemently opposes: birth control,
for example.

>
>3) And to answer your question... The concept of saints is Catholic.
>Christians *do not* recognize saints, so pointing out St. Francis
>would be moot since only the POPE can decree sainthood upon an
>individual (and that's after the investigation committee confirms the
>performance of "proper" miracles. I kid you not.) And we all know how
>Christians feel about the Pope...
>

I think it requires more than just the approval of the Pope. There's an
investigating committee lead by an appointee whose major job is to
UNDERMINE the claim of sainthood. This person is called, no kidding, a
Devil's Advocate. If the investigation is completed without negative
evidence coming up, it's referred to a higher level of the Church, but not
as high as the Pope. I think it requires a majority vote by the College
of Cardinals, but I won't swear to it.

>BTW, I may have been raised Catholic, but I've been far from it since
>I graduated grade school... I personally do not believe in the concept
>of organized religion.
>

I dropped it after 12 years of Catholic education but, as you can see,
early indoctrination sticks forever. One other note: I was born in 1951.
This information dates back to the 50's and 60's. If the verbiage changed
later, well, them's the breaks. (One of the reasons I dropped out was
that suddenly, from one week to another, it was no longer a mortal sin to
eat meat on Fridays. Not only that, we were told that despite what we'd
been told for years, it had NEVER been a sin.)

Charlie

[Boyce G. Kline Jr.]

From the Admiral's Desk:

Sadly, in this third of my posts, Taura, you STILL does not apparently
have the intestinal fortitude to continue this debate which you started
in a public forun IN a public forum, only e-mailing me instead. As YOU
started this in a public forum, so shall I keep it.

In your latest e-mail to me you stated:

"<sighs> dear (sic), the FAQ was put togeather (sic) by many volentier
(sic) and a head councelor in HS. we (sic) gave that out for people
going into religion for the 1st time.

It's very realistic IMHO even more so at the time it was written.

As for your saying I DO do the things that christians (sic) do to me.
(sic) that's a lie and you're lieing (sic), I don't have the time to
argue and explain to this so consider this your last e-mail from me.

I do not hate blacks.
I do not hate gays.
I do not hate anything different from me.
I'm not ignorant.
I don't close my mind off when anyone is talking to me.
I don't say I love everyone and then back off when someone needs it.

All the above are typical christian (sic) behavior.
I'm not judging every christian (sic) in existance in any defined
existance.

I'm just stating the majority of what christians (sic) that I have met
have treated and behaved toward me. That's enough. I'm no Bigot (sic),
I'm no ignoranmus (sic). And you're still a liar if you say I am.
Because I am NOT. Now go away!"

Refering to your first paragraph, I would be interested in knowing what
type of high school you attended. By the sound of it, it might have
been a private Roman Catholic school. I would also be interested in
knowing who these many "volentiers" were, the head councelor was and the
motivation behind producing this FAQ. Was it to inform or was it simply
to put forth a political point of view?

As for your statement "As for saying I DO do the things that christians
(sic) do to me. (sic) that's a lie and you're lieing (sic)...", I
believe that it is self evident to others on this news group the
evidence to the contrary. You DO do, sadly, everything that you CLAIM
Christians do to you and worse, painting all Christians with the same
brush, saying that certain unpleasant actions and characteristics define
an entire group of people. This IS, by definition, the essence of
prejudice and bigotry. As to being ignorant, I am not saying that you
are, but your hate-filled posts would tend to lead one to believe that
way about you.

As to your list above, you for once are quite correct. The list above
ARE typical Christian behavior. Christians DO NOT - hate blacks, hate
gays, hate anything different from them, close off their minds when
anyone is talking to them or say I love everyone and then back off when
someone needs it. As to ignorance, that has nothing to do with being a
Christian or not. It depends upon the individual.

Below this list you state - "I'm not judging every christian (sic) in
existance in any defined existance." What exactly were you trying to
say here? I'm afraid I couldn't make sense of this statement.

"I'm just stating the majority of what Christians that I have met have
treated and behaved toward me. That's enough." Taura, I am genuinely
sorry that you feel this way but no, that is NOT enough. You CANNOT
judge an entire group of people by the actions of a few.

"I'm no Bigot (sic), I'm no ignoranmus (sic)."

Sorry, but your post give the lie to this statement. By your own words
you have proven to me at least that you ARE a bigot.

"And you're still a liar if you say I am. Because I am NOT."

Taura, I have told nothing but the truth. I am sorry if this truth you
find harsh, unpalletable and unpleasant, but it is the truth none the
less. You lie to and delude no one but yourself.

"Now go away!"

Taura, as this is a public forum which I enjoy I SHALL NOT "go away!" I
shall continue to enjoy it, make meaningful contributions when I want,
and continue to interact with others here. However, unless you initiate
contact, you need not fear receiving another e-mail from me. I have no
desire to continue a line of communication with an individual with such
unpleasant traits as bigotry, prejudice, pettiness, immaturity and
spite.

A final piece of advice: You may want to check your posts and e-mails
for grammer and spelling errors before you send them in the future.

I will continue to pray for you. God Bless!

Sincerely,

Admiral Boyce Garald Kline Jr.
Chief of Star Fleet Operations
Region One
Star Fleet Headquarters
1707.016.2121

"Illegitimi Non Carborundum."*

*("Don't let hte bastards get you down.")

[sola...@eden.com]

penh...@shell.wco.com (Penh Gwyn) wrote:

> While not technically in the Bible, such verses are found in the
>book of Bucky, one of the lost books of the Bible, so Taura's sort of
>right.

[a lot of very peculiar stuff deleted for space]

> I hope this report will help spread interest in the book of Bucky, and
>if anyone out there happens to be a practicing anthropologist, you might
>want to think about studying the McLagla tribe. Please?

Thou hast achieved insanity, my son. :)

[Matt Forrestal]

egor...@intercall.com (Daphne Lage) wrote:

<snip>

>You're confusing Catholosisim (sp?) with Christianity. Christians are
>totally different from Catholics, even though they both read the same
>books :)

Not quite the same books. The King James version of the bible, which
is the standard for most Protestant Christian sects, contains several
key transational differences than the Vatican approved biblical text.
The Vatican even has a doctrinal seal of approval which is stamped in
the front of every Vatican approved religious text. Books which do
not have this seal cannot be considered sources of religious
information. In the middle ages, by the way, this applied to all
books, and Catholics who read unapproved books were subject to
excommunication.

>1) Christians believe that Jesus and God are the same entity, as in
>Jesus Christ *is* God. That's why you usually hear them ask "Do you
>accept Jesus as your saviour?" Catholics strictly believe that Jesus
>and God are separate, God sending his only son Jesus to save mankind.
>Catholics *do not* worship Jesus as God.

Actually, they do. Catholics believe in a Triune Godhead or divine
trinity. This means that Catholics believe that God the Father,
Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all the same, divine being. The
Mystery of the Divine Trinity, as it is called, is a basic tenet of
Catholic belief. You may be talking about Solo Vide, which I'll go
into later.

>2) Christians do not accept the power and authority of the Pope while
>Catholics live on his every word.

Yup, you're perfectly correct. The only thing that I would add is
that this only seems to work in theory. American Catholics often
disobey the Pope when they do not agree with his doctrines.
Theoretically, to do so is a serious sin, and one worthy of
excommunication even to this day. In practice, however, American
bishops tend to look the other way. This may soon change, as the
Vatican appears to be taking a harder line against doctrinal
disobedience. We may even eventually see a schism in the church, and
the formation of a more liberal American Catholic Church in the
future. Or mabey not.

<accurate saintly info deleted>

>That's all I can remember but there are many other differences as
>well.

The main difference between the Catholic faith and other Christian
faiths is the beliefe in Solo Vide, which means faith alone.
Protestants and others believe in this, while Catholics most
definately do not. Solo Vide is the belief that only through the
acceptance of Jesus Christ as your savior will you attain the needed
grace to be saved from eternal damnation. Good works are only proof
of the true acceptance of Christ as savior. Catholics believe that
salvation can only be obtained though good works done through grace,
and grace obtained through the regular receipt of the sacraments.
This is the fundemental disagreement which seperates these groups,
although it seems that many on both sides are ignorent of this fact.

<snip many astute comments about organized religion>

While I am neither Christian or Catholic, I have had, at various
times, an extreme (as in unhealthy and odd) interest in Western
religions, especially those which helped to shape this country. The
information containd in this long winded post is information that I
have come accross while doing several even more long winded term
papers on said topics. Therefore, this info is only as accurate as
the sources which I used to do the last one, about a year and a half
ago. I doubt that Catholisism has changed much, but some American
Christian sects can be very dynamic, and some info may have changed.
Please don't be offended if these views do not reflect your views of
one of the groups that I mentioned, as matters of doctrinal belief are
generated by the Vatican and such Christian groups as the American
Alliance of Christian Churches, and ymmv with local congregations.

Matt (Who can't believe he just posted all that when few, if
any people care. If you care deeply about finding out more about this
topic, or are just interested in more useless information which I
happen to know, please write your name and addres on a standard sized
postcard. Take the postcard, through it in the trash, and immediately
seek professional help. It'll do you a world of good.)

[? the platypus {aka David Formosa}]

egor...@intercall.com (Daphne Lage) writes:

>? the platypus {aka David Formosa} <dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au>
>wrote:

[...]

>>>: 1. In the bible, love of animals are unacceptable and will be
>>>: punushed with death.

>>So why is Saint Franciss of Assii consdered a saint, his love fro

>>animules was well know. He would even address them as siblings.

>You're confusing Catholosisim (sp?) with Christianity. Christians are

>totally different from Catholics, even though they both read the same
>books :)

Cathlics consder themselfese a sect of Christianty. (If useing sects in a
totaly non-judegemtnly way just diffrent flavours).

[...]

>1) Christians believe that Jesus and God are the same entity, as in
>Jesus Christ *is* God. That's why you usually hear them ask "Do you
>accept Jesus as your saviour?" Catholics strictly believe that Jesus
>and God are separate, God sending his only son Jesus to save mankind.
>Catholics *do not* worship Jesus as God.

This one I know is wrong Cathlics have a kind of complex 3 parts of one
God intration of God where God conists of three parts The
Creator (sometimes called the father), The Son (Jesus) and the Holy Sprit.

>2) Christians do not accept the power and authority of the Pope while
>Catholics live on his every word.

What about the orthadox (Russhen, greek ect) thay all have popes and thay
all "live on his every word".

>3) And to answer your question... The concept of saints is Catholic.
>Christians *do not* recognize saints, so pointing out St. Francis

[...]

> And we all know how
>Christians feel about the Pope...

I think you are confusing Prodostent with Christion.

[Synicism]

In article <31E94B...@isat.com>, Captain Packrat
<captp...@isat.com> writes:

>I finally tired of the retoric, and taught myself Hebrew and Greek, so I
>could go digging around in the original languages and learn on my own.
>(And some of what I found would get me burned at the stake (mmmmmmm,
steak!)
>for heresy not too long ago.)

Well, actually, then, Cap'n, I suggest you go and learn Aramaeic. <g>

[Wanderer]

> cgr...@access1.digex.net (c.groark) wrote in article
<4sc4ve$j...@access1.digex.net>...

> In article <4sbc05$3...@news1.intercall.com>,
> Daphne Lage <egor...@intercall.com> wrote:

(snip, snip, snip ... )

> >3) And to answer your question... The concept of saints is Catholic.
> >Christians *do not* recognize saints, so pointing out St. Francis

> >would be moot since only the POPE can decree sainthood upon an
> >individual (and that's after the investigation committee confirms the

> >performance of "proper" miracles. I kid you not.) And we all know how

> >Christians feel about the Pope...
> >
>

> I think it requires more than just the approval of the Pope. There's an
> investigating committee lead by an appointee whose major job is to
> UNDERMINE the claim of sainthood. This person is called, no kidding, a
> Devil's Advocate. If the investigation is completed without negative
> evidence coming up, it's referred to a higher level of the Church, but
not
> as high as the Pope. I think it requires a majority vote by the College
> of Cardinals, but I won't swear to it.
>

As for canonization, here's what I get from my 1960 Brittanica:

"(In the 12th and 13th centuries) there was no marked difference between
canonization and beatification. In modern practice, as definitively
settled by the decrees of Pope Urban VIII. (1625 and 1634) , the two acts
are totally distinct. Canonization is the solemn and definitive act by
which the pope decrees the plenitude of public honors. Beatification
consists in permitting a cultus, the manifestations of which are
restricted, and is merely a step towards canonization."

It goes on to say that there are two methods of canonization: exceptional
is the fastest, but the saint-to-be must have had a cultus for a long time
already. Common is the more usual, and is basically a lawsuit decided by
the tribunal of the Congregation of Rites, a permanent assemblage of
cardinals assisted by a certain number of subordinate officers and
presided over by a cardinal. The pope, however, remains the final judge.
the "devil's advocate" in the trial is the popular name (advocatus
diaboli) for the promoter of the faith, whose job is to point out the weak
spots (if any) in the case. The defense attorney's equivalent is the
postulator, who must prove:

1: The individual in question has a reputation for sanctity.

2: The individual in question possesses (or possessed) virtues of heroic
quality.

3: Miracles attributable to the individual in question have occurred.

As a side note, St. Francis was canonized only one year after his
death.:)

Yours informationally,

The non-sequiturial,

Wanderer

wand...@why.net
wand...@whytel.com

[Paul Comeau]

The lurker and I spent 16 years in parochial school opinion.....

? the platypus {aka David Formosa} wrote:
>
> egor...@intercall.com (Daphne Lage) writes:
>
> >? the platypus {aka David Formosa} <dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au>
> >wrote:
> [...]

> >>>: 1. In the bible, love of animals are unacceptable and will be
> >>>: punushed with death.
>

> >>So why is Saint Franciss of Assii consdered a saint, his love fro
> >>animules was well know. He would even address them as siblings.
>
> >You're confusing Catholosisim (sp?) with Christianity. Christians are
> >totally different from Catholics, even though they both read the same
> >books :)
>
> Cathlics consder themselfese a sect of Christianty. (If useing sects in a
> totaly non-judegemtnly way just diffrent flavours).

Nice way to put it, the platypus seems to forget that Christianity describes
anybody with a belief in Chirst (e.g. Lutherns, Catholics, Unitarian Universalists (sp?))

> [...]
> >1) Christians believe that Jesus and God are the same entity, as in
> >Jesus Christ *is* God. That's why you usually hear them ask "Do you
> >accept Jesus as your saviour?" Catholics strictly believe that Jesus
> >and God are separate, God sending his only son Jesus to save mankind.
> >Catholics *do not* worship Jesus as God.
> This one I know is wrong Cathlics have a kind of complex 3 parts of one
> God intration of God where God conists of three parts The
> Creator (sometimes called the father), The Son (Jesus) and the Holy Sprit.
>
> >2) Christians do not accept the power and authority of the Pope while
> >Catholics live on his every word.
> What about the orthadox (Russhen, greek ect) thay all have popes and thay
> all "live on his every word".

Picky point... Only Roman Caholicism (R.C.) currently has a pope. The other forms are ruled by
councils of Bishops. Also R.C. does not hang on every word (just because the Pope speaks does not
mean he's infallible (sp?) it has to be officially declared.)

> >3) And to answer your question... The concept of saints is Catholic.
> >Christians *do not* recognize saints, so pointing out St. Francis

> [...]

> > And we all know how
> >Christians feel about the Pope...

> I think you are confusing Prodostent with Christion.

Actually there are some sects of Protestanism that still accept Saints. I believe the Episcapallians (sp? way off)
still have saints, as might the Church of England. Sects based on Luther or Calvin tend to reject the notion of Saints.

> --
> Please excuse my spelling as I am agraphic. dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au
> Never trust a country with more peaple then sheep. Its Lucky to be Ducky
> "Like be one with your oneness"-Shirley McLoon "I don't know, Tommy"-Chucky
> Some times "Test Patten" is the best show on TV.

I have no excuse for my spelling, it just is.

By the by in looking at the other posts, how does anyone even begin to apply religious teaching to furry fandom,
ghod that takes a bit of doing ;) ....

--
Paul Comeau - pco...@winternet.com
"The only thing I wanted to be
Was the perfect one who killed for free." (Big Country)

[Wanderer]

> cgr...@access1.digex.net (c.groark) wrote in article

<4sellv$6...@access1.digex.net>...
> In article <01bb7231.4f2af580$0dfd...@wanderer.why.net>,

> Wanderer <wand...@why.net> wrote:
> >
> >1: The individual in question has a reputation for sanctity.
> >
> >2: The individual in question possesses (or possessed) virtues of
heroic
> >quality.
> >
> >3: Miracles attributable to the individual in question have occurred.
> >
>

> (Grin) One MINOR correction, Wanderer. All of the above are true, but
> they must be in the past tense. The one invariable (thus far)
requirement
> for sainthood is that you must be dead.
>
Not quite invariable. St. Anthony of Padua began the road to sainthood
while still alive. While his canonization didn't occur until 1523, well
after his death, he was beatified while still alive.:)

I love canonical trivia.:>

Yours as a Protestant,

[Grendel Prime]

cgr...@access1.digex.net (c.groark) wrote:
>I dropped it after 12 years of Catholic education but, as you can see,
>early indoctrination sticks forever. One other note: I was born in 1951.
>This information dates back to the 50's and 60's. If the verbiage changed
>later, well, them's the breaks. (One of the reasons I dropped out was
>that suddenly, from one week to another, it was no longer a mortal sin to
>eat meat on Fridays. Not only that, we were told that despite what we'd
>been told for years, it had NEVER been a sin.)

>Charlie

The foundation of any good religion is revision.
As the people in a religion change, the religion changes to fit their
current needs. People got sick of not eating meat on Friday, so they
said "Well, mayby it's not SO bad..." and the damage is done.

[Brent Eric Edwards]

Dear Daphne,

In my humble opinion, this topic is WAY off-base for alt.fan.furry,
so I won't be posting it. On the other hand, I'm fascinated by religion...
mind if I make a comment?

Please don't confuse 'Christianity' with 'Protestantism'. If you
follow history, Catholicism (and the Eastern Orthodox religions) were
founded by Christ's disciples themselves. Protestantism started with
Martin Luther's nailing of the 95 Theses to the door of the church in
Wittenburg.

Protestantism is Christianity. Catholicism is Christianity.
Eastern Orthodox religions are Christianity. They're not the same.

-- Brent,
who spent two years of his life studying
religion and philosophy. Doesn't it show?

P.S. I'm looking forward to seeing you at Albany Anthrocon (and sooner!)

In article <4sbc05$3...@news1.intercall.com>,
Daphne Lage <egor...@intercall.com> wrote:

>You're confusing Catholosisim (sp?) with Christianity. Christians are
>totally different from Catholics, even though they both read the same
>books :)
>

>Now don't flame me if I get this wrong... I'm just going by what I
>remember... Please feel free to correct me. (Now let's see if those 8
>years in Catholic school amounted to anything)
>

>1) Christians believe that Jesus and God are the same entity, as in
>Jesus Christ *is* God. That's why you usually hear them ask "Do you
>accept Jesus as your saviour?" Catholics strictly believe that Jesus
>and God are separate, God sending his only son Jesus to save mankind.
>Catholics *do not* worship Jesus as God.
>

>2) Christians do not accept the power and authority of the Pope while
>Catholics live on his every word.
>

>3) And to answer your question... The concept of saints is Catholic.
>Christians *do not* recognize saints, so pointing out St. Francis

>would be moot since only the POPE can decree sainthood upon an
>individual (and that's after the investigation committee confirms the

>performance of "proper" miracles. I kid you not.) And we all know how

>Christians feel about the Pope...
>

>That's all I can remember but there are many other differences as
>well.
>

>BTW, I may have been raised Catholic, but I've been far from it since
>I graduated grade school... I personally do not believe in the concept

--
Unsolicited commercial e-mail including surveys will be charged $100 for
proofreading services. Sending me such constitutes acceptance of this policy.
TCotF (1.1): FEhu6m/Mo3m A- C+++ H++ M++++ W**/+ Z+++ Sm+ RLET cdu+++ d--
i++ a e+++>++++$ h- p- sm#

[Wanderer]

> egor...@intercall.com (Daphne Lage) wrote in article
<4sbc05$3...@news1.intercall.com>...

> Now don't flame me if I get this wrong... I'm just going by what I
> remember... Please feel free to correct me. (Now let's see if those 8
> years in Catholic school amounted to anything)

Correction mode on.;>

>
> 1) Christians believe that Jesus and God are the same entity, as in
> Jesus Christ *is* God. That's why you usually hear them ask "Do you
> accept Jesus as your saviour?" Catholics strictly believe that Jesus
> and God are separate, God sending his only son Jesus to save mankind.
> Catholics *do not* worship Jesus as God.

Eep! Before I met my first Catholic, I got this idea as well. It is,
however, false. While the Catholic religion does elevate Mary, it does
not do so at the expense of Jesus.

>
> 2) Christians do not accept the power and authority of the Pope while
> Catholics live on his every word.

Weeellllll ... yes and no. *In theory*, Catholics follow the Pope's every
ruling because he is God's representative on Earth. In practice, however,
it's business as usual. If they agree with it, they'll follow it. If not
.. well, maybe.

>
> 3) And to answer your question... The concept of saints is Catholic.
> Christians *do not* recognize saints, so pointing out St. Francis
> would be moot since only the POPE can decree sainthood upon an
> individual (and that's after the investigation committee confirms the
> performance of "proper" miracles. I kid you not.) And we all know how
> Christians feel about the Pope...

The concept is Catholic, yes. But that doesn't stop the Protestant
religions from recognising saints, only from creating them. Otherwise, my
first Presbyterian church wouldn't have been called St. Mark's.
Likewise, St. Francis is mainly recognised by Catholics, but the
Cumberland Presbyterian hymnal has a song or two that use his words as the
text. As for the investigation committee, look up the church's history.
They were forever having saints and miracles declared in contradiction of
their decrees before they instigated this process. Even now, they get
hundreds of suggestions every year. Most of them (ahem) unusual.
Finally, I can't speak for all Christians (which includes Catholics, btw)
but I myself have no feelings toward the Pope other than considering him a
brave man doing the best he can in a stressful job. I believe that God
may lead him (good grief, I hope so) , but I have no strictures in my
religion saying I should obey him. Therefore, I am neutral.
(snip)

> BTW, I may have been raised Catholic, but I've been far from it since
> I graduated grade school... I personally do not believe in the concept
> of organized religion. I find the idea of *having* to go to a
> *special* place run by *special* people and repeat *special* chants to
> talk to God offensive. God is everywhere. I can talk to Him whenever,
> however, and wherever I feel like it... and as far as I can tell...
> God doesn't seem to have a problem with me doing that... and God
> doen't have a problem with me being a furry either.

I just happen to like going to church and meeting friends and singing.
Yes, I can talk to God and sing whenever I like, but Texas isn't famed for
its nightlife ... there are precious few places to meet people around
here. That's one of the main reasons I like the Internet, after all.:)

Yours as a Christian and Protestant,

The loving,

Wanderer

wand...@why.net
wand...@whytel.com

[Wanderer]

> gre...@ismi.net (Grendel Prime) wrote in article
<4scmg8$s...@ox.ismi.net>...
(snip)
> I'd also like to hear your opinion on what the Bible really means when
> it says things like "(he who does whatever) shall die". (I'd be more
> specific in my refrences, but it's 3 in the morning and I'm not all
> that fluent with flipping through the bible) In my opinion, it means
> that the sinner is left up to God's judgement, and will die eventually
> for that sin and every other he/she has made. Some people, like Taura
> I suppose, seem to think that it means the sinner should actually be
> hunted down and killed.
Unfortunately, far too many people in the past got that idea as well.
It's even still around today, as a few people in Salem could tell you ...
if they'd witnessed anything, which of course they didn't.

Of course.:(

Yours with regrets,

The melancholy,

Wanderer

wand...@why.net
wand...@whytel.com

[Aaron F Johnson]

Daphne Lage (egor...@intercall.com) wrote:
> 3) And to answer your question... The concept of saints is Catholic.
> Christians *do not* recognize saints, so pointing out St. Francis
> would be moot since only the POPE can decree sainthood upon an
> individual (and that's after the investigation committee confirms the
> performance of "proper" miracles. I kid you not.) And we all know how
> Christians feel about the Pope...

Umm...p'raps you should've picked a different word than
"Christians". Christianity is the Big Picture, that is to say, the
belief that Jesus Christ was the Son of the Lord God. Catholicism is a
subset, a denomination, of Christianity. Personally, as a Christian and
a Methodist, I feel that John Paul II is a kind, decent, intelligent man,
with some good ideas...and some bad ideas. All in all, he, like all of us,
is human, and subject to the same failings. I respect him, but do not
revere him, any more than I revere any human life (which I hold quite
highly, actually).

> BTW, I may have been raised Catholic, but I've been far from it since
> I graduated grade school... I personally do not believe in the concept
> of organized religion. I find the idea of *having* to go to a
> *special* place run by *special* people and repeat *special* chants to
> talk to God offensive. God is everywhere. I can talk to Him whenever,
> however, and wherever I feel like it... and as far as I can tell...
> God doesn't seem to have a problem with me doing that... and God
> doen't have a problem with me being a furry either.

> Although... it *is* annoying when I do feel like talking to God, and

> all I get is the answering machine... ;P

I hate to say "me too," but this seems to cover it fairly well on
my end as well. I think God, in all of His (or Her, it really doesn't
matter) forms, is a pretty understanding being. To paraphrase the letter
col of "Scud, the Disposable Assassin" (a funny, but not-furry comic), my
Jesus rollerskates, my Jesus scuba dives, my Jesus has fun. And I really
think that my Jesus, and my God, would rather me exercise my imagination
by thinking about furries, rather than restricting it to "acceptable"
topics. Otherwise, He wouldn't have given it to me.
Taura, I think I have to agree with the Admiral. You seem to
have encountered some really unpleasant examples of the extremist parts
of Christianity. Going off of my own experiences, it sounds a whole lot
like extreme Southern Baptist, which is by far, the most vocal part of
American Christianity. But, believe me, there are Christians out there
who are loving, caring, forgiving people, who won't change their
opinions, just because you happen to like furries. I should know, I came
from a family of them.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron F. Johnson |"Do not meddle in the affairs of
aka Draco Draconis Eboni | Dragons, for you are chewy
aka Ebony the Black Dragon | and taste good dipped in
afj...@jove.acs.unt.edu | chocolate."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm a Black Dragon, trapped in a White Man's Body. YARK!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Surreality just got funky!" -- Scud, the Disposable Assassin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nobody WANTS my opinions!

[c.groark]

In article <01bb7231.4f2af580$0dfd...@wanderer.why.net>,
Wanderer <wand...@why.net> wrote:
>
>1: The individual in question has a reputation for sanctity.
>
>2: The individual in question possesses (or possessed) virtues of heroic
>quality.
>
>3: Miracles attributable to the individual in question have occurred.
>

(Grin) One MINOR correction, Wanderer. All of the above are true, but
they must be in the past tense. The one invariable (thus far) requirement
for sainthood is that you must be dead.

Charlie

[Chris Whalen]

lea...@vulpine.com (Taura LearFox) wrote in article>
<4s703k$a...@news03.deltanet.com>...

> 9. Chrisitanity is generally intolorant to furries. Don't believe
> me? Then how many people do you know have told their chrisitia

> familes they wanted to have sex with an animal and be accepted?

Geez, I didn't know that the term "furries" included people who practice
bestiality, sex with stuffed animals, etc. Apologies to fellow fans &
artists for using the "f" word...from now on I will use the term
"anthropomorphics" to refer to the area I'm interested in, which is
stories and artwork about anthropomorphic characters.

-- Chris

[Grendel Prime]

ur...@netcom.com (Scott Whitmore) wrote:

>Taura LearFox (lea...@vulpine.com) wrote:
>: 2 Christian churches are okay, furry sites are to be burned down

>: (also according to the good book)

>What the hell are you talking about? I've read the whole Bible and I've
>never seen mention of furries at all, let alone what should be done with
>their 'sites.' Please offer me a reference.

I believe she may be making some vague refrence to the commandment
stating: "Thou shalt have no false idols". Although, i've never seen
anyone idolizying furries, even here.

[Richard J. Bartrop]

On Sat, 13 Jul 1996, D.M. Quozl Falk wrote:

> "Here we go again...", said the little skunk doing a classic Reagan
> impersonation...
>
> Taura LearFox (lea...@vulpine.com) wrote:
>
> : 9. Chrisitanity is generally intolorant to furries. Don't believe
> : me? Then how many people do you know have told their chrisitian
> : familes they wanted to have sex with an animal and be accepted?
>
> Now _here_ I have a *REAL* problem with, and that is: being a furry fan
> _does_not_equate_ bestiality! Having an interest in furries
> _does_not_mean_ wanting to have sex with furries!
>
Thank you, Quozl, this is easily the wisest thing you're ever posted.

Personally, I find Taura's link between the two deeply offensive, and I
don't think I'm the only one. Some might even say it comes dangerously
close to slander.

Richard Bartrop
writer/artist, Zaibatsu Tears
Grey on FurryMUCK, TigerMUCK, SPR

[Gary Breuckman]

In article <4sbp94$c...@alpha.pcix.com>,

Boyce G. Kline Jr. <admk...@pcix.com> wrote:
>Sadly, in this third of my posts, Taura, you STILL does not apparently
>have the intestinal fortitude to continue this debate which you started
>in a public forun IN a public forum, only e-mailing me instead. As YOU
>started this in a public forum, so shall I keep it.
>
>In your latest e-mail to me you stated:

Regardless of where this started, it's VERY BAD FORM to post email.

In any case, I wish you WOULD take it to email or to a more appropriate
forum. Thanks very much.

--
pu...@netcom.com

[ellen gaban]

egor...@intercall.com (Daphne Lage) wrote:

>? the platypus {aka David Formosa} <dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au>

>wrote:

>>>Taura LearFox (lea...@vulpine.com) wrote:
>>>: Rather than do that I decided to name facts that chrisitan
>>>: religion goes against furry:

>>>: 1. In the bible, love of animals are unacceptable and will be
>>>: punushed with death.

>>So why is Saint Franciss of Assii consdered a saint, his love fro
>>animules was well know. He would even address them as siblings.

>You're confusing Catholosisim (sp?) with Christianity. Christians are

>totally different from Catholics, even though they both read the same
>books :)

>Now don't flame me if I get this wrong... I'm just going by what I

>remember... Please feel free to correct me. (Now let's see if those 8
>years in Catholic school amounted to anything)

>1) Christians believe that Jesus and God are the same entity, as in

>Jesus Christ *is* God. That's why you usually hear them ask "Do you
>accept Jesus as your saviour?" Catholics strictly believe that Jesus
>and God are separate, God sending his only son Jesus to save mankind.
>Catholics *do not* worship Jesus as God.

>2) Christians do not accept the power and authority of the Pope while

>Catholics live on his every word.

>3) And to answer your question... The concept of saints is Catholic.

>Christians *do not* recognize saints, so pointing out St. Francis
>would be moot since only the POPE can decree sainthood upon an
>individual (and that's after the investigation committee confirms the
>performance of "proper" miracles. I kid you not.) And we all know how
>Christians feel about the Pope...

Actually the anti-pope attitude no longer exists in main-stream
protestantism. The only protestant denomination that still preaches
that the pope is the antichrist(or for anyone that's atheist and
doesn't know what an antichrist is, antichrist = god wannabe) is
Seventh Day Adventism. All of the other big ones like Baptists or
Methodists accept the pope as another religious leader.

>That's all I can remember but there are many other differences as
>well.

>BTW, I may have been raised Catholic, but I've been far from it since

>I graduated grade school... I personally do not believe in the concept
>of organized religion. I find the idea of *having* to go to a
>*special* place run by *special* people and repeat *special* chants to
>talk to God offensive. God is everywhere. I can talk to Him whenever,
>however, and wherever I feel like it... and as far as I can tell...
>God doesn't seem to have a problem with me doing that... and God
>doen't have a problem with me being a furry either.

>Although... it *is* annoying when I do feel like talking to God, and
>all I get is the answering machine... ;P

>-- Daphne Lage

Yes, I finally find someone that separates protestantism(true
christianity) from catholism(christianity that got mixed with paganism
over the centuries).

Sorry if I offend any devout catholics, but hey, if you're religious,
why are you reading alt.fan.furry?

-------------------------------------------------------------
Desmond,
Diedrupo on FurryMuck
http://web2.airmail.net/egaban/shanda/ (Shanda the Panda)
Furry code 1.1:
FCf2w A+>++ C- H M W Z Sm RLCT Cn+++ d++ i+++ a- e- h* P sm--

[D.M. Quozl Falk]

Richard J. Bartrop (rbar...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca) wrote:

: On Sat, 13 Jul 1996, D.M. Quozl Falk wrote:

: > "Here we go again...", said the little skunk doing a classic Reagan
: > impersonation...
: >
: > Taura LearFox (lea...@vulpine.com) wrote:
: >
: > : 9. Chrisitanity is generally intolorant to furries. Don't believe
: > : me? Then how many people do you know have told their chrisitian
: > : familes they wanted to have sex with an animal and be accepted?
: >
: > Now _here_ I have a *REAL* problem with, and that is: being a furry fan
: > _does_not_equate_ bestiality! Having an interest in furries
: > _does_not_mean_ wanting to have sex with furries!
: >
: Thank you, Quozl, this is easily the wisest thing you're ever posted.

I suspect that if others stopped equating all my posts as flames, they
may find other bits of wisdome I may've passed along over the years...
(There is an apparent Pavlovian reaction I've seen from a number of
people WRT my posts...)

: Personally, I find Taura's link between the two deeply offensive, and I

: don't think I'm the only one. Some might even say it comes dangerously
: close to slander.

Is it any wonder that I don't respond to her emails most of the time
these days?

....Quozl!

[kw...@astro.phys.unm.edu]

In article <4sbc05$3...@news1.intercall.com>,
Daphne Lage <egor...@intercall.com> wrote:
>

>You're confusing Catholosisim (sp?) with Christianity. Christians are
>totally different from Catholics, even though they both read the same
>books :)

Maybe you're confusing Christianity with Protestantism?
Even if so, Protestantism was a breakaway from Catholicism. The founder
of the Protestant movement was Martin Luther, originally a Catholic priest.
Catholicism is a particular sect of Christianity.

>
>Now don't flame me if I get this wrong... I'm just going by what I

Not meant as a flame, just disagreeing. :-)

>remember... Please feel free to correct me. (Now let's see if those 8
>years in Catholic school amounted to anything)
>
>1) Christians believe that Jesus and God are the same entity, as in
>Jesus Christ *is* God. That's why you usually hear them ask "Do you
>accept Jesus as your saviour?" Catholics strictly believe that Jesus
>and God are separate, God sending his only son Jesus to save mankind.
>Catholics *do not* worship Jesus as God.

Catholicism accepts the oneness of Christ and God. They have the Holy
Trinity as one of their concepts, as do the Protestants.
The biggest of the differences between the Protestants and the Catholics
was over "justification by faith alone". The Protestants held that faith
alone would get you into heaven without the intervention of the priesthood
as mediary between the person and God. The Catholic priesthood, not
surprisingly wanted to burn Luther at the stake for that one. :-)

>
>2) Christians do not accept the power and authority of the Pope while
>Catholics live on his every word.

Protestants don't accept the word of the Pope. Frankly, a lot of Catholics
don't live by it either. this has been the source of a good bit of
acrimony in the US Catholic memebership.

>3) And to answer your question... The concept of saints is Catholic.
>Christians *do not* recognize saints, so pointing out St. Francis
>would be moot since only the POPE can decree sainthood upon an
>individual (and that's after the investigation committee confirms the
>performance of "proper" miracles. I kid you not.) And we all know how
>Christians feel about the Pope...

Protestants don't recognize saints as being anything more divine than
human. However Catholics aren't the only Christians to do so. the various
Orthodox churches recognize saints as well.

As to me, I was raised as a Methodist (Protestant). But I got better. :-)

Kyle L. Webb Dept. of Physics + Astronomy
kw...@astro.phys.unm.edu University of New Mexico

[D.M. Quozl Falk]

kw...@astro.phys.unm.edu wrote:

[...]

: ignorant as well? I doubt that my not being christian (I'm a Deist) will

Oh, WOW! _Another_ Deist! :)

[Per Aspera]

On Sat, 13 Jul 1996, Taura LearFox wrote:

> ur...@netcom.com (Scott Whitmore) asked me to name reasons
> why christians are against me.

[snip]

> I sincely hope this clarifies things for ur...@netcom.com (Scott
> Whitmore) and others like him who ask me ignorant question that
> are so ignorant, it isn't even funny.

On the other hand, I'm a Xian (well, it's more complex than that, but that
word applies to me), and I'm raising my children as Xians (their choice)
and we're all staunch furfen. Not trying to disprove anything Taura says,
or invalidate it -- but *all* Xians are not bad.

*sigh* I used to post the same thing once or twice a year on asb (bondage,
I mean -- never been active on bestiality) -- probably a losing battle
here as well.

Per Aspera, Ad Astra * mailto:ada...@io.com * http://www.io.com/~adastra
"A little noozle is all it takes, Sandy!"

[ellen gaban]

Forgive me if you're not the person I'm talking about, but are you the
same Boyce G. Kline whose letters have been printed in comicbooks such
as _Shanda the Panda_ and _Katmandu_?

If you're not, then just ignore the rest of post.

Being a Christian, I would _never_ admit my religion to any furry
friends nor would I tell any of my Christian friends about my
obsession with furries.

Why? It's pretty simple. Furries are for "mature" people as
censorship puts it. I run the _only_ (and soon-to-be official if I
can get Mike Curtis's support) Shanda the Panda page, which is a comic
about a bisexual panda and there are a lot of non-christian ideals
that the comic promotes, plus the comic has nudity, another no-no
among Christians.

But i'm still a Christian and proud to be one.

I've read Katmandu #7, which has a very graphic love scene and male
frontal nudity. I have a copy of Ed Zolna's Mailbox books catalog
where 90% of the stuff for sale is pornographic or erotic. I'm a big
fan of erotic prints by Tygger, Michele Light, or Terri Smith. I'm
the main author of Aun-Tro-Pos, a story archive with a
projected(projected because it's not finished) voilence level higher
than that of the movie Braveheart.

Am I still a Christian after all this non-christian stuff? Yes.

Which comes to my main question. Do you feel it is okay for
Christians to be indulging in this kind of crap(or a nicer term if you
prefer)? You've just admitted to being a "born-again" Christian. I
admit to being baptized into the Seventh Day Adventist(a Christian
denomination if you're wondering) Church at the age of 13.
I have felt guilty several times looking at furry erotica, and I was
damn ashamed of myself when my very religious and anti-pornography
brother found my collection of furry comicbooks.

Let's get to the reason why people are flaming Learfox here. She made
a big long thing about Christians not liking furries. While I don't
agree with all of what she said, I had to stop and think about "furry
pornography". Wouldn't you agree that Furry pornography(or erotica if
the term is too harsh) is no more as sinful as human pornography?

Oh well, I've rambled on too much and revealed too much of my
non-furry personal life...

[kw...@astro.phys.unm.edu]

In article <4s703k$a...@news03.deltanet.com>,
Taura LearFox <lea...@vulpine.com> wrote:
>
>5. If you live in a chriistan family, chances are you're going to be
> kicked out if you say to them how much you love furries.
> (I'm living proof of that)

Methinks we begin to see the reason for this rant.

>No one is being judged and information are all factual.

Pardon me, while I demurr on a few points.

>10. and the number 1 reason chrisianity is against furry...
> Exon, Chrisitan coilition, Clinton, every every chrisitian I know
> in LA is against Furry. You don't believe me? look at the facts.

Odd. My girlfriend is very much christian, she knows full well of my
furry fandom, and abhors the CDA.
Mayhap the blanket statements you're making are stereotypes and you'd
be outraged to have similiar ones applied to you

>I sincely hope this clarifies things for ur...@netcom.com (Scott
>Whitmore) and others like him who ask me ignorant question that
>are so ignorant, it isn't even funny.

A touch redundant.
I suppose now that I've disagreed with you, I'm to be considered

ignorant as well? I doubt that my not being christian (I'm a Deist) will

stop it. What you are saying is not (IMHO) being driven by reality, but by
anger and hatred that has festered within you. You have become the very
enemy you despise.

[Scott Alan Malcomson]

: Taura LearFox (lea...@vulpine.com) wrote:
: : Rather than do that I decided to name facts that chrisitan
: : religion goes against furry:
: : 1. In the bible, love of animals are unacceptable and will be
: : punushed with death.

In the "Biblical sense", that means SEX with animals, and you know it.
Since "furry" isn't *about* sex with animals, your argument is unfounded.

: : 2 Christian churches are okay, furry sites are to be burned down

: : (also according to the good book)

Yeah, the Bible knew all about Internet 2000 years ago. And Saul was a
badger, too. Yepyep.

: : 3 A typical christian will snear at you if you say you love animals
: : (don't believe me? okay I dare you to try it in public)

The number of "I <heart> my [insert fave animal here]" bumper stickers I
see on cars that *also* sport the ChristFish puts paid to your claim.

: : 4 Christian religion has a LOT of refferances on controlling sex,
: : A female having sex with anyone else but a christian married male
: : will be killed.

Complete BS. You're the one claiming that Christians are willing to kill
over such things...I take it you can back up your outrageous claim with
some evidence that Christians HAVE been killing women who have sex with
non-Christians? Didn't think so. Next fallacy, please.

: : 5. If you live in a chriistan family, chances are you're going to be

: : kicked out if you say to them how much you love furries.
: : (I'm living proof of that)

*I'm* living proof that being a furry WON'T get you kicked out of a
Christian family. Sounds to me like your claims are based on hatred of
Christians in general due to your falling-out with your family, as
opposed to any actual evidence.

: : 6. If you draw any furry having sex (which I did over a thousand times
: : atleast) you will have to be killed. (read the bible, it's all there).

Actually, it isn't. You are invited to quote chapter and verse if you
care to back up your hateful anti-Christian allegations.

: : 7. The general public favors chrisitanity... don't believe me? do
: : something condradictory to the above and find out :>

Hey! A real FACT! Amazing! It doesn't do anything to support your basic
argument (might as well state that the Great Wall of China can be seen
from the Moon, also true and yet irrelevant), but at least it's true.

: : 8. The goverment favors chrisitanity, CDA is proof.

Funny thing happened to the CDA on the way to becoming law...and your
allegation *only* makes sense *if* you jump to the idiotic conclusion
that the CDA was a Christian plot. I've heard better conspiracy theories
from the nuts who claim that Russian paratroopers are hiding in South
Dakotan grain silos.

: : 9. Chrisitanity is generally intolorant to furries.

Gee, an "extra" point that does nothing but reiterate what you've been
claiming in the *past* eight points. Next slide, please.

: : 10. and the number 1 reason chrisianity is against furry...

: : Exon, Chrisitan coilition, Clinton, every every chrisitian I know
: : in LA is against Furry.

Yeah, I remember when President Clinton himself came out on that White
House lawn and told the American public that furries had to be stamped
out...yepyep, uhuh, tell me another good one.

: : look at the facts.

When you come up with some, we'd be delighted to see 'em.

---LCD

[Mark Freid]

On Mon, 15 Jul 1996 04:56:21 GMT, mat...@ix.netcom.com (Matt
Forrestal) wrote:

>The Vatican even has a doctrinal seal of approval which is stamped in
>the front of every Vatican approved religious text. Books which do
>not have this seal cannot be considered sources of religious
>information.

That's why I denounced my Catholicism. Too much like Microsoft. <g>

-Mark

[Richard J. Bartrop]

On 15 Jul 1996, Chris Whalen wrote:

> lea...@vulpine.com (Taura LearFox) wrote in article>
> <4s703k$a...@news03.deltanet.com>...

> > 9. Chrisitanity is generally intolorant to furries. Don't believe
> > me? Then how many people do you know have told their chrisitia

> > familes they wanted to have sex with an animal and be accepted?
>

> Geez, I didn't know that the term "furries" included people who practice
> bestiality, sex with stuffed animals, etc. Apologies to fellow fans &
> artists for using the "f" word...from now on I will use the term
> "anthropomorphics" to refer to the area I'm interested in, which is
> stories and artwork about anthropomorphic characters.
>
> -- Chris
>

I think I'll join you. I came into 'furry' fandom thinking it was
about anthropomorphics, but it has also come to be associated with a lot
of things that I'm really not interested in, and in some cases want
absolutely nothing to do with. I like Tygger's term 'anthrofan'
In talking with others, I know Chris and I aren't the only ones who
feel this way, so here's a question for you all. Has the term 'furry'
become too corrupt? Should those of us who did not get involved for the
lifestyle issues define ourselves as separate from those who insist that
it is? If so, what should we call ourselves?
Would this be the end of the fandom? Hardly. I intend to keep
doing the things that attracted me in the first place. I'm just
dissociating myself from the things that didn't.

Richard Bartrop
writer/artist, "Zaibatsu Tears"

Grey on FurryMUCK, TigergerMUCK, SPR
Images: http://www.compusmart.ab.ca/droth/wcflshow.html

[Brian Henderson]

kw...@astro.phys.unm.edu () wrote:

>In article <4s703k$a...@news03.deltanet.com>,
>Taura LearFox <lea...@vulpine.com> wrote:

>>10. and the number 1 reason chrisianity is against furry...
>> Exon, Chrisitan coilition, Clinton, every every chrisitian I know

>> in LA is against Furry. You don't believe me? look at the facts.

>Odd. My girlfriend is very much christian, she knows full well of my
>furry fandom, and abhors the CDA.
>Mayhap the blanket statements you're making are stereotypes and you'd
>be outraged to have similiar ones applied to you

Funny, one of my best friends is a Christian (he should be here
defending himself but he's lazy) and he is an avid furry fan and is,
as we speak, lettering furry comics.

Nope... no Christians like furries. Of course, when I was a
Christian, I liked furries but that doesn't count, right?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==========================================
+ Brian Henderson == Internet: BHen...@microsys.net ==
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++== Cephus on Furrymuck ==
+ Furry Fan, Babylon 5, == and Furtoonia ==
+ MST3K, Atheist, Skeptic, ==========================================
+ Sliders, RPG Gamer, INWO, == I'm not saying what I'm thinking, so ==
+ Herpetophile, Gargoyles == I don't think anyone agrees with me! ==
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==========================================
+ Alternate Gargoyles Universe Mailing List Archive: ==
+========http://www.microsys.net/personal/bhend/agu.htm/===============

[? the platypus {aka David Formosa}]

ega...@airmail.net (ellen gaban) writes:

>egor...@intercall.com (Daphne Lage) wrote:

>>? the platypus {aka David Formosa} <dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au>
>>wrote:

[...]

>Yes, I finally find someone that separates protestantism(true
>christianity) from catholism(christianity that got mixed with paganism
>over the centuries).

>Sorry if I offend any devout catholics, but hey, if you're religious,
>why are you reading alt.fan.furry?

I thing that you may have offended the pagans as well :D That is infact
why I like catholism. It stole good parts from other religions so it is
broader and richer.

[Chris Whalen]

In article
<Pine.A32.3.92.960716...@srv1.freenet.calgary.ab.ca>,

"Richard J. Bartrop" wrote:
> In talking with others, I know Chris and I aren't the only ones who
>feel this way, so here's a question for you all. Has the term 'furry'
>become too corrupt? Should those of us who did not get involved for the
>lifestyle issues define ourselves as separate from those who insist that
>it is? If so, what should we call ourselves?

We could form a newsgroup called alt.fan.anthropomorphics...It might be a
good newsgroup for people who are primarily interested in anthropomorphic
stories and artwork. People who practice bestiality and sex with stuffed
animals can stay in alt.fan.furry.

From checking my server's list of newsgroups, alt.fan.anthropomorphics would
be about 44 newsgroups away from alt.fan.furry, which should be far enough. :>

-- Chris

[ellen gaban]

mi...@agii.solluna.org (Watts Martin) wrote:

>Unless the Catholic school you attended was either heretical or had some
>very poor explainers in it, this is substantially incorrect. Catholicism is
>a Christian denomination; it is, in fact, the first Christian denomination.
Actually Catholism was not the first Christian denomination. The
first christians(?-100 ad) did not consider themselves "catholics" but
christians. It wasn't until a couple(or maybe less) centuries later
that the clusters of christians that lived in Rome decided to call
themselves "Roman Catholic". Also understand that there were also
other denominations around and a later at this time, including
Abigenses, Waldenses, and countless others that no longer exist.

[Marshall Anthony Woods]

Daphne Lage (egor...@intercall.com) wrote:
:
: 1) Christians believe that Jesus and God are the same entity, as in

: Jesus Christ *is* God. That's why you usually hear them ask "Do you
: accept Jesus as your saviour?" Catholics strictly believe that Jesus
: and God are separate, God sending his only son Jesus to save mankind.
: Catholics *do not* worship Jesus as God.

:

Erm, don't Catholics believe in the Triune God? Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, all as manifestations of a single god? I honestly don't know,
but I'd always thought so...

________________
<") "We are not interested in the
|| _______________ possibilities of defeat."
|| ~~~ - Victoria Regina
|| _______@@ ____
| / ( "But if Bonaparte should say it must be placed
\ ( ) ____ in this direction, we must instantly insist
\__\ / on it's being laid in some other one."
\\ ____ - Lord Nelson
//
// ____ mwo...@sun1.iusb.indiana.edu
OO~~
Just an Ostrich with Rollerskates - sorta stubborn too...

[Tim Gadd]

"Richard J. Bartrop" <rbar...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> wrote:

>On 15 Jul 1996, Chris Whalen wrote:

>> Geez, I didn't know that the term "furries" included people who practice
>> bestiality, sex with stuffed animals, etc.

Here we go again. OK - it's an old post; I won't bite.

> Has the term 'furry'
>become too corrupt?

The noun 'furry' is ambiguous in that it has several distinct
meanings. I generally call human furries 'FURS' - which seems quite
sufficient to indicate a distinction.

>Should those of us who did not get involved for the
>lifestyle issues define ourselves as separate from those who insist that
>it is?

Look at the issue from this angle: should there be two forums on
usenet: one where you can discuss the fandom, and one where you can
discuss the lifestyle? That way you don't have to 'define' yourself
as one thing or the other. If you want to talk about more spiritual
dimensions of furriness, post to the lifestyle group. If you want to
talk about Sonic the Hedgehog... (sorry, had to have a shot) If you
want to discuss the zines/stories/artifacts, post to the fandom group.

As someone who's more interested in talking about lifestyle/spiritual
furry issues than zines and artwork (but not to the *exclusion* of
them, by any means), I would welcome a forum where we could talk about
such things without always having someone remind us that this 'isn't
really part of the fandom', or that this-that-or-the-other sort of
furry lifestyle isn't representative of furry fandom, etc etc.

It wouldn't mean furrydom is fracturing - just becoming responsive to
the requirements of its members.
--
Tim.

[ellen gaban]

? the platypus {aka David Formosa} <dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au>
wrote:

>ega...@airmail.net (ellen gaban) writes:

>>egor...@intercall.com (Daphne Lage) wrote:

>>>? the platypus {aka David Formosa} <dfor...@st.nepean.uws.edu.au>
>>>wrote:
>[...]
>>Yes, I finally find someone that separates protestantism(true
>>christianity) from catholism(christianity that got mixed with paganism
>>over the centuries).

>>Sorry if I offend any devout catholics, but hey, if you're religious,
>>why are you reading alt.fan.furry?

>I thing that you may have offended the pagans as well :D That is infact
>why I like catholism. It stole good parts from other religions so it is
>broader and richer.

Actually I could care less whether Catholism has paganism or not, I
have a not-so-Christian beilef that if you live a good life, you'll
probably go to Heaven whether or not you're protestant, catholic,
jewish, muslim, hindu, or even branch davidian(wait, the branch
davidians already went to hell, never mind)

[Watts Martin]

In article <Pine.A32.3.92.960716...@srv1.freenet.calgary.ab.ca>, "Richard J. Bartrop" wrote:
> In talking with others, I know Chris and I aren't the only ones who

>feel this way, so here's a question for you all. Has the term 'furry'
>become too corrupt? Should those of us who did not get involved for the

>lifestyle issues define ourselves as separate from those who insist that

>it is? If so, what should we call ourselves?

Chuck Melville a while ago suggested using the traditional term "funny
animals" as a broader description than "furries", since it appeared people
were heading toward treating the term as inextricable from what others call
"furotica". Personally, I have no problem calling myself a "funny animal
fan," or an "anthropomorph fan". I also don't have a problem calling myself
a "furry fan," though, and unless it's proven to me that the term has
unavoidably come to imply things I'm not interested in, I'll keep using it,
and keep trying to keep the word "furry" at its original, happily broad
meaning.

[ellen gaban]

ga...@moose.erie.net (Kenneth Poland) wrote:

>On 14 Jul 1996 20:56:14 -0400, cgr...@access1.digex.net (c.groark) wrote:

>> In article <4sbc05$3...@news1.intercall.com>,
>> Daphne Lage <egor...@intercall.com> wrote:

>> > >2) Christians do not accept the power and authority of the Pope while
>> >Catholics live on his every word.

>> True, but Catholics in the U.S. accept the Pope as their spiritual leader
>> and go right ahead and do the things he vehemently opposes: birth control,
>> for example.

>Christians in the U.S. accept Jesus as their spiritual leader and go right
>ahead and do many of the same things!

Unlike the Pope, Jesus never spoke against things like birth control,
abortion(althought 'thou shalt not _murder_' might apply to that),
homosexuality(surprisingly), bestiality, and other such things. These
were topics(well except for birth control which practically didn't
exist during his time) that were covered in Leviticus and were a part
of the ceremonial or moral law that Christians as a whole ignore(like
the part where you can only eat meat if the animal has hooves or
something like that). Therefore speaking, if you are an average
Protestant who does not beileve in the authenticity of the Pope, you
therefore have the right to violate the laws of the Jews. _Average_ I
say because there are some denominations that keep the moral law(where
it houses the anti-homosexual law) of the Jews. I belong to such a
denomination.
However, if you're Catholic(this is said to the general public), you
have to follow what the Pope says as what the Pope says is the law of
the land. If the average U.S. catholic wants to ignore the Pope's
law, well, oh well.

[Ron Orr]

Tim Gadd <tjg...@southcom.com.au> wrote:

> "Richard J. Bartrop" <rbar...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> wrote:
>

> >Should those of us who did not get involved for the
> >lifestyle issues define ourselves as separate from those who insist that
> >it is?
>

> Look at the issue from this angle: should there be two forums on
> usenet: one where you can discuss the fandom, and one where you can
> discuss the lifestyle?

I was thinking about this a bit ago, but perhaps it's just as
well to bring it up now before the pro- & anti-zoos deploy the BFGs
again.
I think we should consider this. If nothing else, it might
(_might_) reduce the amount of puroposeless flamage in furrydom. As a
benefit, it might persuade those who have been turned away by the sheer
volume of acrimony to enter whichever part(s) of the fandom suit them.
This isn't a crack at a.f.f.; it also isn't intended as a slur
on anyone or anything. But furrydom is a vastly broader thing than it
was In The Beginning; pretending otherwise is unrealistic, and trying to
exert control over that bredth is equally so. IMO, it's better to let
the differing bits have their own space. Maybe we could learn to get
along a little better...or at least not fight in public so much.

> As someone who's more interested in talking about lifestyle/spiritual
> furry issues than zines and artwork (but not to the *exclusion* of
> them, by any means), I would welcome a forum where we could talk about
> such things without always having someone remind us that this 'isn't
> really part of the fandom', or that this-that-or-the-other sort of
> furry lifestyle isn't representative of furry fandom, etc etc.

This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about; a.f.f. has
become increasingly unsuitable for this kind of discussion. It didn't
used to be...but rather than name names or start fights, it's better to
maybe just find a quieter corner of the party.

Someone will probably take exception to this idea. (Foregone
conclusion...) Someone might take exception to _me._ But do at least
consider the idea on its own merits. If there's a consensus that a new
newsgroup be formed (and alt.lifestyle.furry comes to mind for a name)
then I'd be happy to do all the posting-to-alt.config sort of work
that's necessary to get it off the ground; not for self-aggrandisement,
but because I _do_ care what happens to furry fandom. _All_ of it.

Ron
divided we stand, united we fall

[Scott Alan Malcomson]

: >ega...@airmail.net (ellen gaban) writes:
: >>Sorry if I offend any devout catholics, but hey, if you're religious,

: >>why are you reading alt.fan.furry?

Care to enlighten us all as to why people who practice religion
*shouldn't* read alt.fan.furry? Or was this just another troll?

---LCD

[Marshall Anthony Woods]

Penh Gwyn (penh...@shell.wco.com) wrote:
:
: While not technically in the Bible, such verses are found in the
: book of Bucky, one of the lost books of the Bible, so Taura's sort of
: right. I mean, it could have easily been in the Bible, except it was
: only discovered in 1732 by a goatherder who was trying to hide the body
: of a rival and stumbled across the tattered scrolls in a long-forgotten
: cavern in upstate New York. Any day now, a new council could be convened
: to vote on its inclusion.

(Much deleted, in the interests of space...)

You're a strange one, Penh Ferret. I stand in proper awe... :)

[Dennis Lee Bieber]

In article <4sj7e3$28...@news.doit.wisc.edu> c...@prof.slh.wisc.edu (Chris Whalen) writes:
>
> We could form a newsgroup called alt.fan.anthropomorphics...It might be a
> good newsgroup for people who are primarily interested in anthropomorphic
> stories and artwork. People who practice bestiality and sex with stuffed
> animals can stay in alt.fan.furry.
>

Totally ignoring the fact that both a.s.b and a.s.p exist
just for the latter two categories...

--
> ============================================================ <
> wulf...@netcom.com | Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG <
> D.Bi...@GEnie.com | FurryMUCK and FurToonia <
> ============================================================ <
> PGP key: Finger wulf...@netcom.com <
> Home Page: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/wu/wulfraed/wulfraed.htm <

[! at ?]

Scott Alan Malcomson (hors...@indirect.com) wrote:

I can't tell. Is it charging us to cross a bridge?

[Tim Gadd]

qu...@netcom.com (D.M. "Quozl" Falk) wrote:

>I am not in favour of an "alt.lifestyle.furry", as it would separate, for
>me, both the fannish and lifestyle attributes that comprise my interest
>in anthropomorphics.

But a great many people are clearly uncomfortable with the idea of
both types of interests being discussed here. There is so much
friction between 'lifestyle' and 'fandom' furs that two separate
forums seems inevitable. At the moment most of the 'lifestyle'
discussion goes on on mailing lists and in private email - largely
because people realise it isn't welcome here. There's nothing wrong
with mailing lists, of course. Matter of fact, that's where I spend
most of my time, but why shouldn't there be a public forum for such
topics? If you think this is it, let's have open-slather posting, for
24 hours, on plushophilia, fur-suits, zoophilia, serial theriomophory,
et.al: the flames might die down by Christmas...

When a lifestyle and a fandom group exist, they will compliment, not
detract from each other. I'll certainly post regularly to both groups.

--
Tim Gadd
<tjg...@southcom.com.au>

[Mark Freid]

On 17 Jul 1996 17:21:07 GMT, c...@prof.slh.wisc.edu (Chris Whalen)
wrote:

>In article
><Pine.A32.3.92.960716...@srv1.freenet.calgary.ab.ca>,
>"Richard J. Bartrop" wrote:
>> In talking with others, I know Chris and I aren't the only ones who
>>feel this way, so here's a question for you all. Has the term 'furry'

>>become too corrupt? Should those of us who did not get involved for the

>>lifestyle issues define ourselves as separate from those who insist that

>>it is? If so, what should we call ourselves?
>

>We could form a newsgroup called alt.fan.anthropomorphics...It might be a
>good newsgroup for people who are primarily interested in anthropomorphic
>stories and artwork. People who practice bestiality and sex with stuffed
>animals can stay in alt.fan.furry.
>

No, because there's already an alt.sex.plushies and at LEAST one
bestiality group. (from what I remember, last time I scenned the full
list of groups). Both subjects need to plain stay out of A.F.F. It's
the number two rule of nettiquette, that people dont post in
inappropriate newsgroups (#1 is TYPING IN ALL CAPS)... but 'round here
it happens anyhow.

-Mark

[D.M. Quozl Falk]

Dennis Lee Bieber (wulf...@kd6mog.netcom.com) wrote:

: In article <4sj7e3$28...@news.doit.wisc.edu> c...@prof.slh.wisc.edu (Chris Whalen) writes:
: >
: > We could form a newsgroup called alt.fan.anthropomorphics...It might be a

: > good newsgroup for people who are primarily interested in anthropomorphic
: > stories and artwork. People who practice bestiality and sex with stuffed
: > animals can stay in alt.fan.furry.

: >
: Totally ignoring the fact that both a.s.b and a.s.p exist

: just for the latter two categories...

And there is a (bogusly-created) alt.sex.furry as well....

[D.M. Quozl Falk]

I am not in favour of an "alt.lifestyle.furry", as it would separate, for
me, both the fannish and lifestyle attributes that comprise my interest
in anthropomorphics.

My one sen (1/100th of a yen) worth...

[Dennis Lee Bieber]

In article <4sl5ot$p...@saturn.vision.net.au> tjg...@southcom.com.au (Tim Gadd) writes:
>
> When a lifestyle and a fandom group exist, they will compliment, not
> detract from each other. I'll certainly post regularly to both groups.
>

And what happens when 50% of the regulars share both groups
and start crossposting? You now have two groups that look like the
present one. Look at how much stuff tends to show up on a.f.f and
a.f.f.muck which isn't really muck related.

Groups for the plush and zoo sides already exist, though the
plush group is 99% 1-800 phone spam...

[ellen gaban]

hors...@indirect.com (Scott Alan Malcomson) wrote:

>: >ega...@airmail.net (ellen gaban) writes:
>: >>Sorry if I offend any devout catholics, but hey, if you're religious,
>: >>why are you reading alt.fan.furry?

>Care to enlighten us all as to why people who practice religion
>*shouldn't* read alt.fan.furry? Or was this just another troll?

<wipes away sweat from his forehead>

No.

Ok here's the deal, I regret writing that message. When I wrote it, I
had in mind people like Billy Gram, the Pope, my father, you know,
people that are over their heads in religion and want to throw away
all secularism(not just furrydom). Now _that_ was my definition of
being religions when used in the context of the above message.

But hey, this is _fucking_ pointless to argue about religion. If you
don't tell me I don't tell you, it's simple as that. You don't go to
alt.fan.furry to talk about how Christians persecute furries or how
Catholics are different from Protestants.

Let's put the furry back in alt.fan.furry and forget I ever posted any
of this crap. I didn't come to this newsgroup to get flamed because
of my views on religion, which is totally, absolutely, irrelevant to
furrydom as a whole. If I'm chatting with a KKK guy, I would care
less if he hates blacks as long as he doesn't bring it up and is
talking furry with me.

Oh, and for your info, I consider myself religious as well, read my
reply to Boyce G. Kline which is later on in this stupid thread.

[Aris Merquoni]

Ron Orr wrote:
--
> Tim Gadd <tjg...@southcom.com.au> wrote:[snipsnip]
--

> > As someone who's more interested in talking about
> > lifestyle/spiritual
> > furry issues than zines and artwork (but not to the *exclusion* of
> > them, by any means), I would welcome a forum where we could talk
> > about such things without always having someone remind us that this
> >'isn't really part of the fandom', or that this-that-or-the-other sort
> >of furry lifestyle isn't representative of furry fandom, etc etc.
>
> This is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about; a.f.f. has
> become increasingly unsuitable for this kind of discussion. It didn't
> used to be...but rather than name names or start fights, it's better to
> maybe just find a quieter corner of the party.
>
> Someone will probably take exception to this idea. (Foregone
> conclusion...) Someone might take exception to _me._ But do at least
> consider the idea on its own merits. If there's a consensus that a new
> newsgroup be formed (and alt.lifestyle.furry comes to mind for a name)
> then I'd be happy to do all the posting-to-alt.config sort of work
> that's necessary to get it off the ground; not for self-aggrandisement,
> but because I _do_ care what happens to furry fandom. _All_ of it.
>
> Ron
> divided we stand, united we fall

I agree w/ya, Ron, this newsgroup is too diversified for people whi just
want to talk about one thing and not get flamed about it. We don't need a
'Alt.Fan.Furry.Beastiality group for people who want to bitch about that
(I don't support beastiality myself, but leave the poor people alone!),
but the two groups that you suggested would help to let people freely
discuss the topic that they WANT to discuss, without having to dig
through the other stuff.

Aris the Galactic Dragon.
--
()() / / / (%) ********************* ******
|_________/ \ //\ * Aris TGD * * () *
\___________ \// \\ * B'harne-hater, * * /\ *
|_ \ |\ * Sonic-Fan, * */ \*
_\__\_ | |\ * and Sci-fi reader * *Blue*
_)___|_| |\ * I also luv MK! * ******
/ |_/|\ \ *********************
\_/ \ .
// / \/_/_/_/_ //
|| | \___________/
////
--Yak yak yak. Get a job! (click!)- Hackers
--"What do you want?" "Your blood, your soul, your mind and your body."
"What about my stamp collection? Do I get to keep the First Day Covers?"
-Merlin and Mask, Blood of Amber

[Chris Johnson]

In article
<Pine.A32.3.92.960716...@srv1.freenet.calgary.ab.ca>,

"Richard J. Bartrop" <rbar...@freenet.calgary.ab.ca> wrote:
> I think I'll join you. I came into 'furry' fandom thinking it was
> about anthropomorphics, but it has also come to be associated with a lot
> of things that I'm really not interested in, and in some cases want
> absolutely nothing to do with. I like Tygger's term 'anthrofan'

> In talking with others, I know Chris and I aren't the only ones who
> feel this way, so here's a question for you all. Has the term 'furry'
> become too corrupt? Should those of us who did not get involved for the
> lifestyle issues define ourselves as separate from those who insist that
> it is? If so, what should we call ourselves?

> Would this be the end of the fandom? Hardly. I intend to keep
> doing the things that attracted me in the first place. I'm just
> dissociating myself from the things that didn't.

Hm. I started reading this thread largely because I was very interested
in the mindset 'I am not furry'.
I've found this 'furry' newsgroup awfully annoying at times- I don't
care about flame wars (hell, I am all over comp.sys.mac.advocacy ;) ) and
furthermore I don't care what 'furries' sleep with (I don't have sex,
these days) but if the core of being 'furry' is comics, cons and pictures
then I have no place here at all.
I'm a writer. I have never been very interested in comics. I can't get
to any cons and am beginning to wonder whether I'd even want to go, and
though I am not bothered by the constant flaming and bickering it doesn't
impress me.
I don't have to be a 'furry' to do my writing. I just have to be me. My
writing, both SF and fantasy, heavily uses what are unequivocally 'furry'
characters of various sorts. Newest one, 'Aquarius', is even 'furrier'
than The Kings of Rainmoor was.
Do I have to run around begging for attention when being 'furry' is
about comics and artists? No. Do my 'furry' ears go back warily when I
read about industries like animation being hostile to self-identified
'furries'? Yes. Am I afraid that the fiction I write might prove unsalable
because it is too 'furry'? Yes, though I'm aware that this is unresearched
fear- I asked Elf once about the commercial salability of 'furry' and/or
'alternative lifestyle' stuff in fantasy/SF. I never heard from him,
though- musta said something wrong somewhere, or I'm not thought
important. Busy-ness, my being a stranger- no reason this guy should have
to talk to me.
I'm looking awfully askance at 'furriness' these days. Which has
nothing to do with me or my writing- that will be the same no matter what.
However, I really can't relate to all the typical furry stuff. A lot of
the writing is garbage. (Elf Sternberg's is not garbage, it just
challenges my assumptions hard.) I used to read a.f.f a fair amount,
frequent YiffNet, go on FurryMuck an awful lot. These days I only drop by
FurryMuck, as my alt, not setting aside enough time to be there in any
serious way. It just sort of happened. If I dropped everything and just
wrote, would I be a 'furry fan'? Not particularly, I'd be a writer who has
a 'furry' theme, or what could easily be called a 'furry' theme. Is James
White 'furry' personally? John Varley? Was Cordwainer Smith?
I too am feeling an urge to distance myself. There are some people whom
I know would be saddened and upset to hear me say that (assuming they even
_remember_ me :P ) but the way I feel about it, I am quite the same person
I always was. I've been told that I was one of the most feline felines
around *grin*. That may be, but I am certainly not one of the 'furriest
furries' around, and I don't really wish to be.
Never made it to a con, and very likely never will at this rate. I
subscribe and unsubscribe to a.f.f sporadically, never making a grand
announcement that I am departing in a haughty flourish. It'd be
interesting to hear from people who share my feelings that I have just set
out- I particularly want to get some feedback on 'furry' SF/Fantasy
salability. So far I have heard absolutely nothing, which may be
encouraging- if the idea 'furry' means nothing to publishers, it may be a
plus and a freedom from ugly stereotypes. I will continue to write, I'll
probably always peek into 'furry' places to see what's happening, and I'm
not a different person who has forsworn all 'furriness'.
I am certainly not a 'furry', however, nor do I wish to be. *shrug*

Jinx_tigr
(aka Chris Johnson)

[Scott Alan Malcomson]

! at ? (mtmo...@indirect.com) wrote:
: Scott Alan Malcomson (hors...@indirect.com) wrote:
: : *shouldn't* read alt.fan.furry? Or was this just another troll?

: I can't tell. Is it charging us to cross a bridge?

Could be. I don't think the reference to a "sawbuck" is about a deermorph
carpenter. -;>

---LCD

[kw...@astro.phys.unm.edu]

In article <4scuol$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
Synicism <syni...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Well, actually, then, Cap'n, I suggest you go and learn Aramaeic. <g>

Portions of the new testament were originally written in Greek, so it's
one of the appropriate languages to know, as is biblical Hebrew (as opposed
to modern Hebrew which is largely a devised language, that incorporates
biblical Hebrew).
I'll agree though, Arameic would be an obvious choice for anyone doing
biblical research.

Kyle L. Webb Dept. of Physics + Astronomy
kw...@astro.phys.unm.edu University of New Mexico

[? the platypus {aka David Formosa}]

ga...@moose.erie.net (Kenneth Poland) writes:

>On Tue, 16 Jul 1996 02:17:56 GMT, ega...@airmail.net (ellen gaban) wrote:
[...]
>Furry erotica is no more sinful than human erotica. I might even suggest
>that it is less sinful in some ways.
[...cognet and eradite argumnet removed...]

(Claps) Good on you, With a logicly and hartfelt argument you put
accross the point quite well. I only wish more peaple would argue like
Kenneth.

[Ron Orr]

J Scott Shannon <sha...@humboldt1.com> wrote:

> griz...@vianet.on.ca (Ron Orr) wrote:
>
> >If there's a consensus that a new
> >newsgroup be formed (and alt.lifestyle.furry comes to mind for a name)
> >then I'd be happy to do all the posting-to-alt.config sort of work
> >that's necessary to get it off the ground; not for self-aggrandisement,
> >but because I _do_ care what happens to furry fandom. _All_ of it.
>

> 'alt.lifestyle.furry' sounds perfect to me. I question the need for a
> consesus, however. (The only approval we _really_ require is that of the
> newsadmins on alt.config.) We do need to _discuss_ it, and we do need a
> _constituency_ here on AFF to get alt.lifestyle.furry off the ground, but
> we deeper furs don't need the collective 'permission' of the fans to form
> our own newsgroup.

It wasn't that I was thinking of, exactly; the consensus I was
thinking of was among those who _do_ wish to seperate for the ggod of
all. It is true that anyone can newgroup in alt. whenever they wish,
just by ramming thru a proposal, but I'd like to know that what I do (or
someone else equally or superiorly motivated does) at least has the
tacit approval of those who will be using the new group.

> Let's try to newgroup ALF before CF8! That would be great!

It _can_ be done by then if we all wish it to be. Just need more
input from everyone interested.

Ron
still awaiting criticism

[Ron Orr]

Tim Gadd <tjg...@southcom.com.au> wrote:

> ... At the moment most of the 'lifestyle'

> discussion goes on on mailing lists and in private email - largely
> because people realise it isn't welcome here.

And the discussion I've seen is, of late, largely about what a
bad place a.f.f. has become to discuss the 'furry lifestyle.'

> When a lifestyle and a fandom group exist, they will compliment, not
> detract from each other. I'll certainly post regularly to both groups.

Which is _exactly_ the reason for having two complementary
groups.

Ron
waiting for Quozl's net.lagged post...

[kw...@astro.phys.unm.edu]

In article <4seld3$s...@news-f.iadfw.net>,

ellen gaban <ega...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>Yes, I finally find someone that separates protestantism(true
>christianity) from catholism(christianity that got mixed with paganism
>over the centuries).

Protestant, of course wouldn't still have any Pagan influences, now would it?
Couldn't be... (Sarcasm alert)

Of course we might need to forget about Easter, which is all tied up with a
lightly veiled spring fertility rite. (grin).

>Sorry if I offend any devout catholics, but hey, if you're religious,
>why are you reading alt.fan.furry?

Why wouldn't someone who is religious read aff? There are a number of "out"
christians here, and a whole bunch of Pagans who I'm sure consider themselves
religious (just not christian). I'd be surprised if there aren't a few
buddhists, and moslems reading it as well.

[Scott Alan Malcomson]

Kenneth Poland (ga...@moose.erie.net) wrote:
: I'm am neither myself, although I base many of my personal beliefs on the
: Bible. Considering my lifestyle, I don't exactly fit in with most organized
: Christian religions. I am a bisexual, plushophile, zoophile, fursuit-sex
: lover, collar-wearing spiritual-based furry! Is there any organized religion
: that is fully accepting of this?

Yeah. Neo-Protestants. We're pretty new, and we actually eschew formal
organization as being inherently self-corrupting, but nothing you note
above is against the laws of God (assuming that by zoophile you don't
mean bestiality...some people do).

---LCD

[Scott Alan Malcomson]

Chris Johnson (jinx...@sover.net) wrote:
: 'furries'? Yes. Am I afraid that the fiction I write might prove unsalable

: because it is too 'furry'? Yes, though I'm aware that this is unresearched
: fear- I asked Elf once about the commercial salability of 'furry' and/or
: 'alternative lifestyle' stuff in fantasy/SF.

Well, given the success of Alan Dean Foster, who's written a *lot* of
furry-type material, I shouldn't think so. Frankly, I don't think the
SF/F writing community is anywhere near as vicious and small-minded as
the movie/comics/television industries are...and therefore more likely to
say, "I really don't give a damn who these 'furries' are. What I give a
damn about is: can you *write* well?".

---LCD

[Scott Alan Malcomson]

! at ? (mtmo...@indirect.com) wrote:
: Scott Alan Malcomson (hors...@indirect.com) wrote:

: : ! at ? (mtmo...@indirect.com) wrote:
: : : Scott Alan Malcomson (hors...@indirect.com) wrote:
: : : : *shouldn't* read alt.fan.furry? Or was this just another troll?
: : : I can't tell. Is it charging us to cross a bridge?

: : Could be. I don't think the reference to a "sawbuck" is about a deermorph
: : carpenter. -;>
: So when it asked us if we had any common scents it meant standard "cents?"
: I thought it was asking if we knew any skunks or mustelids....

Could be. Got a spare Skiltaire on ya?

---LCD

[Dr. Cat]

Tim Gadd (tjg...@southcom.com.au) wrote:
: serial theriomophory,

Wow, what's that? I just dove for my dictionary when I saw it, and it
has "theriomorphic", but I don't see how "serial" would fit with it
exactly. Reincarnation, maybe? If somebody would flame "those awful
serial theriomorphory fanatics" maybe I would at least learn what the
term means!

I think starting a second newsgroup is worth trying. I don't know if
it'll improve things much or not, but there's a chance it would so
there's no reason not to pursue it. Certainly not likely to make things
any worse. And when a subject on Usenet gets over a certain amount of
traffic, splitting it into subcategories makes it easier on people who
aren't as strongly interested and want to read fewer messages per week.
They can focus in on some subcategory of the topic and have less traffic
to keep up with. Only real questions are how much traffic do you get to
before you decide to split, and what categories do you split up into.

********************************************************
* "art is a part of furry fandom." -- Anthony Brewer * Dr. Cat
* "Of course it isn't." -- Richard Bartrop * www.eden.com/~cat
********************************************************
* `When I use a word, it means just what I choose it * If you can read
* to mean -- neither more nor less.' -- Humpty Dumpty * this, you're paying
* from Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll * too much attention!
********************************************************

[! at ?]

Scott Alan Malcomson (hors...@indirect.com) wrote:
: ! at ? (mtmo...@indirect.com) wrote:
: : Scott Alan Malcomson (hors...@indirect.com) wrote:

: : : ! at ? (mtmo...@indirect.com) wrote:
: : : : Scott Alan Malcomson (hors...@indirect.com) wrote:
: : : : : *shouldn't* read alt.fan.furry? Or was this just another troll?
: : : : I can't tell. Is it charging us to cross a bridge?
: : : Could be. I don't think the reference to a "sawbuck" is about a
: : : deermorph carpenter. -;>
: : So when it asked us if we had any common scents it meant standard
: : "cents?" I thought it was asking if we knew any skunks or mustelids....
: Could be. Got a spare Skiltaire on ya?

Given the Skiltaire lifestyle, the concept of a spare is mind-boggling.
Perhaps one that is less-attached?

[Tim Gadd]

c...@eden.com (Dr. Cat) wrote:

>Tim Gadd (tjg...@southcom.com.au) wrote:
>: serial theriomophory,

>Wow, what's that? I just dove for my dictionary when I saw it, and it
>has "theriomorphic", but I don't see how "serial" would fit with it
>exactly. Reincarnation, maybe? If somebody would flame "those awful
>serial theriomorphory fanatics" maybe I would at least learn what the
>term means!

First of all, AHWW people - he's not having a shot at you - he's one
of the most open-minded people here. No-one has said anything
unpleasant about you. Dr Cat's just referring to my _allegations_ of
intolerance on AFF of late. Again - no-one has been talking about
weres. I was just using you as an example to make a point in an
in-house debate.

Anyway...

Serial theriomorphory is my attempt to make an abstract noun out of
serial theriomoprh. Maybe serial theriomophosis would have been
better, come to think of it.

Oh - what is it?!

According to the Webster dictionary quoted in the
alt.horror.werewolves FAQ, theriomorphic means 'having an animal
form'. A serial theriomorph is a shapeshifter; someone who alternates
between a human and animal form, either physically or mentally. An
older word for theriomorph is lycanthrope. The phrase 'spiritual
theriomorph' is one which I've read in the AHWW FAQ, indicating a
periodic shifting to an animal consciousness (I hope that's close.)

In no way am I spokesperson for AHWW - in fact I've never posted
there, though I've done a good deal of lurking - but I think no-one
will get too upset if I say that the folks at AHWW are people who
possess a powerful sense of an inner animal identity. Plenty of them
are furs. In fact the questions section of their extensive FAQ begins
with 'What is a Furry?', and 'What is A.F.F?' As such they are
another example of what I would include under the umbrella of 'furry',
but which the 'fandom' advocates would leave out.

alt.lifestyle.furry (for you weres) is a proposed group concentrating
on furry lifestyles rather than furry fandom, and you would be very,
very welcome there when it becomes a reality. And I might come on over
and talk about my full-moon thing with you guys!

I have cross-posted this to AHWW out of courtesy. Please limit your
replies to AFF, unless they have some relevance to AHWW's subject
matter.

p.s: your 'Singing to the deer' is the most wonderful thing I've seen
on AFF for a while. It's about to scroll off my newsreader, and I'll
miss it.

--
Tim Gadd
<tjg...@southcom.com.au>

[Robert K. Davis]

! at ? (mtmo...@indirect.com) wrote:
: Scott Alan Malcomson (hors...@indirect.com) wrote:

: : : >ega...@airmail.net (ellen gaban) writes:
: : : >>Sorry if I offend any devout catholics, but hey, if you're religious,

: : : >>why are you reading alt.fan.furry?

: : Care to enlighten us all as to why people who practice religion

: : *shouldn't* read alt.fan.furry? Or was this just another troll?

: I can't tell. Is it charging us to cross a bridge?

I don't know about that, but I wish those three goats would hurry up and
get across!

--
"For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' 'Chuck him out, the brute!'
But it's 'Savior of 'is country' when the guns begin to shoot.
Yes, it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- You bet that Tommy sees."
-R. Kipling

[Watts Martin]

In article <jinx6568-180...@pm1a5.bratt.sover.net>, Chris Johnson wrote:
>these days) but if the core of being 'furry' is comics, cons and pictures
>then I have no place here at all.
> I'm a writer. I have never been very interested in comics. I can't get
>to any cons and am beginning to wonder whether I'd even want to go, and
>though I am not bothered by the constant flaming and bickering it doesn't
>impress me.
> I don't have to be a 'furry' to do my writing. I just have to be me. My
>writing, both SF and fantasy, heavily uses what are unequivocally 'furry'
>characters of various sorts. Newest one, 'Aquarius', is even 'furrier'
>than The Kings of Rainmoor was.

The core of being furry is anthropomorphic animals. This is traditionally
animation and comics oriented. There's certainly nothing that intrinsically
prevents text writers from being involved, though, and I can speak with some
degree of confidence on that point. "Pawprints" and "YARF!" both do a lot
of text stories, and their quality level tends to be pretty high.

[Penh Gwyn]

In article <4spc5d$k...@news.erie.net>,
Kenneth Poland <ga...@moose.erie.net> wrote:

> Also, sexuality is a very important PART of furry for me.

Perfect! Now if everyone can just remember to use those magic words,
"for me" when talking about any aspect of the fandom other than
anthropomorphic animals, those who insist on flaming them for trying to
make extraneous matters a part of furry fandom will look quite silly
indeed, and will be forced to withdraw to their bedrooms to hide from the
world and screech ever more petty demands at their increasingly resentful
servants, who will eventually put strychnine in their scones and abscond
to the Bahamas with the money they've been embezzling for years. And then
we can be done with this whole mess. Coolsvile, eh? You bet!

-- Penh "Why hasn't my newspaper been properly ironed?!" Gwyn

[Watts Martin]

In article <4sl35j$r...@news.erie.net>, Kenneth Poland wrote:
>Personally, I can't stand being called a funny animal fan, but I like
>anthropomorhiv fan and furry fan. Of all, I prefur simply furry. Most of
>what I like is not something that I think of as funny. I see furry as part
>spiritual, part sexual and part the attraction to anthropomorphics. This is
>only the beliefs of some of us though. It keeps coming up in the form of
>personal and group flames though. Several people are feeling this way, and
>that is why a more friendly place to discuss this lifestyle is needed. It
>will make it easier for both groups to find what they are most interested
>in, without seeing what they don't like. :)

I also tend to prefer "furry," although for the horridly prosaic reason that
it's easiest to say.

At any rate, the idea of proposing something like a
"rec.arts.anthropomorphics" newsgroup has come up before (I think), but
nothing has happened on it seriously. The idea would be a newsgroup which
is largely aimed at the artists and writers, and discussion of that art and
writing. (I'd also include cons by extension.) Conversely, I suppose it
could be argued "alt.fan.furry" should be narrowed toward that and an, I
don't know, "alt.fan.furry.lifestyle" should be created, but I have a
feeling that'd make things even more confusing. (At best you'd end up with
something like the implicit confusion of "alt.horror.werewolves," which
doesn't really fit the "alt.horror" grouping at all now that it's chiefly
concerned with spiritual therianthropy.)

[ellen gaban]

kw...@astro.phys.unm.edu () wrote:

>In article <4seld3$s...@news-f.iadfw.net>,
>ellen gaban <ega...@airmail.net> wrote:
>>
>>Yes, I finally find someone that separates protestantism(true
>>christianity) from catholism(christianity that got mixed with paganism
>>over the centuries).

>Protestant, of course wouldn't still have any Pagan influences, now would it?
>Couldn't be... (Sarcasm alert)

Most of it, but not all.

>Of course we might need to forget about Easter, which is all tied up with a
>lightly veiled spring fertility rite. (grin).

I don't celebrate Easter for that exact reason. In fact hey,
Christmas has pagan influences(Dec 25 is the birthday of Mithras the
Sun God) but Christmas has evolved into a secular holiday(how do you
expect 99% of the U.S. celebrates it along with Easter?)

And um, the doctrine of the immortal soul -> developed from Plato's
beilef of the immortal 'husk' that is released when one dies and/or
pagan worship(the roman beilef of hades). Sabbath change from
Saturday to Sunday -> Sunday was the day that Sunworshippers
worshipped on(_Sun_ day, get it?).

I don't beileve in the doctrine of the immortal soul. In other words,
I don't beileve you go an afterlife when you die but you are
ressurected at Judgement day and you go to the appropriate place then.
And I don't go to church, but have worship at home from friday night
to saturday night(and that's if I feel like it).

But should we argue this crap? NO! Please don't e-mail me afterwards
with you reasons as to why my beilefs are wrong. That's like
e-mailing a homosexual explaining why his actions are wrong(if you
beileve they are wrong).

Let's just let 'Reasons against Furry' and the millions of branchs of
it die. There's no point in making enemies over one's beilefs.

>>Sorry if I offend any devout catholics, but hey, if you're religious,
>>why are you reading alt.fan.furry?

>Why wouldn't someone who is religious read aff? There are a number of "out"

>christians here, and a whole bunch of Pagans who I'm sure consider themselves
>religious (just not christian). I'd be surprised if there aren't a few
>buddhists, and moslems reading it as well.

Yeah, this is the typical case when a guy like you doesn't read my
other messages. Read my reply to Scott Alan Malcomson on this one.
You can also read my reply to Boyce G. Kline for my views on religion.

And if there's anyone else that's tempted to post a reply to the post
of mine that pissed off a bunch of you, well read the 2 replies in the
previous paragraph first please.

--
Desmond, Diedrupo on FurryMuck
http://web2.airmail.net/egaban/shanda/ (Shanda the Panda)

FurryCode1.2:FCF2w A++ C- D-- H M+ P R+++ T++ W>++ Z>++++$
Sm RLCT* Cn+++ d++ a# e# f- h#> iwf+++ sm--

[Scott Alan Malcomson]

! at ? (mtmo...@indirect.com) wrote:
: Scott Alan Malcomson (hors...@indirect.com) wrote:

: : : : : : *shouldn't* read alt.fan.furry? Or was this just another troll?

: : : : : I can't tell. Is it charging us to cross a bridge?

: : : : Could be. I don't think the reference to a "sawbuck" is about a

: : : : deermorph carpenter. -;>
: : : So when it asked us if we had any common scents it meant standard
: : : "cents?" I thought it was asking if we knew any skunks or mustelids....
: : Could be. Got a spare Skiltaire on ya?
: Given the Skiltaire lifestyle, the concept of a spare is mind-boggling.
: Perhaps one that is less-attached?

Just get a prybar to unattach one.

---LCD

[Scott Alan Malcomson]

: >On Tue, 16 Jul 1996 02:17:56 GMT, ega...@airmail.net (ellen gaban) wrote:
: >> Let's get to the reason why people are flaming Learfox here. She made
: >> a big long thing about Christians not liking furries.

No, what she *did* was make several long flames about Christian law
requiring that furry fans be KILLED. Big dif, there.

---LCD

[! at ?]

Scott Alan Malcomson (hors...@indirect.com) wrote:

: ! at ? (mtmo...@indirect.com) wrote:
: : Scott Alan Malcomson (hors...@indirect.com) wrote:

: : : ! at ? (mtmo...@indirect.com) wrote:
: : : : Scott Alan Malcomson (hors...@indirect.com) wrote:

I don't have one of those, but I do have a crowbar (bought it from a black
avian-morph a year ago). What does a "pry" look like, anyhow?

[! at ?]

Robert K. Davis (arky...@netcom.com) wrote:
: ! at ? (mtmo...@indirect.com) wrote:
: : Scott Alan Malcomson (hors...@indirect.com) wrote:

: : : : >ega...@airmail.net (ellen gaban) writes:

: : : : >>Sorry if I offend any devout catholics, but hey, if you're

: : : : >>religious, why are you reading alt.fan.furry?

: : : Care to enlighten us all as to why people who practice religion

: : : *shouldn't* read alt.fan.furry? Or was this just another troll?

: : I can't tell. Is it charging us to cross a bridge?

: I don't know about that, but I wish those three goats would hurry up and
: get across!

Well, don't get "gruff." You know goats don't like to be the "butt" of
other's jokes.

[ellen gaban]

ga...@moose.erie.net (Kenneth Poland) wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Jul 1996 02:17:56 GMT, ega...@airmail.net (ellen gaban) wrote:

>> Let's get to the reason why people are flaming Learfox here. She made

>> a big long thing about Christians not liking furries. While I don't
>> agree with all of what she said, I had to stop and think about "furry
>> pornography". Wouldn't you agree that Furry pornography(or erotica if
>> the term is too harsh) is no more as sinful as human pornography?

>Furry erotica is no more sinful than human erotica. I might even suggest
>that it is less sinful in some ways.

That's moot because depending on a religious factor, some people might
consider all forms of erotica to be equal while others will consider
it nothing more than a regular sin(that's people who don't beileve in
different degrees of sinning)

>Furry pornography involving non-humans is still fantasy, until we find a way
>to actually transform. Human pornography is often real and often involves
>expliotation of another person.

So saying, Playboy magazine is sinful because it shows real people but
Playbunny is not because it's showing the work of artists.

>There is nothing in the Bible that says furry is evil or that sex is evil.
>The evil comes in when we use sex in a way that hurts another. Cheating on
>someone without their permission would be a good example or using sex to
>hurt another.

True, nothing furry is mentioned in the bible, but what's the
difference between looking at a furrotica slideshow on your computer
and watching a porno movie? How is it that you're suppose to hurt
yourself more watching the porno movie?

>The only way that furry would be sinful is if it was forced on the
>unwilling. Then, it wouldn't be furry that was the sin, but the fact that it
>was being forced. We don't have to right to force anyone to be or not be a
>certain way unless they are causing harm to others by their actions.

Forced upon the willing? You mean someone shoves furrotica into
someone else's face? Being held submissive to that is very very very
unlikely.

>So, you can be very furry and still be a good Christian at the same time. :)

I've never argued against that, just questioned furrotica.

Anyways, let's let this issue die. No point in debating this garbage.

[ellen gaban]

hors...@indirect.com (Scott Alan Malcomson) wrote:

>: >On Tue, 16 Jul 1996 02:17:56 GMT, ega...@airmail.net (ellen gaban) wrote:
>: >> Let's get to the reason why people are flaming Learfox here. She made
>: >> a big long thing about Christians not liking furries.

>No, what she *did* was make several long flames about Christian law

>requiring that furry fans be KILLED. Big dif, there.

You're right, but I wrote that a long time ago, and when I first
posted it, I didn't read LearFox's post and assumed what she wrote
from what other people posted.

[kw...@astro.phys.unm.edu]

In article <4srl76$t...@news-f.iadfw.net>,

ellen gaban <ega...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
>But should we argue this crap? NO! Please don't e-mail me afterwards
>with you reasons as to why my beilefs are wrong. That's like
>e-mailing a homosexual explaining why his actions are wrong(if you
>beileve they are wrong).

And where did you get your tail twisted to the point you decided this was a
flame?
Also, when did I email you? I keep an outgoing log, and I don't see a record
of sending email to you.
Methinks you need to relax a bit.

>Let's just let 'Reasons against Furry' and the millions of branchs of
>it die. There's no point in making enemies over one's beilefs.

>Yeah, this is the typical case when a guy like you doesn't read my

>other messages. Read my reply to Scott Alan Malcomson on this one.
>You can also read my reply to Boyce G. Kline for my views on religion.

But I did read your posts.
AFTER, they reached my newserver. They reached here two days after I posted
the above. Take this as a lesson in the propogation speed of the net.
This is a typical case of someone like you (See how spiteful that sounds when
it comes back in your direction?) making a bad assumption.
Secondly, my post was one of the more neutral posted back to you. why are
you flaming away at someone who did not flame you?
If you really want flames, I suppose I can provide them.
Read my replies to Taura LearFox. Those are indeed flames. There's no mistaking
it when I turn on the vitrol. The above was not even close to being a flame.

While you're at it, why don't you go back and read my replies to Daphne Lage
about Protestant/Catholic theology. Maybe then you'll realize that I was
discussing the very real pagan influences that are present in essentially all
christian theology. I could give a damn what your personal beliefs are, and
your implying that I'm trying to denigrate yours is ridiculous.
What happened, is a post was taken in a way you didn't expect. You got a
series of replies that you didn't like, which sensitized you to the point
you took a nonflaming post, and hit back with what you felt.
Kindly choose the target you're really looking for, next time.

To take a leaf from Amara:
Here, take a seat while I get you some hot chocolate. We'll all take a deep
breath, relax, and start over.

Kyle L. Webb Dept. of Physics + Astronomy
kw...@astro.phys.unm.edu University of New Mexico

Hartree Fox on Yiffnet #furry

[Brian Henderson]

hors...@indirect.com (Scott Alan Malcomson) wrote:

>Chris Johnson (jinx...@sover.net) wrote:
>: 'furries'? Yes. Am I afraid that the fiction I write might prove unsalable

>: because it is too 'furry'? Yes, though I'm aware that this is unresearched
>: fear- I asked Elf once about the commercial salability of 'furry' and/or
>: 'alternative lifestyle' stuff in fantasy/SF.

>Well, given the success of Alan Dean Foster, who's written a *lot* of

>furry-type material, I shouldn't think so. Frankly, I don't think the
>SF/F writing community is anywhere near as vicious and small-minded as
>the movie/comics/television industries are...and therefore more likely to
>say, "I really don't give a damn who these 'furries' are. What I give a
>damn about is: can you *write* well?".

But Alan Dean Foster doesn't write about anthropomorphics because he
is a furry at heart (even though he was GoH at CF), he does it because
he likes the characterization, etc. It works. There are a lot of
furries who absolutely shit their pants at the suggestion that humans
co-exist in furry universes and that is ridiculous in the extreme.

John Varley, Jack Chalker, Alan Dean Foster and a whole host of other
authors who write about ostensibly furry subjects wouldn't have
anything to do with furry fandom.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==========================================
+ Brian Henderson == Internet: BHen...@microsys.net ==
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++== Cephus on Furrymuck ==
+ Furry Fan, Babylon 5, == and Furtoonia ==
+ MST3K, Atheist, Skeptic, ==========================================
+ Sliders, RPG Gamer, INWO, == I'm not saying what I'm thinking, so ==
+ Herpetophile, Gargoyles == I don't think anyone agrees with me! ==
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++==========================================
+ Alternate Gargoyles Universe Mailing List Archive: ==
+========http://www.microsys.net/personal/bhend/agu.htm/===============

[D. A. Graf]

D.M. "Quozl" Falk <qu...@netcom.com> wrote:
: Amidst all the confusion....

[snipp]

: : Well, to him (you know who you are but I'll not mention your name to spare
: : you flames) and the others who have the lack of imagination and broad
: : mindedness to accept the ideas of others which don't fit into their own:

: Gee, Tygger- There has been a whole lot of _that_ going around here in
: a.f.f. lately.... And not a few left because of the intolerance... :(

I simply didn't want to drag his name here so dealt with him indirectly.
I tried to simply not add to the flames, but inadvertantly ended up doing
so due to being a little steamed over it at the time. *shrugs*

: : Get over it and yourselves. All you're doing is limiting the wonderful
: : diversity of this fandom. Deal with it because it's not going away no
: : matter how much you want it to. Deal with it because many are not going
: : to conform to your narrow mindedness.

: And quite a few here have been saying "why _should_ we deal with these
: things that we're uncomfortable with?"..... (Not me, though- I _like_
: diversity....)

This fandom means many different things to each person who is either
visiting or actually fully into it. That's all there is to it. That's
what I've seen and what I accept. What I do not and will not take is
someone telling me that my own way of seeing the fandom is wrong.

YES, I'm fully aware of the flames. YES, I'm fully aware of what I've
said in the past. What it all came down to for me, and I DID say it here,
was the behaviour of the extreme fans. Those whom I lable fanboy at times
(but not all extreme fans are fanboys to me).

Those extreme fans who say that ALL there is to this fandom is the sex or
non sex or military or gun spooge or spooge or fantasy or plushies or
stuffies or bondage or BDSM or cartoons or art or writing or movies or
whatever fill in the blank and define the fandom to others as just those
single or few facets are what I'm objecting to. I have run into more than
a few of those and I have found myself expanding the horizons of a few
others who did think all there was to the fandom was what they had been
introduced to.

Those extreme fans who act obnoxiously, be it groping in the hallways and
lobbies, running around and being loud, doing stupid things and not
cleaning up after themselves, who generally just don't think are also what
I object to.

If someone feels that TO THEM the fandom means plushies, fine. If someone
feels that TO THEM the fandom means erotica, fine. If someone feels that
TO THEM the fandom means non erotica, fine. If someone feels that TO THEM
the fandom means [fill in the blank with whatever floats your boat], fine.
Just don't shove it in my or anyone else's face, be polite, and I don't
see why things can't work out.

I can be and have been tolerant, try to be courteous, and do try to be
considerate. Sometimes I slip and will apologize when I do. All I ask is
equal tolerance, consideration, courtesy in exchange for what others are
asking/demanding/wanting of me.

: : *sighs as she sees her form is Badger, not Tiger, then heads back into the
: : bleachers as she slowly shifts back into a mellower form*

: The little skunk notices a discrepency going on here, and hopes the
: trans-felinid/mustelid notices it too sometime soon....

The only thing I see here is you assuming meaning to my words that aren't
there and seeking out ulterior meaning to the simple, plain blunt words I
said and the realizations I have found which are Truth to ME.

: : Sorry about that. This just happened a few days ago and I'm still steamed
: : over it. I didn't rip that fellow a new ass like I wanted to due to the
: : simple fact I knew that it would not have mattered. So instead of getting
: : someone he admired and claimed to be the best around (so he said,
: : personally I detest brown nosing, you shoulda seen those obviously blatant
: : ego stroking words, sheesh) to do a book he wanted to see, he instead got
: : lumped into the category Fanboyus Annoyus Extremeus Idiotous.

: Now do you _understand_ why when others get royally torqued over the
: issue of furry erotica, and being told it doesn't belong in furry fandom?
: It's the same thing, only different concepts.... :(

You're assuming again and giving the impression that I had no idea or
couldn't understand. I KNOW I've spoken out about and against it but I
FINALLY found my reason why earlier these threads. Obviously you missed
it, so I'll repeat it again for you: my only problem with erotica in this
fandom is when many say that is what the fandom is all about. When they
define the fandom to others as THE definition to the fandom. It may be so
to THEM, but it is NOT to others. As it is for me. I fully enjoy doing
erotica, yes. I do like to collect Olivia, Patrick Nagel, Sorayama art
books. But I have other interests besides that. I don't define myself as
just an erotica artist for I do touch on other themes though my main theme
is erotica. But I will object when I'm seen as ONLY that. I'm just an
artist, plain and simple.

I have also said that erotica is just as valid in this fandom as the non
erotica. I guess you missed that one too.

: : Just another pet peeve of mine: fans who I don't know acting as if they
: : have the authority to tell me what I should and shouldn't do with *my*
: : work. Or who assume, because I'm a friendly sort, they can presume to act
: : like close friends when I barely know them. Fortunately these type are
: : few in number... but it only takes a few to ruin a nice day.

: And this is not unlike the whole "take back the fandom" debacle that's
: been going on here for some months?

Are you trying to say that I'm trying to resurrect the "take back the
fandom" threads? No, I'm not, just merely expressing a personal peeve and
speaking only for myself. I ended up mildly venting and had a bit of
momentum. Apologies if it offended you but I do take exception to people
who think they can take liberties in behaviour and speech as if they were
close friends when they are not.

: : Heh, sorry. I'll shut up now. *grins* I just wanted to show that Brian
: : Henderson's words are valid and not just another rumour story.

: I reserve the right not to comment on that, if you please....

*shrugs* Your right.

: [...]

: : Because I'm writing a story which would appeal to me, something which
: : would catch my attention. Humanoids and anthros is more of an appeal to
: : me than just anthros. Yep, I'm not sorry to say I've never had the
: : pure faith and am gleefully tainted with the heretical idea and enjoyment
: : of human/humanoid/anthro co-existance.

: And just what is wrong with _that_?

Nothing. Thanks for agreeing with me.

: : *shrugs at being the sarcastically amused Badger and just grins*

: : Yanno...doing what I want to see and bucking the trends is kinda fun. I
: : don't mind being seen as not a true furry or anthro fan. Why? Because
: : I'm NOT. I like them, yes, but I also like other genres. My first
: : introduction into the general fandom was through ElfQuest and anime. I've
: : always had a huge grounding in horror and fantasy fandoms and I just touch
: : upon anthro fandom simply because anthro fandom overlaps my greatest
: : interests in some areas. In reality, I'm just the occasional visitor who
: : takes up long residence sometimes, but I don't really belong full time in
: : the fandom. *thinks about that for a moment as a realization strikes*
: : Looks like I've been limiting myself again cause I was listening to the
: : vocal minority, feeling guilty for having interests elsewhere and not
: : totally in the anthro fandom. Interesting what one finds when you
: : actually start to clear away the garbage. *smirks*

: And you're further limiting yourself through _denial_. Please allow me to
: explain:

: Just because you like anime, or whatever other genre, you seem to believe
: that because you have these other interests, it no longer makes you a fan
: of anthropomorphics. I'm sorry, but I miss the logic in that
: _completely_.

You certainly did. This is such a ridiculous statement. How dare you
presume to tell me what is in my mind and how dare you presume to define
my own feelings for me.

Thank you for illustrating oh so clearly the very pet peeve I was
complaining about: people who presume an intimacy that does not exist,
acting like close friends instead of casual acquaintances, right down to
psychoanalyzing me. Yet another prime example of the Fanboyus Annoyus
Extremeus Idiotous.

: You can be a fan of _many_ things, and to each, still be a
: _fan_ of each. What you _aren't_ is a _dedicated_ furry fan, and that's
: the difference. You say you're _not_ a furry fan because you like other
: things? Well, then furry fandom isn't made up of furry fans either, by
: that logic, since most furry fans are fans/enthusiasts of a great many
: _other_ things, too... You say you're _not_ a furry fan? I say you're
: _not_ a _DEDICATED_ furry fan....

If by dedicated furry fan, you mean someone who eats, drinks, sleeps, and
shits furry and who believes that their way of expressing furry is the One
True Way, then no, I'm not a dedicated furry fan.

: [...]

: : I guess what I'm saying is I'm not a voice in the main body, just someone
: : who's up on the bleachers watching the game selling peanuts, popcorn,
: : and drinks to the crowd occasionally. Sometimes I'll put suggestions in
: : the suggestion box to help the main body figure out how to best make
: : things appeal to other visitors and their own home players. But overall,
: : I'm just visiting.

: Then what you're saying is that you have _no_ interest in furries,
: because that's what not being a furry fan is. If that's how you want to
: view yourself, fine. I would like to see you _admit_ you're as much a
: furry fan as anyone else here and be a part of the diversity you were
: claiming furry fandom was earlier in this post.

*SIGH* Are you and I even speaking the same language? *rummages around
for her English-Quozleze dictionary*

Are you really intersted in discussion this issue of my views of myself in
regards to the fandom, or are you looking for any excuse to flame me?
It's beginning to look like the latter...but I'll be polite and give you
the benefit of the doubt. *thinks it over* Then again...no, I won't.

*moves further up the bleachers, shaking her head*

: I've got other fannish interests, too, but I'm proud to say I _am_ a
: furry fan, and _to_Hell_ what others (who are anti-diversity, amongst
: other things) say-- _No-one_ can take my enthusiasm for furries in _all_
: their myriad forms away from me! Furry fandom is too damned diverse to
: say no-one has the right to belong, so long as they have an interest in
: _anthropomorphics_.

Well, bully for you.

: : *shifts to Tiger, puts her feet up on the seat in front of her, then goes
: : back to sketching*

: Tygger, I'll say this again: _YOU_ are a furry fan, _even_ if you have
: interests elsewhere, _SO_LONG_AS_ you have _any_ interest in furries, in
: _whatever_ manifestation this interest takes the form of.

: _I_ think you belong here.

*leans forward as she smiles sweetly*

Yet not too long ago, December 95 in fact, you said that I didn't. That I
was a danger to this very fandom you are saying I'm a part of. That I was
a threat to this very fandom you say I'm a part of. That I must be
stopped at all costs from hurting others and this fandom that you are
saying I am a part of.

Make up your alleged mind.

*leaning back, she shifts from Tiger to Human, shaking her head*

Welp, this is the last I have to say on this. Knock yourself out trying
to retranslate my meaning, redefining my words, and just plain
misunderstanding and not seeing the whys of my words. I'm outta here.

Thanks to those who understand what I'm getting at in the first posting
and sorry you have to see all this. *apologetic smile*

I'll be in my skybox if anyone wants me.

*shuts the door behind her*

--Tygger

--
******************************************************************************
gr...@primenet.com http://www.av.qnet.com/~canuss/tygger

ftp://svansmoj.ctrl-c.liu.se/furry/images/artists/tygger
******************************************************************************
**BLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAMBLAM!click**

"Shit! Well, that's pointless."

*chtick-chtack* >>BOOM!!<< *THUD*

"Thaaaat's better."

-- Sara on a case, Guardian Knights, D.A. & Tygger Graf --

[ellen gaban]

Is this thread going to die anytime soon? Hopefully this post will be
the last one.

--

[D. A. Graf]

D.M. "Quozl" Falk <qu...@netcom.com> wrote:

[massive miscommunicatin snipped]

: The problem here is poor communications, for which I feel I am totally
: inept at, and consider myself a failure as a human being. I listen well,
: but my inadequate attempt at communicating has drawn confusion,
: misunderstanding, ire, and hatred towards me. To that, I regret my life,
: and feel incapable of redeeming myself, having made too many mistakes,
: preventing me from taking joy in life and those things that bring me
: pleasure. As a person, I feel incompetant, and have serious doubts as to
: whether life is worth living.

*flopping down beside the skunk in the bleachers, she smiles at him as she
indicates the Badger trussed up and fuming at her in the corner*

I'm sorry for misunderstanding. I admit to getting kneejerking at what
you said and instantly had the defenses up. But they're firmly locked
down now and I'm admitting I'm wrong in my actions.

I'm sorry, hon, and retract my sarcastic comments.

What I was getting at, to put it into simple terms is this: I'm more a
fringe person than one who's in the thick of it. I didn't start out in
this fandom. If I had, then I'm sure I'd feel differently and prolly
define myself as an anthrofan, like I define myself as a horror junkie. I
LOVE horror and suspense movies, good to bad. If I won't watch it, you
KNOW it's bad. *grins*

Does this make sense now? I just don't define myself as an anthro fan
first and foremost. I define myself as a horror fan first and foremost.
The fringe of anthros come in when in the movie, the demon, bad guy,
monster is anthro or intelligent animal. So, your pov that I'm not a
dedicated anthro fan and still a fan of them is right.

I'll fully admit to being a dedicated horror fan. Heck, I'm always coming
up with weird scenarios for my comic or the odd times I've GM'd. My
greatest triumph as a GM was when I successfully had vampirism and the
Blob in Cyberpunk as villians and it WORKED! (yes, it CAN be done! ;) I
guess you can say that I eat, drink, sleep, shit horror and that I'm a
fangirl for horror flicks and situations. I don't bandy it about as I
know that not many do like it. But when I do find someone who shares my
interest I'll sit up til the wee hours and talk shop. *grins*

*smiling, she hands him one of her prized dark choklit truffles*

Life is worth living, take it from someone who's been at the edge and
fought back. Here...have a truffle...nothing's so bad that choklit can't
make it at least a little better.

[David Cooksey]

Brian Henderson wrote:

> John Varley, Jack Chalker, Alan Dean Foster and a whole host of other
> authors who write about ostensibly furry subjects wouldn't have
> anything to do with furry fandom.

> Sorry Brian. if all you are meaning to say is that the above mentioned
authors don't consider their work to be AIMED at furry fandom then okay.
If you mean to say that all of the above don't see a sexual or erotic
element in anthropomorphic characters, then I have to differ. I won't
even start with Alan Dean Fosters work, but Jack Chalker has had unusual
and odd sex in almost every single one of his books I have read and the
same goes for Mr. Varley as well, adding in a decent dose of humiliation
as eroticism as well.

Alan Dean Foster, Jack Chalker, and Mr Varley will all be happy to
participate in the fandom so long as the fandom enjoys and buys their
books, as part of <oh god I used the part word> a much larger audience.
If that means occasionally going to a furry convention as Mr. Foster did
then so be it. The simple and real reason they don't is because its not
worth these authors time. Furry fandom itself is SMALL. All of these
writers are pretty big names and have a much larger audience to reach
than simply that of furry. But if we were large you can durn well bet
they would participate, probably, like all professionals, holding their
noses a bit at ANY fandom, but wanting to reach that market.

None of that is particularly important though, I just didn't want to
leave hanging the thought that those particular artists didn't milk
anthropomorphic sex in their writings. They certainly do.