"Foxhood hanging out"... EXCUSE ME?
Lance Rund
would be necessary sooner or later.
This brief rant concerns the perceptions surrounding the piece of
art "Whose Sins Did HE Die For?" I displayed and sold at Confurence
5. The image portrayed was that of a nude male fox crucified, wearing
a crown of thorns, and in tears.
The intent of this piece was not to portray Christ as a sexual figure,
nor was it intended simply to offend and shock. The hope I had was to
get people to think how religion and "furriness" can (or cannot) be
reconciled. Since some of you obviously missed the point, let me now
present, point by point, refutations to things I have noted being
said.
1. "Look, he's naked! Obviously this piece is just a whack-off pinup!"
Surprise. The Romans crucified their victims nude. Victorian-era
sensibilities and fears about nudity were not the concerns of the
Romans. Just because sexually-repressed 19th century artists did
not dare draw nudity, do not assume that was the historical fact.
2. "The focus of the picture is the penis! Obviously this piece is
homosexual pornography trying to hide behind religion!"
The focus of the piece is the face of the character. Any artist
will be able to tell you that a character in a crucified position
will create a natural focus on the face; the "lines" of the body
and arms point to the face, making it the visual center.
If the viewer has a fixation elsewhere, that is a fault in the
viewer, not the art.
3. "It's a Lance Rund piece, it MUST be just porn!"
As if I don't have anything to say with my art besides "erections
are good". Again. Just because the viewer is narrow-minded and
sexually fixated, don't rush to label the art or the artist with
those labels. It's like beating up gays to prove to yourself you're
not a "faggot".
4. "Christ was human, and it's blasphemy to portray Him as an animal!"
And herein lies the point of the piece.
Follow this reasoning, if you can:
Assume that furry fans with strongly-held Christian beliefs like
to portray or create furry characters who are themselves Christians.
This is reasonable; if a person thinks Christianity is good, then
it makes sense that they would think Christian furries are in a
sense "better" or more likeable than non-Christian furries (here,
I use the term "furries" to refer to the characters, not to fur-fans).
If these furries are Christian, they are by definition worshippers
of Christ.
Most Christians (C.S. Lewis aside) would hemmorhage at the thought
of their Mesiah as an "animal". After all, the Bible is very clear
on the subject of who is the dominant between Man and Beast. Read
Genesis sometime about what Man was given dominion over. (Also
remember that this was the reasoning for James Watts' anti-envir-
onmental stand... you DO remember James Watts, don't you?)
So. Christian furries worship a human God (because, after all, Christ
WAS, per the Bible, human).
Therefore, furries worshipping a Christ of their own species is
blasphemous. Christ was human.
My reasoning, therefore, for doing this piece, is to question this
assumption.
If furries are our equals (as most fur-fans like to conjecture,
portraying them as people with hopes, dreams, and fears the equal
of we humans), why MUST they worship a human figure?
Is there a secret desire to be worshipped YOURSELF?
Do you believe on a basic level, for the reasons above, that humans
are therefore superior to conjectured furries, and justify this
with the assertion that humans are God's chosen, and Christ is the
proof?
Are your motivations for being a furry-fan to participate in a genre
where you are better than the objects of your (not-necessarily-
sexual) fantasies?
My reasoning for this piece was to challenge the self-centeredness
and smug self-righteousness I often encounter among so-called
"Christian" fur-fans. Not a very "Christian" attitude, this self-
righteousness. Something about a Golden Rule.
One other thing I will point out. The piece was not intended to be sexually
arousing. The subject is in tears, in great pain, and knows he will soon
die. I, for one, do not find the prospect of such terror-laced death
arousing. If someone else does believe that (and, given that some people
are seeing "sexual content", apparently they DO believe that)... they are
far sicker than I am.
I thought the character I drew to be sympathetic. The feelign I get when
I look at that piece and examine how I feel about it, is the desire to
free the character from the Cross, to save his life, and hold him while
he cries away the terror.
"My Father, why hast Thou forsaken me?"
...lance rund
f...@apple.com
Steve Arlow
>I'd hoped to not have to post this, but something told me that this
>would be necessary sooner or later.
Once your art is out there in the world, it has to stand on its
own. You can't be there to explain it to every viewer...
>This brief rant concerns the perceptions surrounding the piece of
>art "Whose Sins Did HE Die For?" I displayed and sold at Confurence
>5. The image portrayed was that of a nude male fox crucified, wearing
>a crown of thorns, and in tears.
>
>The intent of this piece was not to portray Christ as a sexual figure,
>nor was it intended simply to offend and shock.
As the proud owner of the piece in question, please note that I did
not suggest that it was intended that way. I said, if I recall,
that it could be interpreted in different ways; and that some might
*consider* it blasphemous. Particularly, I said that it could be
seen as a furry version of a traditional Christian subject (in
which case it is no more blasphemy that Greywolf's furry Nativity
scene -- which, regardless of interpretation, I am quite sure was
*not* intended as blasphemy).
Given the somewhat ambiguous title, though, (and perhaps the context
of some of the other NC-17 art nearby), I suggested that it could
also be interpreted as a furry punchline to an extremely blasphemous
joke (which I then related). It was the *joke*, not the artwork,
that I said was blasphemous.
> 1. "Look, he's naked! Obviously this piece is just a whack-off pinup!"
I don't recall *anyone* saying that.
> 2. "The focus of the picture is the penis! Obviously this piece is
> homosexual pornography trying to hide behind religion!"
By strict analogy, "foxhood" is incorrect. The analogous terms to
the euphamisms "manhood" and "womanhood" would be "doghood" (or
perhaps "dogfoxhood") and "vixenhood".
And since when is male nudity automatically "homosexual"? Even if
the piece were some beefcake pin-up (which it's not), women can
enjoy erotica, too....
> If furries are our equals (as most fur-fans like to conjecture,
> portraying them as people with hopes, dreams, and fears the equal
> of we humans), why MUST they worship a human figure?
>
> Is there a secret desire to be worshipped YOURSELF?
Ohmifa! ask Elf!!! this one... ;) ;)
>One other thing I will point out. The piece was not intended to be sexually
>arousing. The subject is in tears, in great pain, and knows he will soon
>die. I, for one, do not find the prospect of such terror-laced death
>arousing. If someone else does believe that (and, given that some people
>are seeing "sexual content", apparently they DO believe that)... they are
>far sicker than I am.
Let me reassure you, that in the eight or so weeks that I've owned
WSDHDF, I've not masturbated to it once. :, My sense of humor,
however, may well be far sicker than yours: I found a joke (which I
heard long before seeing WSDHDF) suggesting that the crucifixtion
might really have been a BDSM scene that got out of hand, to be
quite funny.
--
"REALLY, JIM! Great, dead composers eating | Steve Arlow, Yorick Software Inc.
PIZZA may be one thing, BUT IMAGINARY | 39336 Polo Club Dr. #103
CARTOON ANIMALS in BED with you..." | Farmington Hills, MI 48335-5634
-- Father Andrew (Barela) | 810.473.0920 (s...@umcc.umich.edu)
Bruce Grant
In article <2mqg4u$8cn#apple.com>, f...@apple.com (Lance Rund) said:
LR> This brief rant concerns the perceptions surrounding the piece of
LR> art "Whose Sins Did HE Die For?" I displayed and sold at
LR> Confurence 5. The image portrayed was that of a nude male fox
LR> crucified, wearing a crown of thorns, and in tears.
Go on, I'm all ears.
LR> 1. "Look, he's naked! Obviously this piece is just a whack-off
LR> pinup!"
LR>
LR> Surprise. The Romans crucified their victims nude. Victorian-era
LR> sensibilities and fears about nudity were not the concerns of
LR> the Romans. Just because sexually-repressed 19th century artists
LR> did not dare draw nudity, do not assume that was the historical
LR> fact.
Isn't it amazing that, in all those religious paintings and stained-
glass windows, people in the Holy Land knew how to build medieval
castles? And, of course, they were really up on turn-of-the-14th-
century clothing fashions. :-)
Yes, that's something people keep forgetting, even (or perhaps
especially) when religion comes into the question. Symbolism isn't
much use unless the symbolic "language" used is familiar. And meanings
can change as time passes.
LR> 2. "The focus of the picture is the penis! Obviously this piece is
LR> homosexual pornography trying to hide behind religion!"
LR> [...]
LR> If the viewer has a fixation elsewhere, that is a fault in the
LR> viewer, not the art.
There is nothing wrong with this picture: please do not adjust your
brain. :-)
Anyone for a Rorcharch test? Freudians have so much _fun_ with them!
LR> 4. "Christ was human, and it's blasphemy to portray Him as an
LR> animal!"
LR>
LR> And herein lies the point of the piece.
LR> [...]
LR> So. Christian furries worship a human God (because, after all,
LR> Christ WAS, per the Bible, human).
LR>
LR> Therefore, furries worshipping a Christ of their own species is
LR> blasphemous. Christ was human.
Scroll back to my comment on [1] above.
LR> If furries are our equals (as most fur-fans like to conjecture,
LR> portraying them as people with hopes, dreams, and fears the equal
LR> of we humans), why MUST they worship a human figure?
LR>
LR> Is there a secret desire to be worshipped YOURSELF?
Ooh, naughty! Some deities have been known to take exception to this.
LR> Do you believe on a basic level, for the reasons above, that
LR> humans are therefore superior to conjectured furries, and justify
LR> this with the assertion that humans are God's chosen, and Christ
LR> is the proof?
Excuse me a moment, I just bit myself in the small of my back. :-)
LR> My reasoning for this piece was to challenge the self-centeredness
LR> and smug self-righteousness I often encounter among so-called
LR> "Christian" fur-fans. Not a very "Christian" attitude, this
LR> self-righteousness. Something about a Golden Rule.
Christian charity? Christian forgiveness? Christian mercy? I suppose
it really depends on whether you have enough empathy and tolerance to
admit the other person _does_ have a right to another point of view.
Lance, I'm tempted to ask if this was a one-off picture :-( or if
you're having prints made for sale :-).
BTW, Lance, did you get my email a few weeks ago? If not, mail me and
I'll send it again: I might want to buy something from you. :-)
Bruce (who isn't what most Christians would admit was a Christian).
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Heck is a place for people who don't believe in Gosh. |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
| EMail: bruce...@evaware.org | ICBM: 02. 06' 48" W |
| FidoNet: 2:252/158 | 57. 10' 23" N |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------|
---
~ MMST 1.25 UnRegistered
----
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|EvaWare BBS, Home of Orator QWK reader for Windows, Sysop:Nick Dyer|
| Tel 44-507-608645. V32/V32Bis V42/V42Bis HST Fidonet (2:252/158) |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Dave Bell
BG> Isn't it amazing that, in all those religious paintings and stained-
BG> glass windows, people in the Holy Land knew how to build medieval
BG> castles? And, of course, they were really up on turn-of-the-14th-
BG> century clothing fashions. :-)
BG>
BG> Yes, that's something people keep forgetting, even (or perhaps
BG> especially) when religion comes into the question. Symbolism isn't
BG> much use unless the symbolic "language" used is familiar. And
BG> meanings can change as time passes.
That's a rather ambiguous comment, Bruce... Almost as if you are
suggesting that Lance ought to have known better.
BG> Christian charity? Christian forgiveness? Christian mercy? I suppose
BG> it really depends on whether you have enough empathy and tolerance to
BG> admit the other person _does_ have a right to another point of view.
I remember, several years ago, getting press-ganged into a Dead Authors
panel at a LUCon. Fortunately, I did get a fast briefing on the guy's
books, and was able to throw in a couple of apposite references. But
what brought the house down was the reaction of Steve Glover, in the
front row of the audience, when I did what he tells me was a frightening
impersonation of the Rev. Ian Paisley. "There is no such thing as
religious tolerance!"
BG> Bruce (who isn't what most Christians would admit was a Christian).
Let's face it. Most Christians aren't what most Christians would admit
were Christians. Which is why it doesn't astonish me to find that many
of my friends who have strong religious feelings are pagans of one sort
and another.
Somehow, a furry with pagan beliefs, such as Wicca, seems far more
plausible than one with Christian beliefs.
Dave
... The conclusion is based on licensed premises.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.11
Ron Bauerle
>
>In article <2mqg4u$8cn#apple.com>, f...@apple.com (Lance Rund) said:
>
>LR> This brief rant concerns the perceptions surrounding the piece of
>LR> art "Whose Sins Did HE Die For?" I displayed and sold at
>LR> Confurence 5. The image portrayed was that of a nude male fox
>LR> crucified, wearing a crown of thorns, and in tears.
I really can't justify the time I'm going to spend on this follow-up -
since Greywolf didn't follow-up either, I assume he either did it
privately or also felt it was a waste of time. But here goes
nothing anyway...
(The original article expired before I could reply to it - "you" as
used hereafter refers to Mr. Rund.)
>LR> Surprise. The Romans crucified their victims nude. Victorian-era
>LR> sensibilities and fears about nudity were not the concerns of
>LR> the Romans. Just because sexually-repressed 19th century artists
>LR> did not dare draw nudity, do not assume that was the historical
>LR> fact.
The Crucifixion _itself_ is the important fact, not whether or not the
victim was naked. Were you _really_ striving for historical accuracy
here, or is the rest of your work so adult in nature that you
deliberately drew him naked? From comments by others and your
"sexually repressed" comment above, I infer the latter. As a Christian
who believes sex (and therefore nudity in general) belongs in marriage
only, I naturally can't help being surprised by it when I see it, thus
often pay more attention to it than the rest of the work. I'm sure
that makes me "sexually repressed" too, in your eyes...
>LR> 2. "The focus of the picture is the penis! Obviously this piece is
>LR> homosexual pornography trying to hide behind religion!"
>LR> [...]
>LR> If the viewer has a fixation elsewhere, that is a fault in the
>LR> viewer, not the art.
See previous paragraph. Obviously I'm not sophisticated enough to
fully appreciate such a work.
>LR> 4. "Christ was human, and it's blasphemy to portray Him as an
>LR> animal!"
>LR>
>LR> And herein lies the point of the piece.
>LR> [...]
>LR> So. Christian furries worship a human God (because, after all,
>LR> Christ WAS, per the Bible, human).
>LR>
>LR> Therefore, furries worshipping a Christ of their own species is
>LR> blasphemous. Christ was human.
Actually, I _don't_ believe this. This whole furry thing is
hypothetical - come on people, it's an imaginary world - I have no
problem with a furry Christ - I'd prefer that to some of the paganism
that I'm sure is used for most furry religions (yes, I'll admit I
haven't read enough furry stuff to know what the _general_ trend is...)
(But I'm not having any problem with Rhudiprrt for example - again,
this is _fiction_ we're talking about here, folks.)
>LR> If furries are our equals (as most fur-fans like to conjecture,
>LR> portraying them as people with hopes, dreams, and fears the equal
>LR> of we humans), why MUST they worship a human figure?
I for one am not saying they must...
>LR> Is there a secret desire to be worshipped YOURSELF?
No, but I'll admit that I tend to think of furries more as intelligent
pets than equals. Again, it's all hypothetical, so does it really
matter? If true furries existed and I had a chance to get to know
them, I would probably see them as equals.
And can you (or any) author/artist as the creator of a character say
you've _never_ felt _any_ God-like feelings of superiority (and thus the
right to be 'worshipped' for having created this character)?
>LR> Do you believe on a basic level, for the reasons above, that
>LR> humans are therefore superior to conjectured furries, and justify
>LR> this with the assertion that humans are God's chosen, and Christ
>LR> is the proof?
Emphasis on 'conjectured' - wait until some non-human-but-with-human-
intelligence race is discovered and I'm shown to feel superior towards
them before condemning me.
>LR> My reasoning for this piece was to challenge the self-centeredness
>LR> and smug self-righteousness I often encounter among so-called
>LR> "Christian" fur-fans.
And who's being self-centered and smugly self-righteous now?
>LR> Not a very "Christian" attitude, this
>LR> self-righteousness. Something about a Golden Rule.
Actually, this attitude would fall under "judge not, that you be not
judged. For with what judgement you judge, you will be judged; and
with the same measure you use, it will be measured back to you"
(Matthew 7:1-2). But this follow-up probably violates Matthew 7:6 ("Do
not...cast your pearls before swine..."
>Christian charity? Christian forgiveness? Christian mercy? I suppose
>it really depends on whether you have enough empathy and tolerance to
>admit the other person _does_ have a right to another point of view.
Finally, I'm commenting on Bruce's follow-up :^)
I'd say the answer is No. While I can appreciate the thought-provoking
aspect of this work, Mr. Rund's post indicates that it was done more
out of spite than in order to stimulate that thought.
RDB
Greywolf
> I'd say the answer is No. While I can appreciate the thought-provoking
> aspect of this work, Mr. Rund's post indicates that it was done more
> out of spite than in order to stimulate that thought.
Pretty much why I haven't bothered to reply. It's just so wonderful to see my
name invoked again in connection with my little Christmas card design as the
standard of what is or isn't blasphemous in Furry Fandom. Oh joy.
I've never seen Lance Rund's naked-fox-hung-on-a-cross "Whose Sins Did He Die
For, Anyway?" piece, so I've not felt like I'm in a position to say much about
it. Lance Rund's gambit of "questions" asked about his piece really miss the
mark, though.
--
-Jordan .. PEACO...@cobra.uni.edu Visit scenic NarniaMUSH!
.OO. Jordan Greywolf (Jordan Peacock) 129.24.9.24 port=6250
O/\O 1610 Parker Lots of critters, no spooge!
~~ Cedar Falls, IA 50613
Radical right-winger fundamentalist ultra-conservative religious fanatic
critterfan/miniatures-hobbyist/wargamer/sculptor/composer-wannabe/pilot/
student/programmer/doodler/writer/SwordTagger/mek and old car enthusiast
Steve Arlow
Greywolf <peaco...@cobra.uni.edu> wrote:
>
> It's just so wonderful to see my
>name invoked again in connection with my little Christmas card design as the
>standard of what is or isn't blasphemous in Furry Fandom. Oh joy.
This reads like sarcasm, but when I made the comparison I was quite
serious. I did not intend to offend you when I made the comparison.
Both Lance's vulpine Crucifixion and your feline Nativity can be
fairly compared to traditional versions of those subjects, with
zoomorphism as the only difference in content. (I have seen gory
crucifixes that portray Christ in various dress, from nude to
loincloth to robes, etc..)
I am sure that there are some Christians who would say both pieces
are blasphemous. If you want to hold that one piece is blasphemy,
but the other is not, isn't it fair to ask why?
>I've never seen Lance Rund's naked-fox-hung-on-a-cross "Whose Sins Did He Die
>For, Anyway?" piece, so I've not felt like I'm in a position to say much about
^^^^^^^^
>it.
The title did NOT include the ", Anyway?", which makes for a very
negative tone. It was simply, "Whose Sins Did He Die For?", which
is considerably more neutral in tone. As for seeing the piece,
that I can't correct, since you're several hundred miles away.
Of course, Lance could always post a .GIF of it, thereby reducing
the value of my investment ;) (not really, since I don't plan on
selling it).
>it. Lance Rund's gambit of "questions" asked about his piece really miss the
>mark, though.
I cannot fault his questions. He followed them with some rather
angry, bitter comments, but the questions themselves seemed quite
reasonable to ask. Hell, Watts Martin touches on some of the
same questions in _In Our Image_ (in the title, even!).
As for the angry comments, well, if someone were to accuse you of
blasphemy for your furry Nativity, or of condoning bestiality for
one of your stories, you just might get a little steamed too, no?
John Turner
peaco...@cobra.uni.edu (Greywolf) writes:
|> In article <CnGn8...@crdnns.crd.ge.com>, bau...@cs690-3.erie.ge.com
|> (Ron Bauerle) writes:
|> > I'd say the answer is No. While I can appreciate the
|> thought-provoking
|> > aspect of this work, Mr. Rund's post indicates that it was done more
|> > out of spite than in order to stimulate that thought.
|>
|> Pretty much why I haven't bothered to reply. It's just so wonderful to
|> |> see my name invoked again in connection with my little Christmas card
|> design |> as the standard of what is or isn't blasphemous in Furry
|> Fandom. Oh joy.
|>
|> I've never seen Lance Rund's naked-fox-hung-on-a-cross "Whose Sins Did
|> He Die
|> For, Anyway?" piece, so I've not felt like I'm in a position to say
|> much about it. Lance Rund's gambit of "questions" asked about his
|> piece really miss the mark, though.
I did see the piece in question, but I would rather not comment on it.
This strikes me as another one of those threads that will create nothing
but hard feelings all the way around (remember the BDSM thread, and the
You_know_who draws like you_know_who thread?). What I thought of the piece
really doesn't matter that much anyway.
What I'm confused about what you (Greywolf) are talking about with your
"Christmas card design" comment, and your "standard setting" comment. The
quote you took from Ron Bauerle did not give mention to either of these
things, though he did mention your name in the post that you took the above
quote from. If this "Christmas card design" thing is an inside refference,
then maybe you could clear up for the rest of us what you were reffering
to.
What were you saying with your comments on "setting the standard"? Are
you offended that people are using you as a reference point for a certian
type of behavior? Has it offended you when In the past I have made
refferences to the effect of;
"why is <add_name_of_some_obnoxious_net_pesonality> so down on furrydom?
There are a lot of things that people like Greywolf don't like, but I don't
see him constantly slaming everything. Instead he tries to create more of
what he does like"
If you would rather not have your name used as a refference for something
just let me know and I will try to "curb" my comments -its just that
sometimes you are such a good example for certian things. Probably the
Alstons feel the same way about "Alsonitis" being used in refference to a
negative physical trait (not that I particularly want to get into the whole
"Alstonitis" thread again -I don't even recollect having seen any of his
work).
-jturner
--
(Katarn on furryMUCK)
*=======================================================================*
* - John Turner (jtu...@bast.mfg.sgi.com) | Monster Grendel was rather *
* =>Standard disclaimer<= My opinions | plainish, for breakfast he *
* are mine, SGI can't have them. | simply had a couple *
* I doubt that SGI would want them. | of Danish... *
*=======================================================================*
Tygger
: >LR> Is there a secret desire to be worshipped YOURSELF?
[...]
: And can you (or any) author/artist as the creator of a character say
: you've _never_ felt _any_ God-like feelings of superiority (and thus the
: right to be 'worshipped' for having created this character)?
After I read this paragraph, it bothered me. I re-read it again, then a
third time, and finally a fourth. The uneasy, uncomfortable feeling was
still there.
Why? I asked myself. Why do I feel that way? Then I found my answer.
Because I can honestly say that I've NOT felt the "God-like feelings of
superiority" and the "right to be `worshipped'". To be lumped into that
assumption BOTHERS me. It makes me downright uneasy.
I'm sure some of you are thinking, "Yah, right. Suuuure you don't," but
it's true. I don't. Oh, sure I've been pleased as punch about an illo
that's turned out well, but I don't gloat and demand all and sundry sing
my artistic praises. Hell, Dean and many others have a hard time getting
me to ACCEPT praise and compliments for my work.
I've just never felt that my art was at all that special. --shrug-- To
see and hear someone saying how much they really like a piece I've done
makes me real self-conscious, uneasy, and unworthy. I point out the flaws
to show the person my work isn't at all that good. I don't feel as if I
DESERVE the praise and compliments because I don't feel as if I've EARNED them.
That's the main reason why I don't have such a high minimum bid on my
work and why my print prices used to be $5: I just don't feel that my art
is worth very much. Hell, the ONLY reason I raised my print prices is
because I had quite a few bug who hassled me until I DID! --sigh-- And
I'm still uncomfortable with doing that. The min bid barely covers the
materials expenses and I've been yelled at by many who think I should
charge MORE.
Then why do I announce my prints and what cons my art goes to? I do it
because I know some out there like to be kept up to date on what it is
I'm doing/have done. I'm also trying hard to get over my great
inclination to not self-promote. To be honest, I HATE doing this! Why?
Because it tastes too much of self-prostitution and bragging to me. I've
never been one to blow my own horn and I honestly HATE doing it.
--sigh-- I'd best stop now before I REALLY start rambling. I just had
to say my feelings on that paragraph.
TTFN.
Tygger
--
******************************************************************************
"For those situations where a fresh, living sacrifice is just not
feasible or even possible, the lower ranks of demons can be fooled by
microwaving a previously-frozen chunk of ex-victim and cleverly jiggling
it. HOWEVER, a mock-victim sculpted from Spam is right out."
How To Be A Cultist, Rule #24
Conrad Wong
>Ron Bauerle (bau...@cs690-3.erie.ge.com) wrote:
>: And can you (or any) author/artist as the creator of a character say
>: you've _never_ felt _any_ God-like feelings of superiority (and thus the
>: right to be 'worshipped' for having created this character)?
>
>superiority" and the "right to be `worshipped'". To be lumped into that
>assumption BOTHERS me. It makes me downright uneasy.
I went back and looked over the thread. I'm not sure where this comes
from; is Ron Bauerle seriously suggesting that Lance Rund feels somehow
'God-like' for having drawn a picture of the Crucifixation from a furry
point of view? I know Lance, and while he might joke about it, I don't
think either he or Tygger are the kind to have ego-trips about characters
they'd drawn.
But heck, this is such an interesting notion in its own right that it
deserves a thread of its own:
Why do we furry creators make characters? What motivates us to put this
or that critter into a drawing?
Are they like old family friends with minds of their own, that inspire you
to put them into a drawing or story?
Are you taking the movie producer approach of recruiting characters and
directing them through a script?
Or is it "Just the fox, ma'am" for you? (heehee)
And whether you're a creator or not:
What do you look for in characters? What makes them come alive for you?
There're bound to be all sorts of answers to this item... And I doubt
there'll be many people out there who feel one way about everything they
do. But here're my thoughts to start things off:
In drawings, I often start with a character idea: a sad young male fox,
a cute Southern belle bat-morph, the Terrie Smith versions of Rumpleteaser,
Mungojerrie, and Skimbleshanks. Then I try to come up with a situation
that fits the characters. With luck, the final product will contain a
character piece that expresses her personality and shows something
happening... So perhaps I fit the producer imagery.
But I also want to try and explore characters more beyond the bounds of
a single story or picture. I've been trying to flesh out a character
that way, to the point I can imagine her doing or saying things.
Unfortunately it hasn't really come together yet. It's a lot harder
than it seemed at first. ('gryn) But hey. Good things take time.
So what constitutes a character that comes alive? For me, it's that there
has to be something strikingly different about the character. You've
written up a cat 'morph character? Great. What makes him different from
John Q. Cat off the street? Is he a prince? Getting somewhere; a prince
in exile, a prince pulling a pauper act, a prince seeking revenge on his
father's killer? And so forth. So that's what I try to do in my
own characters and drawings. (Practice what you preach)
Vive la difference! ('gryn)
-- Lynx Adorienne
--
__ ___ ___ _/' Name: Conrad "Lynx" Wong
/ \ _/ \----' \-' O`-g Address: 28368 Christopher's Lane
| | / > __/_ / __/_`, _| Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
\__/ \____\`--\____\ ;/' E-mail: ly...@netcom.com
Lynx is "AL" Go B Y++ L++ C++++ T++ A-- H++ S++ V+ F- Q+ P+ B PA+ PL++
(see rec.pets.cats for code explanation or E-mail me and ask)
Allen Petlock
: Why do we furry creators make characters? What motivates us to put this
: or that critter into a drawing?
I personally create characters to fit a story, or just to be in a story.
That would explain why a lot of my practice art or drawings I do have
'characters' in them which I could care less for. The only characters
I have an interest in are the ones that are involved in stories. I'm not
the type to give a name to every single thing I put on paper.
: What do you look for in characters? What makes them come alive for you?
Depends on what I'm looking for when making a story. I guess you could
say I always fit one or two traits of myself into a character, but for the
most part when I create a character for a story, it consists of a short bio
(no more than 10 pages), from birth until the story starts. They come
alive on their own accord, usually when writing the story they're a part
of. Basically, a full history helps, along with ordinary and extraordinary
events, and eventually it gets to the point where the characters are making
their own decisions. In other words, I have to ask myself, "What would
*he/she* do in a situation like this?" and have the answer come to me just
as if I've known them for my whole life.
: So what constitutes a character that comes alive? For me, it's that there
: has to be something strikingly different about the character. You've
: written up a cat 'morph character? Great. What makes him different from
: John Q. Cat off the street? Is he a prince? Getting somewhere; a prince
: in exile, a prince pulling a pauper act, a prince seeking revenge on his
: father's killer? And so forth. So that's what I try to do in my
: own characters and drawings. (Practice what you preach)
Yeah, that's sort of what I do. First comes the name. Then who
were their parents? When was the character born? Childhood, adolecense,
etc. etc., pointing out major events in their lives. How they got to
where they are. It all boils down to brainstorming, which you seem to
have a pretty good knack at. ):}
-Allen
--
.----------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Allen J. Petlock Animator, artist, filmmaker, dragon lover, |
| apet...@mcs.com writer, computer tech, furry, and whatever else. |
| |
| "I use Unix, MS-DOS, System 7, and AmigaOS, and I hate them all!" |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------'
..The time is gone the post is over, thought I'd something more to say..
Rachel Tucker
: Ron Bauerle (bau...@cs690-3.erie.ge.com) wrote:
: : >LR> Is there a secret desire to be worshipped YOURSELF?
: : And can you (or any) author/artist as the creator of a character say
: : you've _never_ felt _any_ God-like feelings of superiority (and thus the
: : right to be 'worshipped' for having created this character)?
: I've just never felt that my art was at all that special. --shrug-- To
: see and hear someone saying how much they really like a piece I've done
: makes me real self-conscious, uneasy, and unworthy. I point out the flaws
: to show the person my work isn't at all that good. I don't feel as if I
: DESERVE the praise and compliments because I don't feel as if I've EARNED them.
: ******************************************************************************
I know exactly how ya feel Tygger!
I enjoy my art...it's part of me and help keep myself in check.
But do I,myself,feel 'godlike'??
My answer would have to be no...
I couldn't even begin to grasp the feeling of what that could even be in
imagination...who'd want that feeling anyhow? All ya get is a big head.
Me, I feel as almost 'parent' to a piece if I think it's done alright.
Others I'll kinda shrug at and that's that.
But if a piece gets liked and if someone...even one person likes it..and
you see that smile,or a chuckle,or merely a gleem in there eye that
wasn't there before it feels nice. But something like that doesn't last
long..you go back to the self doubt again...you wonder if you're any good
at all sometimes. <shrug>
It's an ongoing struggle.. an emotion torent that I think most if not all
artists must feel.
Guess that's it from this cataroo...
Pant...@netcom.com (same one from the furrymuck)
==Hurt me with kisses,kill me with desire,consume and destroy me
with the fire .....straining at the heart
the act of love................................(don't ask me I
saw it on a desktop once)
Greywolf
> quote from. If this "Christmas card design" thing is an inside refference,
> then maybe you could clear up for the rest of us what you were reffering
> to.
The "Christmas card design" is a little picture I drew up for my '93 homemade
Christmas cards to send out to various pen pals and relatives. It shows a
"nativity scene" of a female lioness and a male lion (anthropomorphs, of
course), holding a newborn lion cub child.
Steve Arlow brought up my card design twice when talking about Lance Rund's
vulpine crucifixion. In both instances, he said, in effect, "Lance Rund's
piece can't be any more blasphemous than Greywolf's furry Nativity". I can't
say as I'm terribly happy over the comparison.
However, there's no particular argument I can think of to say why Steve Arlow
should not be able to, for the purposes of argument, bring up my picture and
compare it to Lance Rund's or anybody else's piece. It just bugs me in this
particular situation, because it /feels/ a bit unfair.
John Turner
|> peaco...@cobra.uni.edu (Greywolf) writes:
|> |> In article <CnGn8...@crdnns.crd.ge.com>,
|> bau...@cs690-3.erie.ge.com
|> |> (Ron Bauerle) writes:
|> |> > I'd say the answer is No. While I can appreciate the
|> |> thought-provoking
|> |> > aspect of this work, Mr. Rund's post indicates that it was done
|> more
|> |> > out of spite than in order to stimulate that thought.
|> |>
|> |> Pretty much why I haven't bothered to reply. It's just so wonderful
|> to
|> |> |> see my name invoked again in connection with my little Christmas
|> card
|> |> design |> as the standard of what is or isn't blasphemous in Furry
|> |> Fandom. Oh joy.
|> |>
|> |> I've never seen Lance Rund's naked-fox-hung-on-a-cross "Whose Sins
|> Did
|> |> He Die
|> |> For, Anyway?" piece, so I've not felt like I'm in a position to say
|> |> much about it. Lance Rund's gambit of "questions" asked about his
|> |> piece really miss the mark, though.
|>
|>
|> What I'm confused about what you (Greywolf) are talking about with
|> your
|> "Christmas card design" comment, and your "standard setting" comment.
|> The
|> quote you took from Ron Bauerle did not give mention to either of these
|> things, though he did mention your name in the post that you took the
|> above
|> quote from. If this "Christmas card design" thing is an inside
|> refference,
|> then maybe you could clear up for the rest of us what you were
|> reffering
|> to.
|>
Oh, OK, after scrolling back I see where Steve Arlow mentioned your "furry
Nativity" scene in one of his posts. I was just confused because you were
quoting Lance but yet refering to something Steve had said. It makes a
little more sense now, though I am still unclear on a few things.
Richard Chandler
writes:
> Somehow, a furry with pagan beliefs, such as Wicca, seems far more
> plausible than one with Christian beliefs.
The only problem I have with Wiccans is that they insist on "The Goddess".
This bugs me because it seems that they do it just to be the opposite of
mainstream religions (Kinda like Tim always saying the opposite of everyone
else). Instead of assuming the diety to be genderless, or both genders or
something.
--
What part of "...shall not be infringed." don't you understand?
"Ride a motorcycle. Save Gas, Oil, Rubber, Steel, Aluminum, Parking Spaces,
The Environment, and Money. Plus, you get to wear all the leather you want!"
Rich Chandler, DoD #296
Scott Alan Malcomson
: intended. In other words, and I don't recall all the usernames of folks who
: were contributing to the brief thread, some folks were commenting favorably on
: the piece, but I gathered that they were interested in it for the fact that it
: was a nude male. Not that I said anything about that.
No, at least not in my case. I commented on the fact that it was a
nicely-drawn, moving piece, conveying a lot of emotion and very true to
the original concepts. I even said that I felt Christ would have liked
it. I could care less if the fox was naked or not...many works of art
pertaining to Christianity had their subjects posing in the nude where
appropriate, including Christ naked on the cross.
: However, Lance Rund's "disclaimer" post came out from left field.It looked as
: if these responses were something he'd been sitting on for a while in case
: anyone criticized his piece. It didn't seem to respond to the fact that some
: people LIKED his work because of the /perceived/ "erotic" content. He was too
: busy countering accusations (none of which I've seen here) that his work was
: meant to be homoerotic or to condone bestiality or such.
I felt the same way. Lance was quite vehement about it, and most of his
arguments seemed to have taken a lot of thought in their
structuring...yet they didn't pertain to anything anyone was talking about.
: My impression on reading his initial post on the matter was, "Um, who are you
: arguing with?"
Ditto.
---LCD
Scott Alan Malcomson
: Ron Bauerle (bau...@cs690-3.erie.ge.com) wrote:
: : >LR> Is there a secret desire to be worshipped YOURSELF?
: : And can you (or any) author/artist as the creator of a character say
: : you've _never_ felt _any_ God-like feelings of superiority (and thus the
: : right to be 'worshipped' for having created this character)?
Er, no, I haven't. At all. And I do write and draw. I'm small potatoes,
sure, but I've nonetheless created characters that I use for stories and
art on a regular basis. Who the heck is supposed to worship me for this?
The character? Heh. That collection of ink is my own mind reflected, so
I'd do nothing more than worship myself, inflating my own ego to no good
end. Are other people, in real life, supposed to worship me? Why should
they? Am I supposed to grant them immortality or something? So no, I see
no need that any artist or writer be 'worshipped'.
: Because I can honestly say that I've NOT felt the "God-like feelings of
: superiority" and the "right to be `worshipped'". To be lumped into that
: assumption BOTHERS me. It makes me downright uneasy.
You too, huh?
---LCD
Jazmyn Concolor
Richard Chandler <mau...@claris.com> wrote:
>In article <996.29...@evaware.org>, dave...@evaware.org (Dave Bell)
>writes:
>> Somehow, a furry with pagan beliefs, such as Wicca, seems far more
>> plausible than one with Christian beliefs.
>
>The only problem I have with Wiccans is that they insist on "The Goddess".
>This bugs me because it seems that they do it just to be the opposite of
>mainstream religions (Kinda like Tim always saying the opposite of everyone
>else). Instead of assuming the diety to be genderless, or both genders or
>something.
>
>
Then you know nothing of Wicca.
Wiccans believe in both a god and a goddess. There is duality in nature
and therefor there can only be duality in the devine as well.
Don't go flaming Wiccans without knowing something about them first.
Scott Alan Malcomson
: In article <996.29...@evaware.org>, dave...@evaware.org (Dave Bell)
: > Somehow, a furry with pagan beliefs, such as Wicca, seems far more
: > plausible than one with Christian beliefs.
: The only problem I have with Wiccans is that they insist on "The Goddess".
: This bugs me because it seems that they do it just to be the opposite of
: mainstream religions (Kinda like Tim always saying the opposite of everyone
: else). Instead of assuming the diety to be genderless, or both genders or
: something.
To some extent, yeah, I've got the same problem. I've run into a number of
wiccans who claim I have no "right" to believe in a "male, domineering"
God who is "pagan, after all, merely a male creation to supplant the true
Goddess".
Besides the fact that they are being "domineering" in trying to
tell me what "rights" I have, I can't say I'm impressed. True, these
people are the minority by far of the wiccan groups...I've met many with
the same "an it harm none, do as thou wilt" philosophy I prefer, but then
again people keep throwing Oral Roberts in my face when I mention I'm
Christian. *sigh*
I have a major problem with Dave Bell's assertion that a pagan
furry is "more plausible" than a Christian furry...on what count? Judging
from his past arguments, I would presume that he feels a world with
furries instead of humans would not have a Christian God by default,
which is a ludicrous supposition. A world's genetic makeup doesn't define
the deity; the deity defines the genetic makeup!
---LCD
jmcar...@happy.uccs.edu
> This bugs me because it seems that they do it just to be the opposite of
> mainstream religions (Kinda like Tim always saying the opposite of everyone
> else). Instead of assuming the diety to be genderless, or both genders or
> something.
This is not completely true. While I am sure not every Wiccan would agree with
me, my general understanding of Wicca is that within nature everything exists
in duality, and most Wiccans I know revere the Divine as both the Goddess
and the God. (The Great Horned God and the Moon Goddess in some covens, or
the Sky Father and the Earth Mother. I have heard many interpretations of
thefaces of the Divine in Wicca.)
I'm Pagan myself (strong Neoshamanic influence), and in my belief structure
(which is fairly close to Wicca in some respects), the duality of the Divine
exists in the Great Spirit and the Earth Mother. I do not see these as beings,
necessarily, but more as names by which to identify certain forces and ten-
dencies in life. (Besides, telling my roommate I need Earth Mother medicine
sounds a lot more impressive than "I'm going out on a rock to tan, okay?" ;) )
My reasonings for a furry world being predominantly Pagan/Wiccan are a bit
prejudiced toward these faiths, so I will leave the discussion of these
subjects for others to discuss. :)
As this is not really a furry topic per se, I'll try to keep this post
brief, and if anyone is interested in discussing it, don't hesitate to E-Mail
me. :)
jmcar...@uccs.edu -- Justin Carpenter
"Heaven is a large and interesting place, sir!" -- Agent Cooper, Twin Peaks
Ashtoreth
>In article <940331122...@marble.claris.com>,
>Richard Chandler <mau...@claris.com> wrote:
>>In article <996.29...@evaware.org>, dave...@evaware.org (Dave Bell)
>>writes:
>>This bugs me because it seems that they do it just to be the opposite of
>>mainstream religions (Kinda like Tim always saying the opposite of everyone
>>else). Instead of assuming the diety to be genderless, or both genders or
>>something.
>
> Then you know nothing of Wicca.
>
> Wiccans believe in both a god and a goddess. There is duality in nature
>and therefor there can only be duality in the devine as well.
>
> Don't go flaming Wiccans without knowing something about them first.
>
I know something about Wicca, and I've heard about there being a god and
a goddess. The fact remains that an awful lot of pagans and pagan wannabees
make a habit of referring to the goddess alone. Is there some reason for
this that I'm not aware of?
--Ashtoreth
--
Ashtoreth (Ashy): fur that won't quit/foxes/5essential Chuck _ _ _.'._ _ _
Taylors/Volkoff cup/BIG UGLY CARS/"you must make a friend of '-.<o> .-`
horror"/malachite/hitler+elvis+jinx=comedy/"eet's so BEEG!"/ .'-' `-`.
ah yeaah three/in the mind/steel springs beneath velvet/foxy A O C
============================================================================
"Tor think missile good... bring me potato sandwich with mush on top."
Major Matt Mason
From: Kay.S...@f524.n102.z1.fidonet.org (Kay Shapero)
Subject: Crucifixion Piece
On <Mar 23 14:34>, Lance Rund (f...@apple.com ) wrote to All:
LR>This brief rant concerns the perceptions surrounding the piece of
LR>art "Whose Sins Did HE Die For?" I displayed and sold at
LR>Confurence 5. The image portrayed was that of a nude male fox
LR>crucified, wearing a crown of thorns, and in tears.
You did that one? I didn't notice the author's name (remember, I was
pretty sick most of the convention and didn't see much of the art show, let
alone notice fine details.) I liked it - it DID appear to make a pretty
good point. But... now that I read your post it looks like the point I saw
in it is not the one you intended, which is also interesting. Y'see - I am
a Christian. And what I saw in that picture was a message on the
"humanness" of all intelligent life, regardless of origin. Which I fully
agree with. IMHO (since I can't speak for anyone else on this), the giving
of mankind of "dominion" over the rest of the earth does not declare
mankind to be BETTER than the rest of the species on this planet; merely
the only species in a position to affect the place on the large scale
*deliberately*. It's similar to why the nations on the Security Council of
the UN were chosen - not because those nations were better than any other
country on Earth, but because at the time they were the only ones
possessing nuclear weapons, and thus had a de-facto vote on what everybody
else did anyway. Best to get them all in one place so at least they can
discuss things rationally.
Similarly, mankind is capable of making very large changes to the planetary
ecology. Look at the current state of most of the formerly "Fertile
Crescent" for an unfortunate example of this. It stems from being able to
create, and to make changes far more rapidly than any other factor on the
planet (which, btw, is again what I think was meant by being made in God's
image - HE creates things too, though at least He gets them right :->). So
whether we like it or not, like the oldest kid in the family when the
parent's are away, we're in de-facto charge of the house. In other
words; we're not superior to the other life (or non-life for that matter)
on this planet; we're RESPONSIBLE for it. If we find ourselves creating
sapient companions from other species (again imitating our Creator..), then
in all honor we should be letting them in for both the advantages and
disadvantages of this position.
And now I'm going to invoke C.S. Lewis myself - just take a good look at
WHY the humans were to be rulers in Narnia (in THE MAGICIAN'S NEPHEW). It
wasn't because of any moral superiority - it was because humans made a
major change for the worse by letting in the White Witch, and thus owed the
Talking Animals a serious debt.
Anyway, now that I know who drew it, thank you for an interesting and
thought-provoking picture.
========================================
= Kay.S...@f524.n102.z1.fidonet.org =
= Endeavor to Persevere! =
========================================
--- msged 2.06
* Origin: StormGate Aerie: FurNet's First System! (1:102/524)
--
: Kay Shapero - via mcws.fidonet.org - Public Access (213)256-8371
: ARPA/INTERNET: Kay.S...@f524.n102.z1.fidonet.org
: UUCP: ...!cheshire!mcws!524!Kay.Shapero
: Compu$erve: >internet:Kay.S...@f524.n102.z1.fidonet.org
Greywolf
> : were contributing to the brief thread, some folks were commenting favorably on
> : the piece, but I gathered that they were interested in it for the fact that it
> : was a nude male. Not that I said anything about that.
>
> No, at least not in my case. I commented on the fact that it was a
Sorry, I should have said "but I gathered that *some* were interested in it for
the fact that..." I forgot that you had contributed to the thread. I remember
your comment now that you mention it. My statement makes it sound as if
everyone who was commenting favorably upon the work were doing so solely
because of the nude content. A highly erroneous observation.
Greywolf
(regarding comparisons between Lance Rund's vulpine-crucifixion piece and my
'93 "nativity" Christmas card design)
> Oh, OK, after scrolling back I see where Steve Arlow mentioned your "furry
> Nativity" scene in one of his posts. I was just confused because you were
> quoting Lance but yet refering to something Steve had said. It makes a
> little more sense now, though I am still unclear on a few things.
Sorry, my sarcastic commentary wasn't exactly tailor-made for clarity. The
repeated comments to the effect of "Lance's work can't be any more blasphemous
than Greywolf's furry nativity scene" have been grating on me for a while, so
when I finally threw something in about it, it was detached from the original
comment.
Greywolf
> I have a major problem with Dave Bell's assertion that a pagan
> furry is "more plausible" than a Christian furry...on what count? Judging
I don't know his reasoning, but I suppose for me I would be less surprised to
find a "furry fan" who claimed to be a Wiccan than to find one who claims to be
a Christian. Why? Just because in practice, when someone bothers to tell me
their beliefs within these "circles", those beliefs are quite often atheistic,
agnostic, or self-proclaimed "pagan". (I do not use the term "pagan" to be
derisive, but rather that I've seen that term used by the persons in question.
I'm not really sure what the dictionary definition of "pagan" is, actually.)
Fuzzy Fox
>Steve Arlow brought up my card design twice when talking about Lance
>Rund's vulpine crucifixion. In both instances, he said, in effect,
>"Lance Rund's piece can't be any more blasphemous than Greywolf's furry
>Nativity". I can't say as I'm terribly happy over the comparison.
In truth, it does seem a reasonable comparison, if only for the fact
that both works display Christ as an anthropomorphic animal rather than
a human.
--
----- David DeSimone ----- Fuzzy Fox ----- f...@netcom.com ------------
"Gee Brain, what're we going to do tonight?"
"Guess, Pinky."
"Hollywood Squares? Can I be Paul Lynde? Narf!"
Scott Alan Malcomson
: In article <940331122...@marble.claris.com>,
: Richard Chandler <mau...@claris.com> wrote:
: >else). Instead of assuming the diety to be genderless, or both genders or
: >something.
: Wiccans believe in both a god and a goddess. There is duality in nature
: and therefor there can only be duality in the devine as well.
: Don't go flaming Wiccans without knowing something about them first.
I'm afraid that there are some Wiccans, then, who have no idea what it's
all about, because the majority of those I've met (not to say they
represent a majority of the group overall) claim there is a Goddess, that
there is no God, and therefore females are the supreme beings. It's the
cornerstone of a lot of anti-male literature and arguments that make the
circuit, however erroneous it may be.
---LCD
Brenda Daverin
I think the fairest way to put it is Wiccans come in three basic flavors.
First brand is the one Jazmyn wisely points out -- the ones who believe
in a god and goddess, or plural of same. Then there is the breed that
declares "The Goddess and Her Consort," usually Diana and Pan or similar.
Then there are the Dianic Pagans and their ilk, who often use the term
Wiccan, but not always. They are the ones who insist that there is
Goddess and that God is automatically a male usurper and a fraud.
Nothing is ever as simple as it seems...
Brenda Daverin aik...@lunacity.com Mountain View, CA (415)968-8140
Christian/Celtic pagan/Taoist/Libertarian/bisexual/married/funny-animal
fan/fat/wannabe writer/plan-to-be hunter -See conflicts? Funny, I don't.
ATTN: Cacophonist- please re-mail me, I deleted you by mistake!
Jazmyn Concolor
Those are not Wiccans..Those are feminists...I've been Wiccan for
about 23 years...Before this New age BS became the current 'fad'..
Before people sold 'healing crystals' or other things in the name of
being pagan.. Just like there are idiot Christians, other groups have
them too...Maybe that is why Wiccans don't try to convert people..
Except maybe the clueless ones who pretend to know what Wicca is and
don't know their asses from a hole in the ground..
Wednesday's Child
Would furries be Christian or would they hold a more pagan belief
such as Wicca?
I'm not sure exactly why, but something about Christian furries strikes
me as fundamentally wrong. Maybe it is because the Christian religion is
so unforgiving of 'outsiders'. In a world of humans and furries, the
furries would not be considered by Christianity as "in God's image" and
suffer from a number of other Biblical problems. (God gave man rulership
over the beasts... reasoning of furry slavery?) In a world without
humans, how would the Adam and Eve genesis work? Would foxes be the
Chosen Ones (what about the Jew/Gentile conflict)? What would happen to
racial conflicts if Jesus the Raccoon was crucified by the Roman
equines? In short, furry Christianity is at best problimatically odd and
at worst frightening.
I would submit that furry religion would likely take one of
several courses: either a more encompasing, earthly religion
(Wicca-style perhaps or maybe something parallel to American Indian
spirit beliefs), or a progenetor worship (take Albedo and think how
easily human-worship could evolve).
--Kkatman: Furry Rep.
David Green
> Would furries be Christian or would they hold a more pagan belief
>such as Wicca?
>
>I'm not sure exactly why, but something about Christian furries strikes
>me as fundamentally wrong. Maybe it is because the Christian religion is
>so unforgiving of 'outsiders'. In a world of humans and furries, the
>furries would not be considered by Christianity as "in God's image" and
>suffer from a number of other Biblical problems. (God gave man rulership
>over the beasts... reasoning of furry slavery?) In a world without
>humans, how would the Adam and Eve genesis work? Would foxes be the
>Chosen Ones (what about the Jew/Gentile conflict)? What would happen to
>racial conflicts if Jesus the Raccoon was crucified by the Roman
>equines? In short, furry Christianity is at best problimatically odd and
>at worst frightening.
I think you're assuming a lot here. First-off, you have to consider where
the furries come from in the first place. If they'd been there all along,
then Christianity couldn't simply ignore them in the Bible. There would
almost certainly be accounts of furries therein, passages dealing with them,
etc., etc. What you think these passages would say, I suppose, depends on
how charitably disposed to Christianity.
If, on the other hand, furries were engineered, it wouldn't surprise me if
some of the hard-core fundamentalists did consider them abomination. But
I think that saying that Christians are unforgiving of "outsiders" and would
hence reject furries out of hand is giving into negative stereotyping. There
are Christians who can be kind and accepting, and I don't doubt that some
would even consider furries as equal to people and deserving of equal
treatment. There would probably be drawn-out 'battles' in the more organized
sects of Christianity (Roman Catholicism comes to mind) over issues such as
whether furries have souls, can obtain salvation, etc. How those would turn
out is anyone's guess.
I think the problem with your reasoning above is that it considers both
cases mentioned above as if they were one, each conveniently ignoring some
of the parts of the other and overall framing things in a negative light.
If there had been "Jesus the raccoon," as you use as an example above, then
why would furries be "outsiders" to the Christian religion? Sounds like
they'd be an integral part thereof.
> I would submit that furry religion would likely take one of
>several courses: either a more encompasing, earthly religion
>(Wicca-style perhaps or maybe something parallel to American Indian
>spirit beliefs), or a progenetor worship (take Albedo and think how
>easily human-worship could evolve).
To give a more specific example, how could there have been "Jesus the raccoon"
if furries would worship humans as "progenitors"? Or, how could foxes have
been God's chosen people in this scenario? In order to consider what kind
of religion a furry would subscribe to, I think you need to have a well-defined
and consistent background explaining where the furries come from in the first
place.
> --Kkatman: Furry Rep.
--
David Green
"Isn't it nice to know a lot -- and a little bit not?"
Peter da Silva
Wednesday's Child <rich...@raven.csrv.uidaho.edu> wrote:
> I would submit that furry religion would likely take one of
> several courses
Howcome nobody considers the possibility that if they don't just pick up
the beliefs of their creators they might have no religion at all?
--
Peter da Silva. <pe...@sugar.neosoft.com>.
`-_-' Ja' abracas-te o teu lobo, hoje?
'U`
Looks like UNIX, Feels like UNIX, works like MVS -- IBM advertisement.
Scott Alan Malcomson
: Those are not Wiccans..Those are feminists...I've been Wiccan for
: about 23 years...Before this New age BS became the current 'fad'..
: Before people sold 'healing crystals' or other things in the name of
: being pagan.. Just like there are idiot Christians, other groups have
: them too...Maybe that is why Wiccans don't try to convert people..
: Except maybe the clueless ones who pretend to know what Wicca is and
: don't know their asses from a hole in the ground..
My apologies, then. As I'm not a Wiccan, I know very little about what to
look for. I can see your point --- you're running into the same thing
with me now that I run into when someone tells me, "You're a Christian?
So, how much of your paycheck do you send to those sleazeballs on TV?".
The sleazeballs don't represent Christianity as a whole, and
superfeminist Wiccans don't represent Wiccans as a whole...I just didn't
know any better. Again, my apologies.
---LCD
Rhudiprrt, Prince of Fur
>Relay-Version: VMS News - V6.1 26/02/93 VAX/VMS V1.5; site pacs.sunbelt.net
>Path: pacs.sunbelt.net!udel!darwin.sura.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsrelay.iastate.edu!cobra.uni.edu!peacoct6503
>Newsgroups: alt.fan.furry
>Subject: Re: "FOXHOOD HANGING OUT"...
>Message-ID: <1994Mar30.0...@cobra.uni.edu>
>From: peaco...@cobra.uni.edu (Greywolf)
>Date: 30 Mar 94 09:35:52 -0600
>References: <964.29...@evaware.org> <CnGn8...@crdnns.crd.ge.com>
>Organization: University of Northern Iowa
>Lines: 21
>Pretty much why I haven't bothered to reply. It's just so wonderful to see my
>name invoked again in connection with my little Christmas card design as the
>standard of what is or isn't blasphemous in Furry Fandom. Oh joy.
>I've never seen Lance Rund's naked-fox-hung-on-a-cross "Whose Sins Did He Die
>For, Anyway?" piece, so I've not felt like I'm in a position to say much about
>it. Lance Rund's gambit of "questions" asked about his piece really miss the
>mark, though.
>--
>-Jordan .. PEACO...@cobra.uni.edu Visit scenic NarniaMUSH!
> .OO. Jordan Greywolf (Jordan Peacock) 129.24.9.24 port=6250
> O/\O 1610 Parker Lots of critters, no spooge!
> ~~ Cedar Falls, IA 50613
>Radical right-winger fundamentalist ultra-conservative religious fanatic
>critterfan/miniatures-hobbyist/wargamer/sculptor/composer-wannabe/pilot/
>student/programmer/doodler/writer/SwordTagger/mek and old car enthusiast
I don't know if this is appropriate, but anyway...
Could either, or both, of these pictures be posted? If they have been, i've
missed them on a.b.p.f :(
I for one, pity any closed minded individual who would think think kind of
thing could be blasphemous.
You can't have any artistic expression without some nut condemming the whole
thing.
Sheesh, you can't even call God or Christ male. I'm suprized no one is
complaining about the fact that this is a nude _male_ figure. I would be
afraid to list this group if the artist had tried to make the feminists happy,
by drawing a female figure.
WHO CARES?!? Really, if you worship in your own heart as you feel you should,
you can only be expected to help those that come to you. Keep your opinions
to yourself before you condemn others. "Let he who is without sin..."
If you don't like art, then don't look.
Dave Bell
It wasn't such a good idea to refer to specific real-world religions.
What I was trying to get at was the way in which some religions make one
group special, sharply distinguished from the rest of the world.
Christianity still has problems over the status of human females, for
example, so can be seen as less tolerant of differences than a religion
which has a God and Goddess duality.
And furry worlds, especially those with many different species, have
deeper differences than those that have plagued our history.
Dave
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.11
----
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|EvaWare BBS, Home of Orator QWK reader for Windows, Sysop:Nick Dyer|
| Tel 44-507-608645. V32/V32Bis V42/V42Bis HST Fidonet (2:252/158) |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Dave Klingbeil
In a previous article, rich...@raven.csrv.uidaho.edu (Wednesday's Child) says:
> Would furries be Christian or would they hold a more pagan belief
>such as Wicca?
>
> I'm not sure exactly why, but something about Christian furries strikes
>me as fundamentally wrong. Maybe it is because the Christian religion is
>so unforgiving of 'outsiders'. In a world of humans and furries, the
Wrong. Some Christian PEOPLE are unforgiving of outsiders and try to pass
it off as a fundamental truth of their religion (meaning, in their view, a
fundamental truth). Christ accepted everybody; the Samaritan woman at the
well, Mary Magdalene the prostitute, tax collectors (who were even more
disliked then than they are now), the Roman centurion. The only people he
didn't accept were hypocrites. There's a certain sick humor in the fact that
the fundamentalists trying to impose their morality on everybody are sounding
more and more like the Pharisees who arranged to have Christ crucified.
>furries would not be considered by Christianity as "in God's image" and
Why not? I'd certainly consider them "in God's image" if I met some. I was
taught that phrase meant we were capable of conscious thought (not that
there's a lot of evidence to support that claim :). Granted, I'm not a
typical Christian.
>suffer from a number of other Biblical problems. (God gave man rulership
>over the beasts... reasoning of furry slavery?) In a world without
A rationalization for it, maybe, but in my view, the "beasts" are the
creatures who can't "reason," so furries would not be "beasts."
>humans, how would the Adam and Eve genesis work? Would foxes be the
>Chosen Ones (what about the Jew/Gentile conflict)? What would happen to
>racial conflicts if Jesus the Raccoon was crucified by the Roman
You're assuming that there would be multiple sentient species of furries.
If so, there'd probably be the same racism humans perpetrate based on skin
color, possibly worse because of more external evidence that the others are
different (and therefore inferior). I imagine that Adam and Eve genesis
would be a "parent" species that developed into all the different types
of furries, the way Adam's and Eve's children became the Jews, the
Caucasians, the Negroes/Blacks/PC term of your choice, the Egyptians, the
various types of Orientals, etc.
>equines? In short, furry Christianity is at best problimatically odd and
>at worst frightening.
It doesn't seem problematic to me, and is only frightening in the sense
that human Christianity is when people forget what Christ ACTUALLY said
and assume their morals are right because they call themselves Christians.
> I would submit that furry religion would likely take one of
>several courses: either a more encompasing, earthly religion
>(Wicca-style perhaps or maybe something parallel to American Indian
>spirit beliefs), or a progenetor worship (take Albedo and think how
>easily human-worship could evolve).
>
> --Kkatman: Furry Rep.
I once had an idea for a story about the first contact with extraterrestrial
intelligence being captained by a man who was sure it would prove the truth
of Christianity and was happy to find a form of Christianity among the
aliens. His first mate was an athiest who did a lot more research and found
parallels for American Indian spiritual beliefs, Buddhaism, Islam,
Hinduism, paganism, etc., etc., etc. He found faith in God/Goddess/Deity
because he couldn't accept that every religion being paralleled was a
coincidence or a result of some "truth" of sociology. Of course, I was
too lazy to actually write the thing, but this thread has me thinking about
it again.
--
-------------
Dave Klingbeil (weaver of dreams and itinerant madman)
"If you can fill the unforgiving minute | Politically uncorrect
with 60 seconds' worth of distance run..." |
Fred M. Sloniker (L. Lazuli R'kamos)
>Howcome nobody considers the possibility that if they don't just pick up
>the beliefs of their creators they might have no religion at all?
Two responses occur immediately to this:
(a) Because we didn't have any 'creators' (unless you count *the* Creator(s)),
and we still managed to develop an insane number of different religions?
Where did *we* get it from?
(b) Because no one who isn't interested in religion (excepting possibly you,
but I don't know for sure) would be interested in this thread? That is, they
consider it, but they don't post it.
Personally, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see furries with religion. It
would surprise me, if they were alien beings and not our creations, if those
beliefs were merely human religions with the serial numbers filed off. I'm
also sure a lot of human religions would have some problems with furries,
including my own (Roman Catholicism, thank you for asking). One can only hope
that humans will continue to prove as adaptable as they typically have in
interpreting God's message-- and, of course, that the resulting 'holy'
bloodshed won't last more than a century or two...
---Fred M. Sloniker, stressed undergrad
L. Lazuli R'kamos, FurryMUCKer
laz...@u.washington.edu
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be. Why, in my day...
Fred M. Sloniker (L. Lazuli R'kamos)
>I don't know his reasoning, but I suppose for me I would be less surprised to
>find a "furry fan" who claimed to be a Wiccan than to find one who claims to
>be a Christian.
I'm a practicing Roman Catholic. Does that count? (:3
>I'm not really sure what the dictionary definition of "pagan" is, actually.)
pa.gan(n)(14c)<paganus, >fr. L, country dweller, fr. ><pagus >country district;
akin to L ><pangere >to fix -- more at >PACT
1: HEATHEN 1; esp: a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient
Rome)
2: one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures
and material goods: an irreligious or hedonistic person
-- pagan <adj >>
-- pa.gan.ish <adj
Not terribly helpful, I'm afraid. (:3 There was no entry for 'wiccan' in
Webster's Online Dictionary. Anybody on a.f.f want to volunteer to write a
less derisive (IMO) entry?
---Fred M. Sloniker, stressed undergrad
L. Lazuli R'kamos, FurryMUCKer
laz...@u.washington.edu
"Well, I'm glad we didn't turn into mindless zombies." "Shhh. TV."
John Turner
peaco...@cobra.uni.edu
(Greywolf) writes:
|> In article <2ngcdo$9...@herald.indirect.com>, hors...@indirect.com
|>(Scott Alan Malcomson) writes:
|> > I have a major problem with Dave Bell's assertion that a pagan
|> > furry is "more plausible" than a Christian furry...on what count?
|> Judging
|>
|> I don't know his reasoning, but I suppose for me I would be less
|> surprised to
|> find a "furry fan" who claimed to be a Wiccan than to find one who
|> claims
|> to be a Christian. Why? Just because in practice, when someone
|> bothers
|> to |> tell me their beliefs within these "circles", those beliefs are
|> quite
|> definition |> of "pagan" is, actually.)
|> --
|> -Jordan .. PEACO...@cobra.uni.edu Visit scenic
|> NarniaMUSH!
|> .OO. Jordan Greywolf (Jordan Peacock) 129.24.9.24 port=6250
|> spooge!
|> ~~ Cedar Falls, IA 50613
|> Radical right-winger fundamentalist ultra-conservative religious
|> fanatic
|> critterfan/miniatures-hobbyist/wargamer/sculptor/composer-wannabe/
|> enthusiast
Dictionary definition for Pagan;
pa.gan \'pa--g*n\ \-g*-nish\ n [ME, fr. LL paganus, fr. L, country
dweller,
fr. pagus country dist]rict; akin to L pangere to fix - more at PACT 1:
HEATHEN 2: an irreligious person - pagan aj
And all I can say to that is WRONG. That is not the definition that I or
any of my Pagan friends use. I think you could probably ask 10 diferent
Pagans and they would give you 10 differentanswers. That is both our
blessing and our curse.
As Far as subjects such as;
whither furries are inherently Pagan,
Whither WHO"S SINS DID HE DIE FOR was blasphemous or not
I really did not want to comment on these things becuase I felt that
someone would surly get their toes steped on. Evidently you felt like
someone steped on your tail when your nativity scene was used in
conjunction with the furry crusifiction piece. I felt a "crunch" on my
paw
too, when someone suggested that Wiccans only acknowledged a Goddess and
not a God. Dispite this the thread continues, and everyone has been very
level headed. I think that the most important thing in our case it the
question of furryness, not of religion.
As far as what type of religion a fur fan would likily be, I probably
would
agree with Greywolf, but only tenativly so. I can see nothing in
Christinity that inherently negates participating in furrydom, though some
may try to argue that point. I must say though, some aspects of furrydom
seems to have been ready made for Paganism. My Goddess came "from the
factory" (so to speak) with fur, so sentient furries are not as big a
mental leap for me as it might be for someone else. In my case I did not
need a C.S. Lewis to give my God(dess) fur, though I thought he did a
WONDERFUL job with Christianity. Personaly I a can associate much better
with Ashland than I can with the conventional Christ. BTW Greywolf, have
you read THE GREAT DIVORCE by C.S. Lewis? Its not furry, but I thought it
was quite good.
As far as what type of God(s) a furry would come up with in their own
development, it would certianly not be Christanity as we know it, unless
Christ himself decided to visit them too. In that case, then the furries
in question would be "Christian" by definition no matter how far their
beliefs were from what we now concider Christianity to be. Whither
furries would develop to resemble Christianity, Paganism, Budism, atheism,
or any other direction, I have no Idea. I suppose there is an equal
chance that it would go in all of, some of or none of the above mentioned
directions.
As far as Wiccans worshiping only a goddess - Bahh Humbug! Shame on you
(whoever it was) for making such generalizations. Sure there are some
wiccans who are into heavy Dianic stuff, but I would not by any means say
that it was a majority of us. My Pagan group is mainly Wiccan, and we pay
our respects to each of side equaly. Sure, we deal with Diana at times,
but we may just as easily chose a male deity. We allways light a candle
for both the God and the Goddess, and use two male deitys and two female
deitys to represent the quadrants. As a male being myself, I would not be
too thrilled with an emasculating religion.
Peter da Silva
Fred M. Sloniker (L. Lazuli R'kamos) <laz...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> (a) Because we didn't have any 'creators' (unless you count *the* Creator(s)),
> and we still managed to develop an insane number of different religions?
> Where did *we* get it from?
We didn't know where we came from, so we made something up before we had
the tools to keep philosophers from going off the deep end.
Furries created by humans but delivered into the world unknowing (say, the
folks in Albedo) would have a lot more understanding of science, productive
skepticism, and so on. They would revere the progenitors, but treat them as
some sort of supernatural entities? Hardly.
> (b) Because no one who isn't interested in religion (excepting possibly you,
> but I don't know for sure) would be interested in this thread? That is, they
> consider it, but they don't post it.
I'm interested in religion, but I'm not religious except in a sort of vague
fuzzy sense that if there is a god it's a programmer. I've spent too much time
playing with cellular automata to consider the universe as more than a very
big one of them.
Eric A. Schwartz
Peter da Silva <pe...@sugar.NeoSoft.COM> wrote:
>
>Howcome nobody considers the possibility that if they don't just pick up
>the beliefs of their creators they might have no religion at all?
Well, it would be rather odd to think of them as 'Secular Humanists.'
:-) :-) :-)
E.S.
Peter da Silva
Eric A. Schwartz <sch...@goya.its.rpi.edu> wrote:
> Well, it would be rather odd to think of them as 'Secular Humanists.'
If they respect but don't worship their creators that would be a perfect
description, Eric.
John Turner
Prince of Fur) writes:
|> I don't know if this is appropriate, but anyway...
|>
|> Could either, or both, of these pictures be posted? If they have been,
|> i've
|> missed them on a.b.p.f :(
|>
|> I for one, pity any closed minded individual who would think think kind
|> of
|> thing could be blasphemous.
|>
If your request for seing these pictures on a.b.p.f means that you have not
seen them, then how do you know if they appeared blasphemous or not? I
personaly did see one of the pieces in question when it was at the art show
in CF5. At that point I was undecided as to whither it was ment as
blasphemy or not. I get tired of people picking on Xtianity and then
justifying it as art and I was not sure if this was what the artist was
doing or not. Since then he has come back and stated that that was NOT
what he was trying to do, and I have a better feeling for the piece I wish
that I could see it again so that I could try to get more out of what he
was really trying to portray with it.
|> You can't have any artistic expression without some nut condemming the
|> whole
|> thing.
|>
|> Sheesh, you can't even call God or Christ male. I'm suprized no one is
|> |> complaining about the fact that this is a nude _male_ figure. I
|> would be
|> afraid to list this group if the artist had tried to make the
|> feminists happy, by drawing a female figure.
|>
|> WHO CARES?!? Really, if you worship in your own heart as you feel you
|> should,
|> you can only be expected to help those that come to you. Keep your
|> opinions
|> to yourself before you condemn others. "Let he who is without sin..."
|>
|> If you don't like art, then don't look.
|>
I'll agree with yoy whole heartedly with most of what you say here. What I
take exception to is that I don't see where anyone here on a.f.f. has been
wallowing in the condemnation of others or of the original art piece.
Being Pagan myself, I wouldn't be personaly offended if something really
WAS blasphemous to Xtianity. Its just that I would prefer to spend my
energy on things that contributed to my beliefs rather than things that
condemn anothers. I do not have a very positive view of people who are
more concerned with condemning others beiliefs than with experiencing their
own. Nor do I particularly like it when people screem "censorship!" and
condemn the "condemners" when no one was really doing anything more than
expressing their opinions.
Greywolf
> rich...@raven.csrv.uidaho.edu (Wednesday's Child) wrote:
>> Would furries be Christian or would they hold a more pagan belief
>>such as Wicca?
Asking a question like this strikes me as silly without defining what sort of
"furries" you have in mind. A parallel earth just like ours but with an
assortment of different furry races inexplicably subsituted? A group of
genetically engineered creatures produced by humans or aliens? An alien world
where the creatures just happen to be "furries"? A fantasy world where various
"furry" races and humans coexist?
>>equines? In short, furry Christianity is at best problimatically odd and
>>at worst frightening.
I get the impression you would think that *any* sort of Christianity is
"problimatically {sic} odd and at worst frightening".
(and here begins David's commentary:)
> I think you're assuming a lot here. First-off, you have to consider where
> the furries come from in the first place. If they'd been there all along,
> then Christianity couldn't simply ignore them in the Bible.
Hear hear! If a religion has a historical grounding, surely if you changed the
history, there would have to be some reaction. Would it be Christianity
anymore? I think it would be theoretically possible.
> etc., etc. What you think these passages would say, I suppose, depends on
> how charitably disposed to Christianity.
Of course. Since I happen to think of God as being a good God, if he bothered
to create other sentient beings, he would love them just as much as us poor
furless flat-faces. Someone a few posts ago made mention of the idea of God
creating us in his image as hinging on the idea that we are sentient, therefore
in his "image". I picked that up as well, and I don't consider myself a fringe
element in Christianity. Some folks have tried to use "in his image" as some
sort of excuse to justify racism, and I don't buy it. If, according to
Christianity, we're "all in his image", that would be a tall order for all of
us to *LOOK* just like God, considering the wide variety of physical
appearances.
I seriously doubt that it is such a given that Christianity would be
antagonistic toward furries. Rather, I think there are just a lot of folks out
there who have a beef with Christianity, and find it convenient to turn them
into the villains in their fantasy furry worlds.
> If, on the other hand, furries were engineered, it wouldn't surprise me if
> some of the hard-core fundamentalists did consider them abomination. But
I'm certain that with a *number* of religions you'd have people considering
particular races/species an "abomination". Even with atheism. Survival of the
fittest, you know. Our wonderful world has a long history of racism and
sexism, and it isn't sole property of "Christianity", despite what I think some
would like us to believe. If furries had minds approximating ours, they'd be
subject to the same problems, IMHO.
> sects of Christianity (Roman Catholicism comes to mind) over issues such as
> whether furries have souls, can obtain salvation, etc. How those would turn
> out is anyone's guess.
I think those battles would deal largely with how and why furries came to be.
It'd make a difference if furries had been here all along, or if they
suddenly appeared as genetic experiments or from an alien world.
> been God's chosen people in this scenario? In order to consider what kind
> of religion a furry would subscribe to, I think you need to have a well-defined
> and consistent background explaining where the furries come from in the first
> place.
My thoughts exactly!
--
-Jordan .. PEACO...@cobra.uni.edu Visit scenic NarniaMUSH!
.OO. Jordan Greywolf (Jordan Peacock) 129.24.9.24 port=6250
O/\O 1610 Parker Lots of critters, no spooge!
Greywolf
>>be a Christian.
>
> I'm a practicing Roman Catholic. Does that count? (:3
Oh, I think so. =,
>>I'm not really sure what the dictionary definition of "pagan" is, actually.)
>
> pa.gan(n)(14c)<paganus, >fr. L, country dweller, fr. ><pagus >country district;
(dictionary definition deleted)
Thanks for the clarification. =) I feel smarter already! (I really ought to
keep my dictionary within arm's reach when I'm reading newsgroups. =) )
Steve Arlow
Jeffrey C. McLean <feli...@ccnet.com> wrote:
>
> I would think people would feal better if they thought "God" or
>"Goddess" looked like they do... or simler anyway...
Perhaps this would lead to a pantheistic religion with multiple Gods
of different species...
Okay, I know that spelling flames are not nice, and I don't want to
sound "insensitive", but that last post was PAINFUL to read. Over
65 spelling errors, just from a casual count. Please try a little
harder. If you want people to consider your post's content, they
must first be willing to read it all the way through...
--
oh deride not / the camel / if grief should / make him die /| Steve Arlow
his ghost will come / to haunt you / with tears / in either | Yorick Software
eye / and the spirit of / a camel / in the midnight gloom / |s...@umcc.umich.edu
can be so very / cheerless / as it wanders / round the room | (810) 473-0920
Jeffrey C. McLean
: 65 spelling errors, just from a casual count. Please try a little
: harder. If you want people to consider your post's content, they
: must first be willing to read it all the way through...
I don't want to sound anoyed...
I am Dislexic... I am trying as hard as I can... Sorry my spelling isn't
perfic...
Jeff
John Turner
McLean) writes:
|> As far as Christanity... I'd like it would a a Furry smiler...
|> (Maby Christ was born as a perfic Furry in this case)
|>
|> But it would be from a Furry histroy...
|>
|> How ever I personaly think that in a world of Furrys
|> a Shamatic religan stressing athrapramorfised anamals would be more
|> popluer..
|>
Maybe, Maybe not. It could go just about any way. As Greywolf points out,
if the furries in question were a branch off of our current evolution then
it is entirly possible that they could be something similar to what we
currently call "Christian". If they evolved by an evolution of their own,
then all bets are off and they could go any direction -even directions that
we do not have a frame of reference for.
|> I would think people would feal better if they thought "God" or
|> "Goddess" looked like they do... or simler anyway...
|>
|> My carciter is a felinoid... called Felinoid (based on cats who
|> are named Cat). He folows the Egiption godess Bast... A Cat Godess....
|> It was logical to me that a cat would folow a cat godess...
|> But there may be totaly diffrent gods and godesses than what are here on
|> |> earth.
|>
Well, to all you Christian furries... at least you don't have to contend
with people using YOUR god & his divine son in TinyPlots. Oh, well, I'm
not really offended, its just that I would not feel right doing it myself.
Being Pagan myself, my relaition to these gods is a little different that
most peoples.
Hmmm, I don't know if I would want to use Bast or her sister in at
TinyPlot. Sekhmet (Bast's Sister) has been known to be somewhat less than
forgiving in the past, and she tends to make Bast look like.... Well,... A
pussycat. Not that there is ANYTHING wrong with being a pussycat -I love
Bast and have nothing bad to say about her.
|> Who (for example) knows about Troth? I know very little except that
|> it is an old Germanic religan...
I'm embarased to say that I just spent all day Friday, Saturday, and Sunday
camping out in the woods with a group of Norse Pagans from the RING OF
TROTH, and I can not answer that.
|>
|> Ok enough... I'm losing it
|> Jeff
Uhm, Yea, and was your spelling part of the overall ambience you were
trying to achieve? Or have I finaly found someone who is an even more
creative speller than I am? To put the previous two sentences a different
way; Your spelling made it a challenge to get the meaning behind your
words, but I can not crittisize TOO hard 'cause my spelling is atrocious
itself).
Bryan Feir
David Green <dgr...@osiris.hmc.edu> wrote:
>treatment. There would probably be drawn-out 'battles' in the more organized
>sects of Christianity (Roman Catholicism comes to mind) over issues such as
>whether furries have souls, can obtain salvation, etc. How those would turn
>out is anyone's guess.
Hmmm... I read a book that had this as part of its plot. I believe the
title was _The Game of Fox and Lion_, or something similar; I completely
forget the author. The main character was a multi-neural combinant, or a
designed super-genius, named Reynard. Actually somewhat furry, as there
were the 'tribes' of semi-humans that had been created.
One of the back-threads to the whole book was the religious debate that
was going on; I believe the Papal decision was 'All who partake of Adam's
seed'... in other words, all created creatures that used human genetics
as part of their makeup were to be considered human. Hmm. I'll have to
look this book up; if it's not on the 'Furry' novel list that was being
kept up earlier, it should be.
---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
Bryan Feir VE7GBF|"Every man has somewhere in the back of his head
br...@sgl.ists.ca | the wreck of a thing which he calls his
| education." -- Stephen Leacock
---------------------------+---------------------------------------------------
John Turner
Prince of Fur) writes:
|> I don't know if this is appropriate, but anyway...
|>
|> Could either, or both, of these pictures be posted? If they have been,
|> i've
|> missed them on a.b.p.f :(
|>
|> I for one, pity any closed minded individual who would think think kind
|> of
|> thing could be blasphemous.
|>
If your request for seing these pictures on a.b.p.f means that you have
not
seen them, then how do you know if they appeared blasphemous or not? I
personaly did see one of the pieces in question when it was at the art
show
in CF5. At that point I was undecided as to whither it was ment as
blasphemy or not. I get tired of people picking on Xtianity and then
justifying it as art. I was not sure if this was what the artist was
doing or not. Since then he has come back and stated that his intent was
NOT bllasphomy. I have a better feeling about the piece, and I wish that I
could see it again so that I could try to get more out of what he was
really trying to portray.
|> You can't have any artistic expression without some nut condemming the
|> whole
|> thing.
|>
|> Sheesh, you can't even call God or Christ male. I'm suprized no one is
|> |> complaining about the fact that this is a nude _male_ figure. I
|> would be
|> afraid to list this group if the artist had tried to make the
|> feminists happy, by drawing a female figure.
|>
|> WHO CARES?!? Really, if you worship in your own heart as you feel you
|> should,
|> you can only be expected to help those that come to you. Keep your
|> opinions
|> to yourself before you condemn others. "Let he who is without sin..."
|>
|> If you don't like art, then don't look.
|>
I'll agree whole heartedly with most of what you say here. What I
take exception to is that I don't see where anyone here on a.f.f. has been
wallowing in the condemnation of others or of the original art piece.
Being Pagan myself, I wouldn't be personaly offended if something really
WAS blasphemous to Xtianity. Its just that I would prefer to spend my
energy on things that contributed to my beliefs rather than things that
condemn anothers. I do not have a very positive view of people who are
more concerned with condemning others beiliefs than with experiencing
their
own. Nor do I particularly like it when people screem "censorship!" and
condemn the "condemners" when no one was really doing anything more than
expressing their opinions.
-jturner
Dave Klingbeil
In a previous article, pe...@sugar.NeoSoft.COM (Peter da Silva) says:
>In article <2nq5mb$9...@news.u.washington.edu>,
>Fred M. Sloniker (L. Lazuli R'kamos) <laz...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> (a) Because we didn't have any 'creators' (unless you count *the* Creator(s)),
>> and we still managed to develop an insane number of different religions?
>> Where did *we* get it from?
>
>We didn't know where we came from, so we made something up before we had
>the tools to keep philosophers from going off the deep end.
What are these tools, when did we get them, and why didn't I know about
them BEFORE I went off the deep end? :>
>Furries created by humans but delivered into the world unknowing (say, the
>folks in Albedo) would have a lot more understanding of science, productive
>skepticism, and so on. They would revere the progenitors, but treat them as
>some sort of supernatural entities? Hardly.
>
>> (b) Because no one who isn't interested in religion (excepting possibly you,
>> but I don't know for sure) would be interested in this thread? That is, they
>> consider it, but they don't post it.
>
>I'm interested in religion, but I'm not religious except in a sort of vague
>fuzzy sense that if there is a god it's a programmer. I've spent too much time
>playing with cellular automata to consider the universe as more than a very
>big one of them.
No wonder I'm confused; the universe is a sort of thing I've never heard
of :)
>--
>Peter da Silva. <pe...@sugar.neosoft.com>.
> `-_-' Ja' abracas-te o teu lobo, hoje?
> 'U`
>Looks like UNIX, Feels like UNIX, works like MVS -- IBM advertisement.
Peter da Silva
Dave Klingbeil <ej...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> wrote:
> >We didn't know where we came from, so we made something up before we had
> >the tools to keep philosophers from going off the deep end.
> What are these tools, when did we get them, and why didn't I know about
> them BEFORE I went off the deep end? :>
Scientific method, peer review, etc...
We developed them after it became obvious that the traditional route of
publishing ones fantasies as fact was not being terribly successful.
dbi...@news.delphi.com
>
> pa.gan \'pa--g*n\ \-g*-nish\ n [ME, fr. LL paganus, fr. L, country
> dweller,
> fr. pagus country dist]rict; akin to L pangere to fix - more at PACT 1:
> HEATHEN 2: an irreligious person - pagan aj
>
> And all I can say to that is WRONG. That is not the definition that I or
Is this one any better? (Scribner-Bantam English Dict.)
pa*gan /pa-' g<schwa>n/ [L paganus peasant] n
1. heathen 2. idolater or worshipper of many gods
3. one who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim
4. one who has no religious beliefs
#3 at least is reasonable (or at least not fully negative)
Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG (Wulfraed)
D.Bi...@GEnie.GEIS.com (Email preference)
DBi...@Delphi.com
Wednesday's Child
DON'T WORRY, ITS NOT AS LONG AS IT LOOKS. :)
Greywolf (peaco...@cobra.uni.edu) wrote:
: >> Would furries be Christian or would they hold a more pagan belief
: >>such as Wicca?
: Asking a question like this strikes me as silly without defining what sort of
: "furries" you have in mind.
It is not silly, but definitely hard. I feel the question (which
I was merely restating) is a valid and interesting one. However, as you
have demonstrated, there are so many "furry" frameworks it is difficult
to have a structured argument that is broad enough.
In my post, I brought up problems that might occur in a variety
of frameworks. (I note at least one person misunderstood and thought I
was only refering to one, making foxes as the chosen ones in world
where Jesus was a raccoon...)
: >>equines? In short, furry Christianity is at best problimatically odd and
: >>at worst frightening.
: I get the impression you would think that *any* sort of Christianity is
: "problimatically {sic} odd and at worst frightening".
It has been brought up that my remark on Christianity being rather
hostile to "outsiders" contradicts the teachings of Christ, who taught a
message of love and acceptance (the woman at the well was a wonderful
example).
To this I have no argument. It is true that Christianity fully
embracing the true teachings of Christ would have no difficulty in
accepting differences... the "outsider" problem would be eliminated.
Christ's teachings are, after all, of love.
This, as we have seen, does not solve the problem. The problem
with any religion or ethical code with a golden rule, even the wiccan
"an' it harm none, do what ye will", struggles with an inherant flaw...
we have an annoying tendancy to break it.
But I digress...
: (and here begins David's commentary:)
: > I think you're assuming a lot here. First-off, you have to consider where
: > the furries come from in the first place. If they'd been there all along,
: > then Christianity couldn't simply ignore them in the Bible.
: Hear hear! If a religion has a historical grounding, surely if you changed the
: history, there would have to be some reaction. Would it be Christianity
: anymore? I think it would be theoretically possible.
I think Christianity would have to undergo a drastic
philosophical change to fit a world of furries. Not that any of the
basic beliefs and principles would have to change... more of a sweeping
reform of definitions. The previous post about defining "in God's image"
as sentient is a great start. In the end, would it be Christianity?
Maybe. Would it be closer to what God wanted to communicate? IMHO, most
likely.
: Some folks have tried to use "in his image" as some
: sort of excuse to justify racism, and I don't buy it.
And very well you shouldn't. But Christianity is so easily open
to these abuses. In a world so diverse as one of various furry morphs,
this could (and if humans are any standard, would) soon devolve into
something... I believe I said "at worst frightening".
Much of the problem would be solved assuming a furry world with
only the New Testament. Any fitting of the Old Testament (as we have it)
into a world of furries is (as I put it) "problimatically odd". Much of
the Old Testament is a history book, which would mean either it would be
extensively different or seriously flawed. As mentioned before, in a
world of furries, the Bible, and Christianity, would have to include
them. Genesis would be completely different (hopefully, or there would
be one BIG reason for religious persecution). Better to throw the Old
Testament as we know it out all together.
Would it still be Christianity?
: I seriously doubt that it is such a given that Christianity would be
: antagonistic toward furries. Rather, I think there are just a lot of folks out
: there who have a beef with Christianity, and find it convenient to turn them
: into the villains in their fantasy furry worlds.
It is hardly a given. But back to your (our?) first point. It
would depend on the framework, the type of "furries" we are talking
about. Secondly, it would depend on how intact we are keeping human
Christianity when projecting it onto furries. It wouldn't be impossible,
infact it wouldn't be difficult, for a Christian-style religion with the
basic Christian teachings to be embraced by a furry world.
But OUR current form of Christianity...
...I think the furries would be in for a major socio-ethical
disaster...
: > If, on the other hand, furries were engineered, it wouldn't surprise me if
: > some of the hard-core fundamentalists did consider them abomination.
...or worse.
: Our wonderful world has a long history of racism and
: sexism, and it isn't sole property of "Christianity",
Right. (Of course, we are talking about Christianity now, so we
need not bring up all the other people, groups, religions, etc that
are guilty of this. We only need to point out the Christianty is. Not
the first, not the last, not even the greatest... but it is.)
: If furries had minds approximating ours, they'd be
: subject to the same problems, IMHO.
Unfortunately. (If they didn't, my arguments, in most frameworks,
would be so much %%%%%%%%%%.)
: > been God's chosen people in this scenario? In order to consider what kind
: > of religion a furry would subscribe to, I think you need to have a well-defined
: > and consistent background explaining where the furries come from in the first
: > place.
: My thoughts exactly!
We have a motion on the floor. Greywolf firsts; I second. All
in favor...
(Meaning, of course, my thoughts too.)
--Kkatman: Furry Rep.
Steve Hutchison
+ Would furries be Christian or would they hold a more
+ pagan belief such as Wicca?
An interesting question -- is Wicca really "pagan?"
+ I'm not sure exactly why, but something about Christian
+ furries strikes me as fundamentally wrong. Maybe it is because
+ the Christian religion is so unforgiving of 'outsiders'.
Bullshit. If we were so unforgiving of 'outsiders' why would
we go to the trouble to send missionaries to them? You've got
a very twisted view of what Christianity means, formed, I suspect,
from the rantings of televangelists and the incomplete and highly
prejudicial slanders of people who don't know what they're talking
about. If you had said that about Jews you'd be in the net.pillory
right about now.
+ In a
+ world of humans and furries, the furries would not be considered
+ by Christianity as "in God's image" and suffer from a number of
+ other Biblical problems. (God gave man rulership over the
+ beasts... reasoning of furry slavery?)
Bullshit again. You have no basis for this claim other than a
bald assertion. If there were humans and furries together, then
_every_ culture on earth would have to form its own specific ways
to handle the interactions, and Christianity, which was shaped
by dozens of older cultures, would have taken a form that fit the
cultures, as shaped by Jesus' teachings with respect to those
interactions. If you bother to investigate, you'll find that
that's what happened when the Jewish cult of the Messiah spread
to the Gentiles.
+ In a world without
+ humans, how would the Adam and Eve genesis work? Would foxes be
+ the Chosen Ones (what about the Jew/Gentile conflict)? What
+ would happen to racial conflicts if Jesus the Raccoon was
+ crucified by the Roman equines? In short, furry Christianity is
+ at best problimatically odd and at worst frightening.
Well, you've managed to make a nonsensical starting point into
a nonsensical conclusion. That's problematically odd and frightening,
I suppose, but frankly it's a clear example of garbage-in, garbage-out.
+ I would submit that furry religion would likely take one
+ of several courses: either a more encompasing, earthly religion
+ (Wicca-style perhaps or maybe something parallel to American
+ Indian spirit beliefs), or a progenetor worship (take Albedo and
+ think how easily human-worship could evolve).
I submit that you don't know anything about how or why religions
take the forms that they do, and that you should invest some of your
time in college in a few religion courses. You know, do the research
before you engage in amateur sociology?
And no, I can't tell you what would really be the outcome. There
are far too many undefined inputs to tell. Put together a framework
and don't forget to give people credit for some brains and humanity,
as well as acknowledging their scum side, and maybe you can come up
with a convincing reason why Christianity and non-human-ness would be
incompatible in your framework. But that's not going to apply to my
framework, or the next person's.
Hanno Foest
hu...@ibeam.intel.com (Steve Hutchison) writes:
[...]
>+ I'm not sure exactly why, but something about Christian
>+ furries strikes me as fundamentally wrong. Maybe it is because
>+ the Christian religion is so unforgiving of 'outsiders'.
>
>Bullshit. If we were so unforgiving of 'outsiders' why would
>we go to the trouble to send missionaries to them?
means of making peoples suffer.
[...]
>+ In a
>+ world of humans and furries, the furries would not be considered
>+ by Christianity as "in God's image" and suffer from a number of
>+ other Biblical problems. (God gave man rulership over the
>+ beasts... reasoning of furry slavery?)
>
>Bullshit again. You have no basis for this claim other than a
>bald assertion. If there were humans and furries together, then
>_every_ culture on earth would have to form its own specific ways
>to handle the interactions, and Christianity, which was shaped
>by dozens of older cultures, would have taken a form that fit the
>cultures, as shaped by Jesus' teachings with respect to those
Christianity _has_ been used to justify human slavery in the past. Furry
slavery is obviously even more likely.
>+ In a world without
>+ humans, how would the Adam and Eve genesis work? Would foxes be
>+ the Chosen Ones (what about the Jew/Gentile conflict)? What
>+ would happen to racial conflicts if Jesus the Raccoon was
>+ crucified by the Roman equines? In short, furry Christianity is
>+ at best problimatically odd and at worst frightening.
>
>Well, you've managed to make a nonsensical starting point into
>a nonsensical conclusion. That's problematically odd and frightening,
>I suppose, but frankly it's a clear example of garbage-in, garbage-out.
because it isn't compatible with the creation myth in the bible.
>+ I would submit that furry religion would likely take one
>+ of several courses: either a more encompasing, earthly religion
>+ (Wicca-style perhaps or maybe something parallel to American
>+ Indian spirit beliefs), or a progenetor worship (take Albedo and
>+ think how easily human-worship could evolve).
>
>I submit that you don't know anything about how or why religions
>take the forms that they do, and that you should invest some of your
>time in college in a few religion courses. You know, do the research
A good start for learning about the nature of religion would be reading
Richard Dawkins, "The Blind Watchmaker" or "The Selfish Gene".
Sorry, I couldn't resist to answer that post, but these blank "bullshit"
anawers bugged me a lot. I'd rather not see religious flamewars developing
on a.f.f. Discuss sensibly or take it to alt.atheism or whatever.
Hanno
Steve Arlow
>
>We developed them after it became obvious that the traditional route of
>publishing ones fantasies as fact was not being terribly successful.
Unfortunately, for the past decade, their success has declined
remarkably. (Need I cite examples?) I am not too hopeful for the
future of scientific inquiry if the current trends continue. :/
(Are Pons and Fleischmann the Jim and Tammy Bakers of physics?)
jlmi...@hamp.hampshire.edu
together, not being Christian _or_ Wiccan. But when one's _own_ religion
gets practically flamed, one must respond. Apologies in advance.
In Article <Cntw9...@ibeam.intel.com>
hu...@ibeam.intel.com (Steve Hutchison) writes:
>rich...@raven.csrv.uidaho.edu (Wednesday's Child) writes:
>
>+ Would furries be Christian or would they hold a more
>+ pagan belief such as Wicca?
>
>An interesting question -- is Wicca really "pagan?"
>
By the definitions of both Wicca and "pagan" I've seen (and by what
folks have said), I'd say yes.
>+ I'm not sure exactly why, but something about Christian
>+ furries strikes me as fundamentally wrong. Maybe it is because
>+ the Christian religion is so unforgiving of 'outsiders'.
>
>Bullshit. If we were so unforgiving of 'outsiders' why would
>we go to the trouble to send missionaries to them? You've got
>a very twisted view of what Christianity means, formed, I suspect,
>from the rantings of televangelists and the incomplete and highly
>prejudicial slanders of people who don't know what they're talking
>about. If you had said that about Jews you'd be in the net.pillory
>right about now.
>
Ok, here we go.
Fact: The Jews have been and continue to be persecuted for everything
from simply killing Christ to using the blood of Christian babies to
bake matzah for about 2000 years. Although we have lived among
Christians for the entire period of time cited above, we are _still_
considered "outsiders" in many places (including a lot of the US). This
includes places like Germany, where Jews have been indiginous to the
area longer than the "Germans."
Fact: Anti-semetism is the _fastest growing hate crime in the world._ It
is also the fastest growing hate crime in the US. If the previous poster
_had_ mentioned Jews rather than Christians, I have little doubt that
not only would it have gone pretty much unremarked here, but it might
havegotten extremely good press elsewhere. Period.
I have nothing against Christianity; stupid as it sounds, many of my
best friends are Christians. Te teachings of Jesus expouse tolerance,
equality, etc. In practise, however, Christian history has shown little
of the tolerance Christ preached. If you do not admit that, you deny
your religion in practise...the theory is fine, but one cannot overlook
the practise.
That being said, I found _your_ post extremely offensive. Typical, but
offensive.
>+ In a
>+ world of humans and furries, the furries would not be considered
>+ by Christianity as "in God's image" and suffer from a number of
>+ other Biblical problems. (God gave man rulership over the
>+ beasts... reasoning of furry slavery?)
>
>Bullshit again. You have no basis for this claim other than a
>bald assertion. If there were humans and furries together, then
>_every_ culture on earth would have to form its own specific ways
>to handle the interactions, and Christianity, which was shaped
>by dozens of older cultures, would have taken a form that fit the
>cultures, as shaped by Jesus' teachings with respect to those
>interactions. If you bother to investigate, you'll find that
>that's what happened when the Jewish cult of the Messiah spread
>to the Gentiles.
>
Ahem: he certainly _does_ have a historical basis for this: it's called
"White Man's Burden." Admittedly, this was not totally limited to
Christianity, but one must look to the power source when one looks at
historical trends.
And, from what I've seen, Christianity was shaped more by Paul's
teachings (as far as encorporating other cultures) than Christ's. But,
quibbling aside....
>+ In a world without
>+ humans, how would the Adam and Eve genesis work? Would foxes be
>+ the Chosen Ones (what about the Jew/Gentile conflict)? What
>+ would happen to racial conflicts if Jesus the Raccoon was
>+ crucified by the Roman equines? In short, furry Christianity is
>+ at best problimatically odd and at worst frightening.
>
>Well, you've managed to make a nonsensical starting point into
>a nonsensical conclusion. That's problematically odd and frightening,
>I suppose, but frankly it's a clear example of garbage-in, garbage-out.
Well...I half agree with you here, but I think I see what the original
poster was going for. He's taking an ethnic difference and asking, "What
if it was an actual physical difference, species-wise?" Again,
Christianity wouldn't be, to my mind, odd or frightening, but I think I
see what he's saying. Another example of the fact that the original
poster is looking at historical Christianity in practice, and you're
looking at theory. (In this case, I think he's off.)
>
>+ I would submit that furry religion would likely take one
>+ of several courses: either a more encompasing, earthly religion
>+ (Wicca-style perhaps or maybe something parallel to American
>+ Indian spirit beliefs), or a progenetor worship (take Albedo and
>+ think how easily human-worship could evolve).
>
>I submit that you don't know anything about how or why religions
>take the forms that they do, and that you should invest some of your
>time in college in a few religion courses. You know, do the research
>before you engage in amateur sociology?
>
I submit that the original poster can't say what form religion would
_definately_ take and neither can you. (As you point out below.)
I _have_ taken several religion courses. (Lots of Christain history and
philosophy.) I submit that you need to study some history before making
assertions as you did several paragraphs ago.
Christianity is, in theory, an excellent religion--_if_ you take simply
what Christ said to heart. However, from the early centuries AD it has
been intolerant of the other. When i say the other, I specifically mean
those who "have heard the Gospel and rejected it," not the "unknowing
heathen." You can look as early as John Chrysostom, or even earlier to
some passages in the Gospels and as recently as the current rhetoric in
the Ukraine--or certain parts of the United States. I could tell the
story aout how my mother, a teacher, was asked by a student if he could
feel the horns on her head, but I think I make my point.
This isn't to say that the religion is inherantly bad--it certainly is
not! It has done (I would think!) far more good in the world than bad,
but ignoring the bad tends to negate the good.
And that "net-pillory" comment was certainly uncalled for! And it
_certainly undermines your point about Christianity being "tolerant" of
the other.
>And no, I can't tell you what would really be the outcome. There
>are far too many undefined inputs to tell. Put together a framework
>and don't forget to give people credit for some brains and humanity,
>as well as acknowledging their scum side, and maybe you can come up
>with a convincing reason why Christianity and non-human-ness would be
>incompatible in your framework. But that's not going to apply to my
>framework, or the next person's.
Agreed. It all depends on where the furries came from. But I tend to
think that, assuming they have little to no connection with us, the
chances of a religion developing that bears any resemblance to ours is
unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely. This doesn't let out
Christianity, of course, merely _human_ Christianity. Of course it'd be
different. Maybe not better, maybe not worse. But different.
Again, apologies to _everyone_ for this rather verbose post, but one
can't let things as personally offensive as this go by. I hope I haven't
offended anyone; I do admire Jordon and the other religious Christians
on the list...faith is something to be cherished--even more if it's
tempered with attributes such as tolerance and knowledge.
jonathan.
Fred M. Sloniker (L. Lazuli R'kamos)
>We didn't know where we came from, so we made something up before we had
>the tools to keep philosophers from going off the deep end.
IYHO. (:3 Since we're arguing a huge number of hypotheticals, I'll
acknowledge that this could be true if you'll acknowledge that there might
be a 'deeper' explanation. Or we can mutually agree not to argue the point,
your choice.
>Furries created by humans but delivered into the world unknowing (say, the
>folks in Albedo) would have a lot more understanding of science, productive
>skepticism, and so on.
Not necessarily. They could be set up with 'only' our own tech level, or
even none at all (to see if their course of development paralells ours, and
if so, how strongly). What if they're set up with a ready-built religion as
well? They might later reject it, but there would always be that influence
on their culture (not many people follow the Roman pantheon anymore, but we
haven't renamed the planets, and FTD still uses Mercury in their ads...) And
there's always the alternate furry geneses (sp?) we could consider; say, a
generic fantasy environment where various gods created various species.
>They would revere the progenitors, but treat them as some sort of
>supernatural entities? Hardly.
Interesting you use "Albedo" and this sentence so close together, considering
Gallacci is introducing some elements of Creator worship. (:3
>I'm interested in religion, but I'm not religious except in a sort of vague
>fuzzy sense that if there is a god it's a programmer. I've spent too much time
>playing with cellular automata to consider the universe as more than a very
>big one of them.
Interestingly, my beliefs parallel yours (God set up the way things work, and
has tweaked it in only small ways since then, except for a few major code
revisions (as "Paranoia" says, making improvements to an already perfect
work)). That doesn't mean I think there's anything 'more than' about the
universe; it's pretty impressive to get an entire universe up and running
without having to implement numerous bugfixes, don't you think? (See
Terry Pratchett's (sp?) Diskworld series for an instructive counterexample.
I wouldn't want to be responsible for that mess.)
---Fred M. Sloniker, stressed undergrad
L. Lazuli R'kamos, FurryMUCKer
laz...@u.washington.edu
Third Rule of Superhero Comics: If you sell well, you are immortal.
Greywolf
> And furry worlds, especially those with many different species, have
> deeper differences than those that have plagued our history.
(shrug) Furry worlds are fictional. The religious outlook of the denizens can
be argued in pretty much whatever direction you want. If you're dead-set that
any SENSIBLE creature would be an atheist, then who's to argue to that your
ideal fantasy world won't be populated solely by atheists? Okay, so somebody
might argue. =) Maybe a furry world would be pagan. Maybe a furry world
would have a monotheist religion. Maybe it would have a religion approximating
some particular religion found on Earth. Maybe it would have Christianity.
(Why? Well, ya see, they had THEIR prophets, too...) Maybe (gasp) it would
have a broad assortment of different religions scattered across the globe (or
disc or ring or habitat or whatever) just like ours!
Maybe they would suffer from racism (specism?). Maybe on a larger scale
because there are so much greater differences between each "race". Maybe on a
SMALLER scale because there are SO MANY different races that the differences
are incidental ... no more shocking than, say, differences in hair color would
be in our country. (i.e. There might be a sense of identity that this person
is a red-head, blonde, brunette or whatever ... maybe even a few stereotypes
... but not necessarily instant bloodshed and oppression) Maybe they'd find
other lines to divide themselves by and to slaughter each over: maybe
differences in culture, religion, politics, technological level, geographic
location...
What's my point?
Q: "What religion would furries be?"
A: "I don't know. Why don't you go ask them?"
Q: "Boy, wouldn't it be really ugly if there were *Christianity* on a furry
world?"
A: "I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Things could be really ugly with
atheism (o/ Back in the U.S.S.R. o/), islam (the Crusades weren't the only
instance of "conversion by the sword") and a number of other religions or
supposed lack thereof as well."
Greywolf
> Greywolf (peaco...@cobra.uni.edu) wrote:
> : >> Would furries be Christian or would they hold a more pagan belief
> : >>such as Wicca?
>
> : Asking a question like this strikes me as silly without defining what sort of
> : "furries" you have in mind.
>
> It is not silly, but definitely hard. I feel the question (which
Well, my use of the term "silly" is certainly debatable, but the term "furry"
is one of those things that defies definition. Even with what I would presume
to be a standard definition (anthropomorphized animals), "furries" are divorced
from any particular "reality". There are all KINDS of "furries", all kinds of
possible worlds you might stick them into. Oh, what would be a comparison?
Perhaps something like, "What color should robots be?" Okay, that's not a
perfect comparison, particularly since "robots" have a real-world application.
How about "What color should robots in fiction be?"
Okay, what kind of robots? What kind of world? Battle bots? Camoflage
patterns maybe, or else maybe black stealth. Or maybe red because it looks
cool. =)
> have demonstrated, there are so many "furry" frameworks it is difficult
> to have a structured argument that is broad enough.
Well, it's just that I don't think there's much that can be done with the
question that really "accomplishes anything".
For instance, somebody says "furries would be atheist". He goes on to explain
why, and it becomes apparent that he's assuming that "furries" exist in a
universe much like Gallacci's Erma Felna epic worlds.
> This, as we have seen, does not solve the problem. The problem
> with any religion or ethical code with a golden rule, even the wiccan
> "an' it harm none, do what ye will", struggles with an inherant flaw...
> we have an annoying tendancy to break it.
(shrug) That applies to ANY religion, ANY law code, as far as I can tell. If
one is to say "Christianity would be a bad religion for furries", then there
would have to be something inherently wrong about Christianity that would pose
the problem. The popular evils attributed to Christianity (the Crusades, the
Inquisition, the Conquest of the New World, etc.) happened, near as I can tell,
when Christianity became "official", a handy state religion (Hey, I was born
here, so I'm a Christian). Doesn't say much about the teachings themselves,
but more of the problem when the idea arises that just by claiming that you're
a (insert religious denomination here) then POOF! you're a member. Nevermind
if you actually believe in the tenets of that faith, do what it proscribes,
etc. I think the same problem is illustrated with the differences over
self-proclaimed "Wiccans" who apparently have fashioned up their own ready-made
Goddess faith, nevermind what the official teachings are. (Not like I know
anything about "official Wicca".)
Labels can lose their meaning when people like what is associated with them,
but rather than wanting to narrow themselves toward the current definition,
want to instead just slap the label on themselves and do whatever they want. I
guess this might parallel why I might be somewhat defensive if someone wants to
broaden the term "furry" to apply to real-world animals. Why? Because that's
something I think the term "furry" *doesn't* apply to. If "furry" included
real-world animals, then it would just make a lot more sense for us to use the
term "animal" to cover our fandom, as it would be far more encompassing.
When folks borrow your label and slap it on themselves and warp it to their own
particular interests without any challenge, your label becomes meaningless.
(Boy, I got on a tangent there. But I'm just trying to make sure this ties
back to "furry" topics somehow. =) )
> But I digress...
So do I. =)
> reform of definitions. The previous post about defining "in God's image"
> as sentient is a great start. In the end, would it be Christianity?
Yeah, it'd be Christianity. We wouldn't have to change the Ten Commandments or
Christ's top two picks for the most important rules: "Love your God with all
your heart," and "Love your neighbor as yourself". Hey, if a "furry" lived
next door, he'd still be your neighbor, wouldn't he? =)
> : Some folks have tried to use "in his image" as some
> : sort of excuse to justify racism, and I don't buy it.
>
> And very well you shouldn't. But Christianity is so easily open
Yeah. I just had an argument this Sunday with a guy who claimed not to be a
Mormon, yet he believed the Book of Mormon he said, and he also was trying to
convince me that Christ had to be white, because of the way the Conquistadors
were received.... But that's a long story. =P
> to these abuses. In a world so diverse as one of various furry morphs,
Christianity is so easily open to it? How so? How more so than other
religions? Or how more so than atheism? (Survival of the fittest, anyone?
Let's hear it for the Master Race! =P )
> into a world of furries is (as I put it) "problimatically odd". Much of
> the Old Testament is a history book, which would mean either it would be
> extensively different or seriously flawed. As mentioned before, in a
Of course. All of the history-dependent aspects of the Bible would be altered
if you're going to alter history. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the
teachings concerning how to live one's life, how to treat others, etc. would
have to be altered.
> Would it still be Christianity?
Yes, it'd still be Christianity. You'd still have Christ. The Gospels matter
a whole lot more to Christianity, at least near as I can see, than the
particulars over who begat whom and who smote whom. However, a Bible in such a
world would probably have a history included in it, albeit a different one. I
think it is the fact that a history is included and what lessons are to be
gained from those events that matters more than the particular times, places
and names.
> But OUR current form of Christianity...
> ...I think the furries would be in for a major socio-ethical
> disaster...
Ours? Whose? Mine? Yours? Are we going to include everybody under the sun
who calls themselves Christians, but who decide to toss the Bible? Or add
more to it? Uh oh. Now I've done it. Now we have to define "What is
Christianity?" But in order to that, I recommend that continuations be carried
on to one of the religious newsgroups, wherever those are. =)
Christianity isn't just what you see on TV or the nuts on the street corner
telling everybody they're going to hell. I've listened to several of these
folks, and have found plenty of parts where they're just going off on their
own.
> : > If, on the other hand, furries were engineered, it wouldn't surprise me if
> : > some of the hard-core fundamentalists did consider them abomination.
>
> ...or worse.
What's worse than an abomination? Or are we just going for hyperbole? =)
> : Our wonderful world has a long history of racism and
> : sexism, and it isn't sole property of "Christianity",
> are guilty of this. We only need to point out the Christianty is. Not
> the first, not the last, not even the greatest... but it is.)
It's also very popular to keep pointing out this again and again and again, to
the exclusion of mentioning all these other incidents, to the point where it
sounds like people are insinuating that it *IS* a defining and nearly exclusive
property of Christianity.
Greywolf
> rich...@raven.csrv.uidaho.edu (Wednesday's Child) writes:
>
> + Would furries be Christian or would they hold a more
> + pagan belief such as Wicca?
>
> An interesting question -- is Wicca really "pagan?"
IMHO, if Wicca believes in more than one God, it's "pagan". (And then we have
a voice from the peanut gallery: But what about the Trinity? groaaaaannnn.)
Boy, isn't this fun?
> again. You have no basis for this claim other than a
> bald assertion. If there were humans and furries together, then
> _every_ culture on earth would have to form its own specific ways
> to handle the interactions, and Christianity, which was shaped
> by dozens of older cultures, would have taken a form that fit the
Well, *my* spin, since I don't buy the idea of "Christianity is just a product
of Judaism, which was a product of miscellaneous pagan religions" is a bit
different. I'm a Christian (wow! whodda thunk?) who believes in God and
miracles and stuff. So, if God were to have a world with "furries" in it
(which faces a problem inherent in the fact that, to my knowledge, he HASN'T,
so maybe he had a good reason. Who knows?) I think he would be consistent with
whatever message he's been trying to get across HERE.
If we're to love our neighbors, and he creates some more neighbors for us, it
would be inconsistent for him to make these neighbors just as "human"
(mentally, spiritually) as us, and yet teach us to treat them like beasts.
(FTPG: But what about the Old Testament and all that slaughtering as part of
the taking of the Holy Land?
That's one of those things I have a hard time trying to find an answer for.
I don't have easy answers for everything. However, I view that situation as
being a matter of *culture* and *religion* rather than just *race*. If it
were a matter of race, then that woman who helped the spies and tied the red
ribbon in her window at Jericho wouldn't have been given a break.)
> Well, you've managed to make a nonsensical starting point into
> a nonsensical conclusion. That's problematically odd and frightening,
> I suppose, but frankly it's a clear example of garbage-in, garbage-out.
Exactly. "Straw man" comes to mind, though that's not a perfect application, I
suppose. If you say "Furries with Christianity wouldn't mix" and then to
bolster your point you make a whole bunch of more specific requirements that
make the case particularly absurd ... it doesn't necessarily reflect well on
the argument as a whole.
> I submit that you don't know anything about how or why religions
> take the forms that they do, and that you should invest some of your
> time in college in a few religion courses. You know, do the research
> before you engage in amateur sociology?
Well, I'm afraid I'm not about to use *this* sort of retort, though. If I
follow this sort of reasoning (don't talk about it unless you're an expert),
then that doesn't give me NEARLY so much to jabber about. It also presents a
lot of problems if I ever want to write a science fiction story. I think the
idea of talking about the possible development of religion in a fictional
"furry" universe is valid -- and I'm sure I'd get a lot of lively arguments out
of that.
However, a blanket statement that "Christianity wouldn't work in a "furry"
world" doesn't jive with me, as there are so many possibilities for a "furry"
world, and I don't find it hard at all to imagine a "furry" story where I could
have critter and human protagonists that are Christian and get along.
Peter da Silva
I didn't *say* that. I simply *asked* why everyone was assuming that
furries would have to have a recognisable religion at all... and gave
the Albedo example as one where it's not a given.
Peter da Silva
> atheism (o/ Back in the U.S.S.R. o/)
Oh no, not this again. The Soviet Union was intensely religious. The religion
was this belief in a fabled state called Communism, whereby everyone just did
what they were supposed to, without conflict, and without government. There
are still a lot of people who believe in it.
Religion is just faith. A belief in something without proof or evidence.
Steve Hutchison
A useless piece of inflammatory verbiage with quaint but very very
old and worn out attacks on Christianity like, for instance,
stating that Christians send out missionaries in order to destroy
social structures so as to make other people suffer; he follows
with an ad-hominem attack on my motives and imagination, and then
concludes with a self-serving and sanctimonious declaration that
we should not be "engaging in flame wars" here.
Frankly, Hanno, if that's the most light you can bring to the
discussion, then you should not have bothered. If you cared about
the discussion, rather than your apparent need to put down Christians,
you would have at least tried to addressed my points.
These, in case you can't find the original, were that the originator
of the discussion was operating from a biased viewpoint and was not
applying any kind of science of sociology. Speculation from ignorance,
while it may satisfy your personal agenda, doesn't give much in the
way of a believable model for any story, art, or other exploration
of "furry/human" civilizations.
Meanwhile I don't feel constrained by your disapproval in any way.
If people are going to take cheap shots at Christianity then I will,
if I want to, defend it, just as I'd defend "furry" from people who
call it "skunkfucking".
Peter da Silva
Steve Arlow <s...@umcc.umcc.umich.edu> wrote:
> In article <2nt7ps$3...@sugar.neosoft.com>,
> Peter da Silva <pe...@sugar.NeoSoft.COM> wrote:
> >Scientific method, peer review, etc...
> >We developed them after it became obvious that the traditional route of
> >publishing ones fantasies as fact was not being terribly successful.
> Unfortunately, for the past decade, their success has declined
> remarkably.
They have?
> (Need I cite examples?)
Yes.
> I am not too hopeful for the
> future of scientific inquiry if the current trends continue. :/
What trends are these?
> (Are Pons and Fleischmann the Jim and Tammy Bakers of physics?)
Cold Fusion is a perfect example of how science *works*. Even with crooked
practitioners, the whole mechanism brought the truth out within a matter
of a year or so. Now how long have the protestants and catholics been
debating papal infallibility?
Greywolf
>>we go to the trouble to send missionaries to them?
>
> Maybe because destroying existing social structures is a very effective
> means of making peoples suffer.
Maybe not. Do you seriously think that the express purpose of sending out
missionaries is to make people suffer? There are plenty more straightforward
ways of doing that if one's only purpose is to make people miserable.
> Christianity _has_ been used to justify human slavery in the past. Furry
> slavery is obviously even more likely.
No, it isn't obvious.
Darwin's theories concerning natural selection and survival of the fittest have
been used to justify oppression of peoples based on their race. That doesn't
mean that I expect that everyone who buys into evolution is headed down the
path toward an instant replay of the Holocaust.
I submit that Christianity has been used to justify things such as slavery not
because of an inherent tendency toward such ideas within the framework of
Christianity. Rather, those who wish to implement things such as slavery are
likely to seek some way of justifying their actions, and the way to do so is to
try to appeal to a higher power -- not necessarily a deity.
In times past, this could be done by selectively interpreting the Bible to pick
out passages (or just make up stuff and snow everybody) to seemingly support
your cause out fo context.
These days, I would suggest that the Bill of Rights and our Constitution are
referred to as an "authority" in the way that the Bible once was ... and there
is a constant struggle to creatively interpret things in order to justify one's
own position. For instance, being able to claim "freedom of speech" (even when
speech is not necessarily involved, and it is in fact a matter of one's
imposing one's own agenda upon someone else's private affairs) is a common
"moral high ground" sought after.
In other words, Christianity was not the cause for slavery. Slavery has
existed without Christianity. Rather, when Christianity was in vogue, when
someone was trying to grasp the hearts and minds of the populace, Christian
imagery was that which was invoked, because that's what people pledged
allegiance to.
> Sorry, I couldn't resist to answer that post, but these blank*****
> anawers bugged me a lot. I'd rather not see religious flamewars developing
> on a.f.f. Discuss sensibly or take it to alt.atheism or whatever.
I can't say as the expletives pleased me, either.
However, is this thread just going to turn into "Is Christianity evil?" I feel
obliged to try to say something in the defense of those things I believe in,
at least until I've said all that I really have to say on the topic, but if
this is just going to steer toward an attack/defense of Christianity, it's
going to be hard to tie it back to anything appropriate for the newsgroup.
Hanno Foest
peaco...@cobra.uni.edu (Greywolf) writes:
[racism]
>Christianity is so easily open to it? How so? How more so than other
>religions? Or how more so than atheism? (Survival of the fittest, anyone?
>Let's hear it for the Master Race! =P )
nothing else. You'll have a hard time to justify anything with just this
idea.
OTOP, Christianity has the Bible, and you can justify quite a few things
with it if you're interpreting it enough - it has been done.
(Please reply in email, if necessary - this is rather off topic.)
Hanno
Steve Arlow
>rich...@raven.csrv.uidaho.edu (Wednesday's Child) writes:
>> And very well you shouldn't. But Christianity is so easily open
>> to these abuses. In a world so diverse as one of various furry morphs,
>
>Christianity is so easily open to it? How so? How more so than other
>religions? Or how more so than atheism? (Survival of the fittest, anyone?
>Let's hear it for the Master Race! =P )
Okay, this is the second time I've caught this comparison. Atheism
does not equal Eugenics, Social Darwinism, or any other such thing.
Atheism is simply the belief that there is no such thing as "God".
You may believe that the entire platform of the Nazi Party follows
logically from this single postulate, but others may disagree... :,
Neither should atheism be confused with agnosticism... but I digress.
Steve Arlow
>fuzzy sense that if there is a god it's a programmer. I've spent too much time
>playing with cellular automata to consider the universe as more than a very
>big one of them.
The one strong implication from that metaphore is that time is
quantized. Is there any evidence in physics to back that up?
Steve Arlow
>: sound "insensitive", but that last post was PAINFUL to read.
>
>I am Dislexic... I am trying as hard as I can... Sorry my spelling isn't
>perfic...
Apology accepted -- you have a good enough excuse. ;) ;) Sorry, I was
not trying to make fun of you, or to discourage you from participating
in this forum. It is sadly true that, however, that you will be more
widely read if you employ a spell-checker.
Steve Arlow
Steve Hutchison <hu...@ibeam.intel.com> wrote:
>rich...@raven.csrv.uidaho.edu (Wednesday's Child) writes:
>
>+ Would furries be Christian or would they hold a more
>+ pagan belief such as Wicca?
>
>An interesting question -- is Wicca really "pagan?"
Strictly speaking, I'd call it "neo-pagan", i.e., a return to
paganism. This is because Wicca, as it is presently practiced, is a
reconstruction of earlier belief systems for which did not really
survive intact to the present day.
Steve Arlow
>In Article <Cntw9...@ibeam.intel.com>
>hu...@ibeam.intel.com (Steve Hutchison) writes:
>>rich...@raven.csrv.uidaho.edu (Wednesday's Child) writes:
>>+ I'm not sure exactly why, but something about Christian
>>+ furries strikes me as fundamentally wrong. Maybe it is because
>>+ the Christian religion is so unforgiving of 'outsiders'.
>>
>>Bullshit. If we were so unforgiving of 'outsiders' why would
I can make an argument that "missionary work" is perhaps the one
activity of certain Christian sects that is truly, literally, *evil*.
It is the willful and deliberate destruction of other cultures and
dispersal of thier population. And the only excuse given for this
practice is "it's for their own good."
>> [...] If you had said that about Jews you'd be in the net.pillory
>>right about now.
>>
>Ok, here we go.
>Fact: The Jews have been and continue to be persecuted for everything
>from simply killing Christ to using the blood of Christian babies to
>bake matzah for about 2000 years.
The blood libel -- it should be pointed out that the acccusation
was and is false, and that no major Christian sects espouse it.
> Although we have lived among
>Christians for the entire period of time cited above, we are _still_
>considered "outsiders" in many places (including a lot of the US).
But consider also that the Jews are, by Jewish belief, God's "chosen
people". This makes them a better example than Christianity in the
comparison used in an earlier post (I forget whose), of a religion
setting iteslf apart from all others. (For the record, I am a non-
practicing Jew.)
>Fact: Anti-semetism is the _fastest growing hate crime in the world._ It
>is also the fastest growing hate crime in the US. If the previous poster
>_had_ mentioned Jews rather than Christians, I have little doubt that
>not only would it have gone pretty much unremarked here, but it might
>havegotten extremely good press elsewhere. Period.
Things are starting to look mighty scary over in the former Soviet
Union. And no, it would not have gone completely unremarked... :,
(Is this topic still "furry"?)
Dave Bell
BF> One of the back-threads to the whole book was the religious debate
BF> that was going on; I believe the Papal decision was 'All who partake of
BF> Adam's seed'... in other words, all created creatures that used human
BF> genetics as part of their makeup were to be considered human. Hmm.
At first glance, that sounds pretty sensible. I've often inclined to
the view that a furry is more likely to be a genetically modified human
than to be a modified animal.
The trouble is, what happens if you take genetic material from a
non-human species that is _identical_ to that in humans.
What happens if you take a piece of DNA from a human and use it to
replace a piece of non-human DNA, and what if the two pieces of DNA are
identical.
There's a lot of possible quibbling in that idea.
Dave
... When I hear the word "culture" I reach for my phaser.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.11
----
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|EvaWare BBS, Home of Orator QWK reader for Windows, Sysop:Nick Dyer|
| Tel 44-507-608645. V32/V32Bis V42/V42Bis HST Fidonet (2:252/158) |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Dave Bell
WC> Better to
WC> throw the Old Testament as we know it out all together.
WC> Would it still be Christianity?
Yes!
Many of the problems of Christianity seem to be based in the Old
Testament, from the question of God's image through to the dangerous
idea of a chosen people. Scrap that, and it could even be that furries
could worship a non-furry Christ. And we might have the parable of the
Good Wolf.
Dave
... Big Brother is watching you.
Hanno Foest
peaco...@cobra.uni.edu (Greywolf) writes:
>>>we go to the trouble to send missionaries to them?
>>
>> Maybe because destroying existing social structures is a very effective
>> means of making peoples suffer.
>
>Maybe not. Do you seriously think that the express purpose of sending out
>missionaries is to make people suffer? There are plenty more straightforward
>ways of doing that if one's only purpose is to make people miserable.
and I've caught some flak (in email) for it. But I think not good about
sending out missionaries and sometimes it's hard for me to imagine people
doing this have only good intentions. (I just read Steve Arlow's post on
this topic and I wholeheartedly agree.)
But this is nothing to be discussed around here.
>> Christianity _has_ been used to justify human slavery in the past. Furry
>> slavery is obviously even more likely.
>
>No, it isn't obvious.
>
>
>In other words, Christianity was not the cause for slavery. Slavery has
>existed without Christianity. Rather, when Christianity was in vogue, when
>someone was trying to grasp the hearts and minds of the populace, Christian
>imagery was that which was invoked, because that's what people pledged
>allegiance to.
furries popping up in our world - maybe it would work without slavery,
nowadays, but I have certain doubts if I consider how animals get exploited
regardless of their suffering. If it happened a few hundred years ago...
I better don't try to imagine what would have happened.
Sure, the cause for enslavement/slaughtering of the furries would be fear of
the unknown or whatever, but it's a bit easier to do so if you know you're
backed up by some holy truth.
To the 'obvious' part. I think it's obvious that furry slavery (by humans,
in our world) is more likely to get justified than human slavery because
even human slavery got justified by the Bible, and to furries additionally
applies that man has the rulership over animals.
Of course, if you regard some universe with furries just from the beginning,
you can do many speculations about how the bible would look there. Depending
on this, Christianity may work quite nice in such a world.
[...]
>However, is this thread just going to turn into "Is Christianity evil?" I feel
>obliged to try to say something in the defense of those things I believe in,
>at least until I've said all that I really have to say on the topic, but if
>this is just going to steer toward an attack/defense of Christianity, it's
>going to be hard to tie it back to anything appropriate for the newsgroup.
is not going to work for furries and gives reasons for his opinion, this
is likely to either be an attack of Christianity or at least to be
perceived as one.
Hanno
Dave Bell
SH> Bullshit. If we were so unforgiving of 'outsiders' why would
SH> we go to the trouble to send missionaries to them?
Because they were thought wrong?
SH> Bullshit again. You have no basis for this claim other than a
SH> bald assertion. If there were humans and furries together, then
SH> _every_ culture on earth would have to form its own specific ways
SH> to handle the interactions, and Christianity, which was shaped
SH> by dozens of older cultures, would have taken a form that fit the
SH> cultures, as shaped by Jesus' teachings with respect to those
SH> interactions. If you bother to investigate, you'll find that
SH> that's what happened when the Jewish cult of the Messiah spread
SH> to the Gentiles.
That's a fair point. But, looking at human history, there has always
been a hostility to the stranger and outsider. A different species is
even more on the outside. It occurs to me that the teachings of the
Prophet Mohammed might be more furry-compatible because of the
prohibition on images: if you don't have an image of the Deity in the
place of worship, everybody can have their own personal image. But
because of the existence of furries, as other creations of God, there
would have been differences in the Prophet's teachings. It would, by
the standards of this world, be close to blasphemy.
And maybe the same for furry versions of other religions.
Dave
... Never laugh at a live dragon.
Dave Klingbeil
In a previous article, s...@umcc.umcc.umich.edu (Steve Arlow) says:
>In article <2nqhk5$q...@sugar.neosoft.com>,
>Peter da Silva <pe...@sugar.NeoSoft.COM> wrote:
>>
>>I'm interested in religion, but I'm not religious except in a sort of vague
>>fuzzy sense that if there is a god it's a programmer. I've spent too much time
>>playing with cellular automata to consider the universe as more than a very
>>big one of them.
>
>The one strong implication from that metaphore is that time is
>quantized. Is there any evidence in physics to back that up?
No evidence I know of, but the theory of quantized time has been proposed by
a few physicists and cosmologists. Unfortunately, it's been so long, I've
forgotten their names.
>--
>oh deride not / the camel / if grief should / make him die /| Steve Arlow
>his ghost will come / to haunt you / with tears / in either | Yorick Software
>eye / and the spirit of / a camel / in the midnight gloom / |s...@umcc.umich.edu
>can be so very / cheerless / as it wanders / round the room | (810) 473-0920
--
-------------
Dave Klingbeil (weaver of dreams and itinerant madman)
"If you can fill the unforgiving minute | Politically uncorrect
with 60 seconds' worth of distance run..." |
Scott Alan Malcomson
: Christianity still has problems over the status of human females, for
: example, so can be seen as less tolerant of differences than a religion
: which has a God and Goddess duality.
No, the Roman Catholic version of Christianity and the extremists of the
Protestant version are the ones with those hangups. They too often forget
entirely the original intents of the Scripture and interpret single,
out-of-context verses to reinforce their own personal beliefs. Myself, I
consider organized religion to be self-corrupting and the due to the
blind faith often placed in the pastor's definitions of what Scripture
means. I like to approach the Bible with scientific reasoning --- try to
figure out what actually went on and why, and critically examine whole
Books to determine their validity.
For instance, the Bible does mention unicorns (ha! Back onto
some kind of furry tangent!), but goes on to describe them as being
identical to rhinos. Go fig.
: And furry worlds, especially those with many different species, have
: deeper differences than those that have plagued our history.
So what's your point? What comic, specifically, is being griped about as
being "nonrealistic" in terms of having a supporting Christian-based
religion? If you don't have anything in specific, I fail to see what
you're having problems with in the first place.
---LCD
Scott Alan Malcomson
: pa.gan \'pa--g*n\ \-g*-nish\ n [ME, fr. LL paganus, fr. L, country
: dweller,
: fr. pagus country dist]rict; akin to L pangere to fix - more at PACT 1:
: HEATHEN 2: an irreligious person - pagan aj
: And all I can say to that is WRONG. That is not the definition that I or
: any of my Pagan friends use.
Talk to the dictionary folx about it. I'm not one to win my arguments by
claiming Webster to be the ultimate authority on nit-picking.
: As Far as subjects such as;
: whither furries are inherently Pagan,
Can't be. I'm not, nor are any of my characters Pagan. There you have it.
Might as well claim that all furries are Christian, which they're not.
: Whither WHO"S SINS DID HE DIE FOR was blasphemous or not
No one on this alt has claimed that it was.
: I felt a "crunch" on my paw
: too, when someone suggested that Wiccans only acknowledged a Goddess and
: not a God.
I assume you mean my assertation that many Wiccans have told me that they
do not believe in a God but only a Goddess. I did not claim then, nor do
I claim now, that this is in fact the case. Those who suggested that
Wiccans only acknowledge a Goddess are the Wiccans who told me so. My
apologies for the misunderstanding, as I don't pretend to be interested
in the ways of Wiccans myself.
: I must say though, some aspects of furrydom
: seems to have been ready made for Paganism. My Goddess came "from the
: factory" (so to speak) with fur, so sentient furries are not as big a
: mental leap for me as it might be for someone else.
Leap? What leap? I came to furry stuff through comics. Readers of comics
are used to making mental leaps all the time.
: In my case I did not
: need a C.S. Lewis to give my God(dess) fur, though I thought he did a
: WONDERFUL job with Christianity.
<shrug> He didn't give God fur. There's no one who takes Narnia as a
serious basis for religion.
: Personaly I a can associate much better
: with Ashland than I can with the conventional Christ.
Aslan, I think you mean, and the lion said nothing the man did not. Myself,
I did not like what happened in the last book. The indications were that
Aslan was simply tired of the whole shebang and ended it forcibly.
: As far as what type of God(s) a furry would come up with in their own
: development, it would certianly not be Christanity as we know it, unless
: Christ himself decided to visit them too.
Or unless the history paralleled our own, in which case Christ would simply
have had fur and the whole thing would have gone the same way. Furriness
doesn't have any bearing on the matter.
: In that case, then the furries
: in question would be "Christian" by definition no matter how far their
: beliefs were from what we now concider Christianity to be.
If, as you suggest, Christ were to visit an alternate universe of
furries, and his teachings were to be accepted and formed into a religion
as was the case with our world, then of course they would be Christian...
and the base beliefs would therefore not differ significantly.
: As far as Wiccans worshiping only a goddess - Bahh Humbug! Shame on you
: (whoever it was) for making such generalizations.
It was I who brought it up, and it was I who in the same message noted
that it was the Wiccans themselves whom I have talked to who have made such
generalizations. I also noted that while the majority of those I've talked
to held such beliefs, I did *not* feel they represented the majority.
: Sure there are some
: wiccans who are into heavy Dianic stuff, but I would not by any means say
: that it was a majority of us.
Neither would I.
: deitys to represent the quadrants. As a male being myself, I would not be
: too thrilled with an emasculating religion.
Then you can imagine my discomfort at being confronted by ardent
feminists who claim that Wiccanism "proves" that God exists solely as an
artificial construct used by males to oppress females. As a "thinking
Christian" myself, I cannot help but get into arguments with these
people. I truly detest people who seem to ENJOY hating, especially when
their reasoning for doing so is flawed at the most basic levels...
: (Katarn on furryMUCK)
BTW, please resend me your snailmail address...I've lost it, and your
commission is sitting here on my desk... -:/
---LCD
Scott Alan Malcomson
: Well, to all you Christian furries... at least you don't have to contend
: with people using YOUR god & his divine son in TinyPlots. Oh, well, I'm
: not really offended, its just that I would not feel right doing it myself.
: Being Pagan myself, my relaition to these gods is a little different that
: most peoples.
The problems with using God and Christ in TinyPlots are very simple:
A) Everyone would call you the ultimate powergamer
B) It would be rather silly for an omnipotent being to have some brave
weasel who vehemently disagreed with Him chewing his nose off in the
middle of the Park
and
C) Half the people on Furry would assume that by TinyPlotting God or
Christ, you're trying to "force" your beliefs on them and so they
either would ignore you or be continually derisive, no matter how
polite you tried to be. Hell, one of my characters gets anti-fundie
hate #mail because the character wears a little golden cross.
---LCD
Greywolf
>>about. If you had said that about Jews you'd be in the net.pillory
>>right about now.
>>
> Ok, here we go.
> Fact: The Jews have been and continue to be persecuted for everything
> from simply killing Christ to using the blood of Christian babies to
> bake matzah for about 2000 years. Although we have lived among
Gah. I had been skimming over Mr. Expletive's commentary so much that I
completely missed that comment. Since I'm commenting on just about everything
else under the sun, I feel like a heel for not covering that point.
I've been in a number of arguments with folks, not necessarily Christians, who
have plenty of nasty things to say about Jews, usually by inextricably tying
them to Israel and the "horrible way the Jews are treating the Palestinians".
Based on goings-on on campus (For example, the Ethnic Minorities parallel
Student Government refuses to recognize Jews as minorities. Why? Because
they're "white" or because they're not "disadvantaged minorities".) I will
certainly vouch that Jews are still a popular punching bag from all SORTS of
directions.
> _had_ mentioned Jews rather than Christians, I have little doubt that
> not only would it have gone pretty much unremarked here, but it might
> havegotten extremely good press elsewhere. Period.
If he made it such a blatant attack on Jews, no, I wouldn't have just let it
slip by, let alone applauded it. Attacking Hindus, Wiccans, Atheists? I'd let
them defend themselves. But as for Jews, I'm a bit resentful about how often I
see them used for punching bags and for particularly stupid reasons.
> equality, etc. In practise, however, Christian history has shown little
> of the tolerance Christ preached. If you do not admit that, you deny
> your religion in practise...the theory is fine, but one cannot overlook
> the practise.
No, "Christian" history has not been very Christian. However, I do not put
much faith in pop religion to be indicative of just what makes my faith stand
or fall. The pop view of Christianity in the media, for example, seems to
suggest some brownie-points type of religion where if you are Good enough, you
go to heaven and earn your wings, get to play a harp on a cloud after you pass
through the pearly gates, and become an Angel. (groannnnn)
> That being said, I found _your_ post extremely offensive. Typical, but
> offensive.
I find it offensive, too. Does that count?
> Ahem: he certainly _does_ have a historical basis for this: it's called
> "White Man's Burden." Admittedly, this was not totally limited to
> Christianity, but one must look to the power source when one looks at
> historical trends.
"White Man's Burden", as disgusting as the name and concept is, was still never
for the sole purpose of making people miserable. I find that hard to believe.
> see what he's saying. Another example of the fact that the original
> poster is looking at historical Christianity in practice, and you're
> looking at theory. (In this case, I think he's off.)
And my opinion is that "historical Christianity" often had little to do with
Christianity in the public arena except as a handy cross to stick on a shield
or a flag, and a God to appeal to but never obey.
Detractors of Christianity keep pointing to the Crusades, the Inquisition and
even the Holocaust as examples of Christianity in its prime. However, I
wasn't in the Inquisition, the Crusades or the Holocaust. I am interested in
what Christ taught. I am not a shining example of any of that, as I find it
too easy to shift into a mean-spirited mode when I get into arguments, but it
is not my intention to oppress people based on race. Many people seem intent
upon crushing the ideas behind Christianity by conjuring up the sins of
generations long past, and kooks in the present, who exemplify little more of
anything inherent to Christianity other than the NAME.
Given some other religion, couldn't these atrocities have still happened? I
dare say they would have, and the given deity or deities (or some
personification of Nature or Rights or Freedom or Survival of the Fittest or te
Master Race or Fatherland) would be held up instead, with the same atrocities
to be committed.
> And that "net-pillory" comment was certainly uncalled for! And it
> _certainly undermines your point about Christianity being "tolerant" of
> the other.
What *is* the "net.pillory", anyway?
> Agreed. It all depends on where the furries came from. But I tend to
> think that, assuming they have little to no connection with us, the
> chances of a religion developing that bears any resemblance to ours is
> unlikely. Not impossible, but unlikely. This doesn't let out
> Christianity, of course, merely _human_ Christianity. Of course it'd be
> different. Maybe not better, maybe not worse. But different.
Well, there IS one way that we could have a pretty much identical development
of religion. Divine intervention. =)
Scott Alan Malcomson
: In article <Cntw9...@ibeam.intel.com>
: >If we were so unforgiving of 'outsiders' why would
: >we go to the trouble to send missionaries to them?
:
: Maybe because destroying existing social structures is a very effective
: means of making peoples suffer.
<blinkblink> Okay, I *do* believe this has switched over to an anti-Christian
flame on your part, Hanno. Please provide evidence to support your conclusion
that the objective of a missionary is to make others suffer, or retract
your statement.
: >to handle the interactions, and Christianity, which was shaped
: >by dozens of older cultures, would have taken a form that fit the
: >cultures, as shaped by Jesus' teachings with respect to those
: >interactions. [...]
:
: Christianity _has_ been used to justify human slavery in the past. Furry
: slavery is obviously even more likely.
Yet another generalizing statement. It's also true that Wiccanism has been
used to rationalize feminist supremacy, but in BOTH cases those who supported
supremacy did NOT follow their own tenets, focusing only on a few phrases of
lore or Scripture to excuse their actions.
: >+ would happen to racial conflicts if Jesus the Raccoon was
: >+ crucified by the Roman equines? In short, furry Christianity is
: >+ at best problimatically odd and at worst frightening.
: >
: >Well, you've managed to make a nonsensical starting point into
: >a nonsensical conclusion. That's problematically odd and frightening,
: >I suppose, but frankly it's a clear example of garbage-in, garbage-out.
:
: This is only because you aren't able to imagine such a world. Maybe
: because it isn't compatible with the creation myth in the bible.
I don't suppose that you've noticed that what was responded to was a
theoretical world where one's RACE defined one's NATION. The Roman
Republic and later Empire commonly gave full citizenship to people in those
lands it conquered. Yet, we are given a situation where "Roman equines"
crucify "Jesus the Raccoon". The "problematically odd and at worst
frightening" scenario that's being challenged has made the concept of inter
furry racism easy because it has ignored the historical racial relations that
actually existed and chosen to define entire nations as being species-
specific. If I and those who challenge the notion "aren't able to imagine
such a world", it's because the presented world is poorly framed.
: Sorry, I couldn't resist to answer that post, but these blank "bullshit"
: anawers bugged me a lot. I'd rather not see religious flamewars developing
: on a.f.f. Discuss sensibly or take it to alt.atheism or whatever.
Personally, they bugged me too, but your replies weren't attacking his
profanity. You attacked his arguments, and your own countering arguments
support a fallacious line of reasoning. Feel free to disagree with me, of
course; I'd love to actually have a reasonable discussion develop from this.
---LCD
Scott Alan Malcomson
: In article <2nt7ps$3...@sugar.neosoft.com>,: >
: >Scientific method, peer review, etc...
: Unfortunately, for the past decade, their success has declined
: remarkably. (Need I cite examples?) I am not too hopeful for the
: future of scientific inquiry if the current trends continue. :/
It's not the methods of inquiry that are at fault...it's those who fail
to use those methods. What we're seeing is a reversion to the old ways,
where scientists are so confident that their theories will prove to be
true that they ignore anything that contradicts them.
---LCD
Scott Alan Malcomson
: Ok, here we go.
: from simply killing Christ to using the blood of Christian babies to
: bake matzah for about 2000 years.
Fact: The early Christian church did not make such allegation. These
claims were originally made to provide "justification" for race
hate in the aftermath of the collapse of the Roman Empire. In the
decades after the Diaspora, those of the Jewish faith that wound
up in Europe retained their beliefs and were often shunned as
outsiders. This friction grew because Judaic society of the time
was highly insular and shunned right back. The end result was
growing distrust that, when the early version of the Catholic
Church appeared in force on the scene, flared into open hatred.
Fact: Church laws preventing Christians from loaning to one another
(usury) gave those of the Jewish persuasion a complete monopoly
on early forms of banking throughout Europe. This, in turn, got
them very rich --- riches the Christians of the day felt were
"unrighteously" earned. As well, popular Christian theology of
the age was often made without benefit of reference to the
Bible at all. Immediate political needs, popular superstitions,
and charismatic (but uneducated) leaders incited virtually all
of the horrors inflicted on the Jewish people...all in
contradiction to the teachings of the Bible itself.
: Although we have lived among
: Christians for the entire period of time cited above, we are _still_
: considered "outsiders" in many places (including a lot of the US). This
: includes places like Germany, where Jews have been indiginous to the
: area longer than the "Germans."
Depends on what you define as "Germans". The Jews certainly weren't in
Germany before anyone else...they were latecomers to Europe. Invasions by
the Huns and other barbaric tribes (many of which originated in Germany)
turned Europe into the first truly large-scale multicultural melting pot.
Those who call themselves Germans today drawn their stock from throughout
Europe and Asia.
:
: Fact: Anti-semetism is the _fastest growing hate crime in the world._ It
: is also the fastest growing hate crime in the US. If the previous poster
:
I beg to differ. "Hate crimes" are only listed as occurs to minorities.
However, hatred for "whitey" is on the rise, and society has begun to
condone it. We have seen two black men videotaped during the L.A. Riots
smashing a white truck driver's head in with a brick. One is laughing
gleefully at his victim, and both act as though they are on a playground
and the human being beneath their feet is a toy to be destroyed at their
leisure.
For this crime, the courts did not find them guilty. It was ruled
that a brick does not represent a weapon and therefore no assault
occurred. For the "oppressive white man", there can be no justice...for
the "oppressed black man, trying to express his anger over the Rodney
King verdict", there can be no crime. I would contend that if hatred for
Jews is the Number One hate crime on the rise, then we whites are right
behind you in second place. America is beginning to balkanize along
ethnic/racial lines.
: equality, etc. In practise, however, Christian history has shown little
: of the tolerance Christ preached. If you do not admit that, you deny
: your religion in practise...the theory is fine, but one cannot overlook
: the practise.
I don't deny the history. Nor do I deny the base causes for that
history, of which I've tried to give a thumbnail sketch above.
Nonetheless, it was not these reasons that were being quoted as an
excuse for racial hate towards furries, but Christianity itself.
: >interactions. If you bother to investigate, you'll find that
: >that's what happened when the Jewish cult of the Messiah spread
: >to the Gentiles.
: >
: Ahem: he certainly _does_ have a historical basis for this: it's called
: "White Man's Burden." Admittedly, this was not totally limited to
: Christianity, but one must look to the power source when one looks at
: historical trends.
Even "White Man's Burden" was not intended as an excuse for slavery. It
pointed out that at the time it was written that Europeans had the most
advanced cultures on the planet, and that it was the duty of those better
off to try and help advance the cultures in Third World nations. Perhaps
misguided and arrogant to a certain extent, it didn't condone slavery. The
poem was written by Kipling, I believe, and if you've read his other works
(especially "We and They") you'll note that he was fully aware of the
differences between cultures and morality.
"We eat pork and beef
With cowhorn-handled knives,
They who gobble their rice off a leaf
Are horrified out of their lives!
We have doctors to fee,
They have wizards to pay,
And isn't it scandalous!
They look upon We as only a sort of They!"
: And, from what I've seen, Christianity was shaped more by Paul's
: teachings (as far as encorporating other cultures) than Christ's. But,
: quibbling aside....
I agree completely. And you don't want to hear my theories about Paul.
: And that "net-pillory" comment was certainly uncalled for! And it
: _certainly undermines your point about Christianity being "tolerant" of
: the other.
The comment related to the fact that had the original poster stated that
paganism would be a more "likely" religion than Judaism, instead of
Christianity, that accusations of racial/religious intolerance would have
been flying. You may think this paranoia on my part, but you don't get
people sending you hatemail about your FurryMuck character wearing a
Jewish star (I get it for one of my characters wearing a little gold
cross). This entire discussion began when someone challenged the notion
of a furry being Christian as inherently flawed to some degree, saying it
was "more likely" that a furry would be pagan or Wiccan.
---LCD
Scott Alan Malcomson
: In article <1397.29...@evaware.org>, dave...@evaware.org (Dave Bell)
: > And furry worlds, especially those with many different species, have
: > deeper differences than those that have plagued our history.
: (shrug) Furry worlds are fictional. The religious outlook of the denizens
: can be argued in pretty much whatever direction you want. If you're
: dead-set that any SENSIBLE creature would be an atheist, then who's to
: argue to that your ideal fantasy world won't be populated solely by
: atheists?
Hear, hear! Well-spoken, Bruce! -:) (with apologies to Jordan)
---LCD
Scott Alan Malcomson
: IMHO, if Wicca believes in more than one God, it's "pagan". (And then we have
: a voice from the peanut gallery: But what about the Trinity? groaaaaannnn.)
But of course! The Bear, the Broad, and the Holy Spooge...the First Furry
Church's Trinity, or hadn't you heard? -;>
(for those uninformed among you, the FFC has existed as a joke religion,
doing spoof Devivals at conventions across the country [well, okay, at
CF4 and at Philcon once or twice]. We don't take it seriously, and
neither should you. BTW, the Holy Spooge is Hellman's Mayonnaise, so if
you were thinking something else, getcher mind outta the gutter...yer
blockin' my snorkel!)
: (FTPG: But what about the Old Testament and all that slaughtering as part of
: the taking of the Holy Land?
I don't doubt that a goodly chunk of that was the high priest of the time
excusing the actions in the name of God...there are very few places in
the Old Testament where God himself blows away a threat to the
Israelites; mostly he supposedly tells so-and-so to go and do things like
killing everything in the city, including the domesticated beasts, or to
take the men inside as slaves but kill the women and children. Very
inconsistent with God's will elsewhere in the Bible.
---LCD
Scott Alan Malcomson
: Atheism is simply the belief that there is no such thing as "God".
: You may believe that the entire platform of the Nazi Party follows
: logically from this single postulate, but others may disagree... :,
Nor did the Nazi Party feel there was no God. Far from it. Germany
in 1935 was heavily Roman Catholic.
---LCD
Scott Alan Malcomson
: I can make an argument that "missionary work" is perhaps the one
: activity of certain Christian sects that is truly, literally, *evil*.
: It is the willful and deliberate destruction of other cultures and
: dispersal of thier population. And the only excuse given for this
: practice is "it's for their own good."
I'd LOVE to hear the argument backing this one. Willful and deliberate
destruction of other cultures? I can only interpret that as meaning that
the missionary converts the populace, who are told that their current
ways of life are heathen and set about to change things, generally with
intent to modernize. Modern medicine, systems of cultivation, and more
help to reduce illness and starvation throughout the Third World. This is
evil?
As to dispersal of population, where did you get THIS?! No
missionary has the means to do any such thing. You're probably referring
to the forced relocation of tribes, both here in the U.S. and abroad,
which was and is being done by governments, not missionaries.
: (Is this topic still "furry"?)
Considering that its basis lies in the concept of Christianity being a
"reasonable" religion for furries or not, and that historical examples
are being used to defend and attack the idea of religiously-driven racism
against furries, I think so. Sidetracked to some extent, but there's an
end to the road later on that'll relink to the main highway. -:)
---LCD
Peter da Silva
Scott Alan Malcomson <hors...@indirect.com> wrote:
> The problems with using God and Christ in TinyPlots are very simple:
They didn't stop people from having that idiot War of Good and Evil. If
that doesn't count, I don't know what does.
Steve Arlow
>smashing a white truck driver's head in with a brick. One is laughing
>gleefully at his victim, and both act as though they are on a playground
>and the human being beneath their feet is a toy to be destroyed at their
>leisure.
> For this crime, the courts did not find them guilty. It was ruled
>that a brick does not represent a weapon and therefore no assault
>occurred.
^^^^^^^^
Ahem? I don't think so. If such a precedent were set, gang members
everywhere would be carrying bricks... And everyone knows they
carry baseball bats, not bricks. :,
Anyway, unless I am mistaken, when Reginald Denny was "at their feet",
they bashed his head with a fire extinguisher, not a brick.
Steve Arlow
>
>: I can make an argument that "missionary work" is perhaps the one
>: activity of certain Christian sects that is truly, literally, *evil*.
>: It is the willful and deliberate destruction of other cultures and
>: dispersal of thier population. And the only excuse given for this
>: practice is "it's for their own good."
>
>I'd LOVE to hear the argument backing this one. Willful and deliberate
>destruction of other cultures? I can only interpret that as meaning that
>the missionary converts the populace, who are told that their current
>ways of life are heathen and set about to change things, generally with
>intent to modernize. Modern medicine, systems of cultivation, and more
>help to reduce illness and starvation throughout the Third World. This is
>evil?
Okay: "We're here to help you. We'll cure your sick, teach you
knowledge undreamed-of, give you better clothes, tools -- we'll
help raise your standard of living in every way. And all we ask
in return is that you give your soul to our God."
This seems to me to be no different from the bargain that
Mephistopheles offered to Faust. Only the names have changed.
Scott Alan Malcomson
: In article <2o21b2$r...@herald.indirect.com>,: > For this crime, the courts did not find them guilty. It was ruled
: >that a brick does not represent a weapon and therefore no assault
: >occurred.
: Ahem? I don't think so. If such a precedent were set, gang members
: everywhere would be carrying bricks... And everyone knows they
Who's talking about gangs? I made it clear that this was an incident that
occurred during the L.A. Riots, where thousands of NON-gangbangers filled
the streets of South Central L.A. . And if you DON'T think that this was
the verdict, check the papers at your local library. As to the preference of
Crips when fighting it out with the cops, I have no doubt that any one of
them would tell you they prefer the higher rate of fire and superior
range an AK or MAC-10 provides over the legality of brick use.
: Anyway, unless I am mistaken, when Reginald Denny was "at their feet",
: they bashed his head with a fire extinguisher, not a brick.
You are mistaken. An extinguisher may also have been used, but it was
found that the brick did not constitute a weapon. Under the same guidelines
used, a fire extinguisher would also not constitute a weapon. The
heftiest charges brought against Denny's assailants were dropped on basis
of this finding. Your tax dollars at work in our criminal courts.
---LCD
Scott Alan Malcomson
: Scott Alan Malcomson <hors...@indirect.com> wrote:
: >intent to modernize. Modern medicine, systems of cultivation, and more
: >evil?
: Okay: "We're here to help you. We'll cure your sick, teach you
: knowledge undreamed-of, give you better clothes, tools -- we'll
: help raise your standard of living in every way. And all we ask
: in return is that you give your soul to our God."
Yup...emphasis on the "ask". Missionaries aren't known for turning away
from tribes that want the assistance but initially don't want to change
their religious beliefs. They bust their tails to help out starving
people in some of the worst backwaters in the world, and all they ask is
for a chance to make their views heard. If that's too much to ask, then
why don't we shut all the church-run missions across the U.S. down? After
all, that bowl of soup and place to stay for the night requires that you
hear out the pastor's sermon...not a whit different from overseas
missionary work.
: This seems to me to be no different from the bargain that
: Mephistopheles offered to Faust. Only the names have changed.
That, and the fact that there is no way to actually bind someone's soul
to anything on a permanent basis. Faust's decision was irrevokable, black
and white. In the hinterlands of Africa, you tell a tribesman that his
soul now belongs to your God because you showed him how to till his field
better and he'll laugh in your face.
---LCD
Dave Bell
SA> (Is this topic still "furry"?)
"Maus"?
It is getting a bit adrift though.
Dave
... When I hear the word "culture" I reach for my phaser.
Tony_Lee...@cup.portal.com
>>the beliefs of their creators they might have no religion at all?
>>--
>Well, it would be rather odd to think of them as 'Secular Humanists.'
>:-) :-) :-)
Secular Humanoidists???
How about Agnostic Deists? I.E., "There /might/ be a god, and if
there is, this is what he's probably like..."
Tony_Lee...@cup.portal.com
>"Goddess" looked like they do... or simler anyway...
It seems that way. If you look at all the wide-ranging parts of the
world where Christianity has been introduced, you find that they always
depict Jesus and Mary in the form of the local race.
According to the Jerusalem Bible:
God created man in the image of himself,
in the image of God he created him,
male and female he created them.
I'm sure the passage in King James is similar, though I don't have a copy
on hand here right now. However, that is from the FIRST account of the
creation -- a bland and probably apocryphal story tacked on by an editor
somewhere along the way. The second account of creation is the one with
some real life in it (this time from the Book of J):
Before a plant of the field was in earth, before a grain of the field
sprouted--Yahweh had not spilled rain on the earth, nor was there man
to work the land--yet from the day Yahweh made earth and sky, a mist
from within would rise to moisten the surface. Yahweh shaped an
earthling from the clay of this earth, blew into its nostrils the wind
of life. Now look: man becomes a creature of flesh.
Here it doesn't say anything about creating man "in the image of God" at
all. Indeed, later in Exodus it describes Yahweh appearing in several
forms: a burning bush, a pillar of fire, or smoke.
I'm not sure most furries would like the Christian God as he is currently
known. However, I think they might find the ancient Yahweh more appealing,
as he/she/it was known to J and her people. If you've never encountered
the Book of J, you might check it out. It's thought-provoking, at any rate.
Tony_Lee...@cup.portal.com
>with any religion or ethical code with a golden rule, even the wiccan
>"an' it harm none, do what ye will", struggles with an inherant flaw...
>we have an annoying tendancy to break it.
Is that wiccan? I thought it was Libertarian!
>I think Christianity would have to undergo a drastic
>philosophical change to fit a world of furries. Not that any of the
>basic beliefs and principles would have to change... more of a sweeping
>reform of definitions. The previous post about defining "in God's image"
>as sentient is a great start.
I think the "in God's image" part is probably not part of the original
account of creation, but rather something tacked on by an editor at some
later date. There is some evidence to support this...
Anyhow, remember how Yaweh's angel appeared before Moses as a burning bush,
and Yaweh spoke to him from it? Now look at the picture of a robot bush in
Mind Children (by Hans Moravec). A hundred thousand times as intelligent
as a human, with complete control over the structure of matter around it --
the robot bush would be almost a godlike creature.
Just a coincidence, I'm sure.
Tony_Lee...@cup.portal.com
>several courses: either a more encompasing, earthly religion
>(Wicca-style perhaps or maybe something parallel to American Indian
>spirit beliefs), or a progenetor worship (take Albedo and think how
>easily human-worship could evolve).
I don't think so. In the Albedo world, you have people following a
modernist philosophy -- one that exalts reason over emotion, science
over superstition. They have never even been exposed to the /ideas/
of mysticism or religion, and there's no particular reason to think
they will invent such things.
Steve Arlow
Scott Alan Malcomson <hors...@indirect.com> wrote:
>Steve Arlow (s...@umcc.umcc.umich.edu) wrote:
>: In article <2o21b2$r...@herald.indirect.com>,
>: Scott Alan Malcomson <hors...@indirect.com> wrote:
>: > For this crime, the courts did not find them guilty. It was ruled
>: >that a brick does not represent a weapon and therefore no assault
>: >occurred.
>: ^^^^^^^^
>: Ahem? I don't think so. If such a precedent were set, gang members
>: everywhere would be carrying bricks... And everyone knows they
>
>Who's talking about gangs? I made it clear that this was an incident that
>occurred during the L.A. Riots, where thousands of NON-gangbangers filled
>the streets of South Central L.A. .
You deleted both the trailing smiley. That last sentence was supposed
to be humor: "then why doesn't everyone carry a brick?" In any event,
you have clearly misunderstood the ruling. Whether the brick was or
was not a weapon is irrelevant to the question of weather an assault
occurred. One does not need to have used any weapon at all to be
found guilty of assault.
Whether a brick is a *deadly weapon* can determine whether the crime
was just "assault" or "assault with a deadly weapon". But the
determination that a brick was not, in this case, a *deadly* weapon
has not set any new legal precedent, as you seemed to imply. That
kind of ruling can easily go either way when the weapon is something
other than a gun or knife.