Throughout my time in the zoo community, I have met many zoos of many sort of backgrounds, including those with religious upbringings or those who've acquired religious beliefs. Muslims, Catholics, atheism, Protestants, etcetera. I know it's not strictly zoophilia related, but I suppose it can still affect some in how they go about their lives or in ways that it might have shaped their childhood upbringing and "coming to terms" with being a zoophile.
I'll start: I grew up in a Pentecostal family, though we faded out of the strict church schedule stuff in my early teens due to family issues and wavering of faith. I as an individual went through my own hesitations in faith as many Christians do at times because in the Western sense of what God is/is painted as it can be hard to believe. Lots of contradictions and whatnot. I still really benefited from the sense of community of my Church and youth group and stuff though. I put religious faith aside several years before realizing my zoophilic tendencies though so it didn't play much of a role in coming to terms--that was much more the social bearing of it that was a struggle for me.
These days, I'm no longer religious but I actually have a strong sense of spirituality. Not in like a magic-stone-tarrot-card sense, but rather in the sense that we were all born from this earth collectively making up what it is today. I guess it's more in line with eastern philosophies in that we(and the universe) as the "art" are one in the same with the creator. We are, in a sense, the same energy that came out of the big bang or whatever created the universe, constantly being recycled. I believe there is a "creator" not in the sense of some reigning god per se but something intelligent beyond our comprehension has created everything and we as individuals play both the part of the creator and the creation. That being said, I can't say what the point of good or evil is objectively or where the mind goes when the body dies or anything like that but I'm also fine with not knowing. Given the full outlook of what I believe which is more than I can put into just words on a page I try to utilize that to try and make a positive impact as an individual throughout my day-to-day life and just generally be a "good" person.
These beliefs have helped a lot in my contentment of being a zoophile because I guess I could say its just like, my dogs and I doing our time in this world that nobody really fully understands, you know?
But yeah, this got kinda wordy. Feel free to share! Just your affiliation(or lack thereof) or a whole essay if you want lol. I think it's pretty interesting hearing about what peoples' personal perspective of the world is and how they fit in. ✌️✌️
Pantheism... c:
Cool thanks didn't know there was a word for that. Mighta been mentioned before but I just either missed or didn't bother to look up lol.
"a doctrine that identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God."
It goes in pair with science, it just makes you wonder how small you are in the cosmos and how nature works to the point you can see in it the representation of divinity itself.
This has been asked like 100s of times.
But I guess I'll still answer it.
No, I have not fallen for bullshit that humanity had made up at some point.
No, I am not a sheep who can't think for himself. No, I was not exploited as a child by making me believe shit without evidence exists.
No, I don't believe what I want to believe. (Or at least not in this case.)
No, I know that fictional things will stay fictional.
If by hundreds of times you mean twice, you're right! Sure, perhaps it has been discussed more other places but given its been many months since it was last brought up in any degree it's not a problem to recycle topics.
Question: How do you think the universe began if not for a major event enacted by something? Or do you believe it has always just been? Science calculates that the universe probably came into being around 13.7 billion years ago.
I'm just saying.
And yes, it's probably one of the most common topics that have been reposted. In such a small timespan it's not really handy to ask again.
Maybe when we get new members, but it's always the same humans we have here.
I do not know and not anyone can know.
However, what I do know is that a god doesn't exist. The theists need evidence and they don't have it and for that reason it's 100% bullshit.
It doesn't even make sense with the rest of the world, have we ever seen something so supernatural? Yeah no we never did.
Religion was made in the dark times when humanity needed an answer from thousands of years ago. The humans of the past were even more gullible than now and so it had spread for allll these years, sadly.
Yeah, that's why you should believe in magic. If I claim a fictional character existed and obsess over it I'd be put in a mental hospital.
And science is not always right. I'd say it makes a fuckton more sense than religion, but to me it's not accurate.
We can't know and won't know.
I don't believe either, but...
Futurama, huh?
I don't watch it, but it made me think of: https://d.justpo.st/media/images/2014/09/bb27dec7b38c4628d8bed389e6325603.jpg
Futurama created an accurate depiction of the future interpretations of religion. It's quite interesting to see how a show with such a basal facade carried the depth that it did. The screencap you showed and the scene I showed are in the same show for a good reason. In Futurama, there are gods, and even though the religious body in that universe would still struggle with proof, they're actually right.
That's a very brave statement. They need to prove god existence indeed, but if you say god doesn't exist, you need to prove it too. No proof doesn't make statement 100% false. Internal contradiction makes. Or by god you mean Christian god, then yes, that's 100% bullshit.
That's not how logic works.
If you don't have evidence, it's not true.
It's not complicated, it's just how it is. We don't make an exception for religion.
Also, I already explained why the logic of these crazy bastards don't make any sense.
nO u n33dz 2 prove that iss rong furst hurr am wetarded !!!1!!
No, if you don't have an evidence for something, you should estimate it's false. But it's not enough to be sure it's false. A few hundred years ago people didn't have an evidence that bacteria exists. And now we have.
I'm not sure if I understand you properly, but if you want an evidence, here you go: Christian god is omniscience, but somehow changes his mind. He is also omnipotent, people often say "god can do everything". But how can he create something he can not destroy? I can show maaany contradictions, just tell if you are interested.
Exactly as you put it, and in the same way conversely you have no proof that a higher power certainly does not exist so it's uncertain in both directions. It's unknown.
That is an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
If I don't have proof that elephants exist, that doesn't mean that they don't exist.
If there is no evidence, it only means that the claim can't be taken as a fact. The claim can still be true or false (pending evidence)
I don't disagree that there's probably no God, but can you explain how it is that you know this? Have you somehow inspected the entirety of the universe and failed to discover such a being? Is failure to discover something evidence of it's non-existence? (Hint: no, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence)
Statements like this are effectively no different than "I know there IS a God", it's an announcement of faith, not fact.
I'm with you there. If I started talking about my invisible friend, folks would think me mad, but call it God....
Edit:
It depends on which God you're talking about, that makes total sense in Pastafarianism (Flying Spaghetti Monster). The scripture teaches that he actively hides from discovery, that if you could devise a test to show his existence, he would change your data and remain hidden. See, PROOF! We can't find him so he must exist! :P
With the same logic the police might as well question everyone in the world when a crime happens.
''Where's the evidence you didn't do it?'' Same logic.
What bothers me is that we never use this kind of logic anywhere else. But when it's religion, suddenly you have to proof that their bullshit isn't true even though they don't have any evidence themselves.
In crimes and science we don't use this fucked logic either.
same for santa, he vandalized me as a child :(
That's not logical. It's pretty hard to find evidence that something didn't happen, which is why we tend to require evidence of something existing or happening instead of the opposite. You can test specific claims, such as showing that followers of the Flying Spaghetti Monster have the same illness and recovery rates of non-believers and show no effective difference, but that is still not positive evidence that He does not exist.
Where's the evidence you didn't travel in time to assassinate Lincoln? It's a wholly invalid claim and the usual, "anything asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" applies here. Unless there is positive evidence to show you traveled in time to assassinate Lincoln, that a magical Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, or any other unfounded claim there's no logical reason to accept such a premise, but it does not show that such a premise is positively false.
More to the point, you claim you know there is no God. What is your evidence for this? If you say that you looked and didn't find one, how is that any different than someone rejecting microorganisms before Leeuwenhoek's invention ofthe microscope? Failure to find something is never evidence for it's non-existence.
Here's my claim. The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the Universe. He actively hides his existence from those attempting to find him. Show your work, show how you can prove this being does not exist. Without examining the entire universe, you can't. Even if you had the ability to make such an inspection of the universe, finding no evidence is still nothing more than a failure to detect, not evidence of absence. Since I have provided no positive evidence for the existence our Our Noodly Creator there is absolutely no reason to believe in Him. He could exist, unlikely as it may seem, but again, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
I largely agree with your assertions, with the exception of your unfounded claim that you can know for a fact that there is no god or gods.
Agreed, because I used your logic.
And then we decide if it's true or not. Since we can't prove a god exists, it doesn't exist. Same logic used.
You missed my point, if someone is killed then why is not everyone on the world questioned because of it? It's the logic you use as an excuse, so...
If you use the same argument again, then I can just do the same: ''And then we decide if it's true or not. Since we can't prove a god exists, it doesn't exist. Same logic used.''
The burden of proof is on them, not me.
This logic is not used outside of religion and there is no good reason for it.
That is not logical. Going back to the example I hinted at earlier, before Leeuwenhoek invented the microscope one was unable to prove the existence of microscopic organisms. Did these then not exist and only sprang into existence the moment someone looked into a microscope to witness them?
Absolutely, which is what I have been saying over and over. There's no reason to believe an unfounded claim. Be that a claim that a god exists or the claim that you know for a fact that a god or gods do not exist.
I note you have again failed to address the question of how it is that you can know for a fact there are no god or gods. Yet here we are, several replies in and you still haven't addressed the issue which was the core of my initial comment.
With the same logic the police might as well question everyone in the world when a crime happens. ''Where's the evidence you didn't do it?'' Same logic.
My answer is that they have to prove it, not me.
That's just not how logic works.
You are missing the point entirely. Instead of answering the question you quoted, you offer a red herring. If you would answer the question, we will get to the heart of your misunderstanding.
To reitterate, before Leeuwenhoek invented the microscope one was unable to prove the existence of microscopic organisms. Did these then not exist and only sprang into existence the moment someone looked into a microscope to witness them?
You are the one asserting that you know for a fact there are no gods, you've provided no logic, evidence, or even any reasonable attempt at discourse to make your point. You have offered nothing but evasion.
Which is not a point of contention. You have once again not bothered to address the question, which is, "how it is that you can know for a fact there are no god or gods?"
In law exists something like presumption of innocence. Take a look at the first word, "presumption". It's not "certainty". You say that accused is always innocent at first and when someone finds an evidence, poof!, he suddenly turns guilty. Doesn't it look stupid? Doesn't he turns guilty when he do something illegal, not when someone finds an evidence he did? So he had been guilty all the time, we just didn't know it and presumed he had not.
I do not believe in a god. I am presuming with a high level of certainty that one does not exist, because we have proven many gods nonexistent and do not have evidence for any actual gods. Gods were primitive mechanisms used to explain things we did not have any understanding of, like the weather, love, fertility, etc. However, I will never say that I'm more than 99.99% sure there isn't a god. We do use this logic elsewhere, other people have adequately explained the issue with the criminal analogy. The scientific term is hypothesis. A hypothesis is something that we have a hunch about and are going to search for evidence to support, but at the outset, we have no clue whether its true or not. If we find evidence, then we turn our hypothesis into a theory. If we don't, we still don't necessarily dismiss the hypothesis as false, because other findings could come along and independently verify the hypothesis. We at that point of no evidence will however presume the hypothesis is false. We presume god does not exist, we do not know with certainty. There is a lot of uncertainty in science. I hope I've illustrated how the logic isn't some special magic logic dedicated exclusively to religion. There are such magic things we unfairly give religion, this just isn't one of them.
"My answer is that they have to prove it, not me." Having heard this exact same sentence from believers (predominantly those of monotheistic religions), I assume you aren´t aware how much you are similar to those you seem to despise for their beliefs.
And to introduce a few fresh toughts here, what if mankind is searching for a "god" in the wrong places, in the outside world? What if "god" is within us? Not hardware, but software?
And would you please explain what god you don´t believe in? Is is Christianity´s god Yahwe? Or is it the montheistic gods in general (YHVH,Jahwe,Allah)? What about the polytheistic religions , what about Zeus or Jupiter and their respective pantheon? What about the naturalistic gods, the tribal gods of shamanic cultures, voodoo gods, norse gods? What if all these are actually inside us, as "software", yet to be discovered? What if there is a god, but he´s like the street artist Banksy, never returning purposedly to what he clandstinely created ? Being a convinced atheist thinking that he holds the ultimate truth is like being a Satanist , totally opposed to Christendom, but never recognising that he actually believes in what the bible says, but from the "opposite" perspective? Who believes in the "Horned God", not realising that Satan/Lucifer (Latin for "The Light Bearer", btw...why is HE bearing the light and not the old, bearded guy from above?) is nothing but a distorted vision of the Greek god Pan mixed with the old Babylonian god Behemoth and slight hints of the naturalistic god Herne?
There´s one book I strongly recommend you to read: It´s written by Terry Pratchett and titled "Small gods". Terry Pratchett´s books generally are good reads, humorous and witty. You really should give it a try.
"In the phase of the Vietnam war, a Buddhist monk poured gasoline onto himself and burnt himself to death as a protest against the war. As he burned to charcoal, he just sat there, not making a sound, never faltering until life has left him. American scientists saw this and wanted to explore why this man sat peacefully, awaiting his demise calmly and in acceptance. They asked psychologists. They asked doctors of medicine, they asked biologists, they even asked Christian priests "Why was this man sitting there, accepting death in bliss? How is that possible?" No one could give them a conclusive answer. All came up with models of explanation, yet failed to fully explain how the monk did it. The case was closed unresolved. They haven´t asked ONE GODDAMN BUDDHIST! NOT ONE! And that´s why this planet is FUBAR and why life is SNAFU."
"When I was 8 or 9 years old, I acquired a split beaver magazine. You can imagine my disappointment when, upon examination of the photos with a microscope, I found that all I could see was dots." (Principia Discordia)
WarCanine, I hereby and according to my powers delcare you a Discordian Pope. You cannot do anything about it, but don´t worry, it doesn´t hurt and you definitely are not the first atheistic pope in human history. Have fun being a pope. "Reality is the original Rorschach." HAIL ERIS. ALL HAIL DISCORDIA!
What would both a guilty and an innocent man say? "I didn't do anything!"
Same thing. What even is your point?
Also, they need the evidence indeed. They are the ones that claim something is true, so they need to prove it.
Is the answer really not so obvious? Use my logic.
"If there's no evidence of existing, I know it doesn't exist." Answer: No god.
Are you serious mate? God is manmade.
Don't think like that, it shows you fell into the trap of a sheep.
I will never read any books you recommend.
...Unless it's about things that seem impossible. No, not books about religions and gods.
Oh I guess that fits me since I loved touching an underage animal.
Good, now I can molest them more.
I was brought up to believe in the Christian god, but I no longer believe in that character. I am an atheist. We came to exist through natural processes, evolution. We may not understand exactly what caused the big bang, but we've traced our history to within seconds after the big bang's occurrence. Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean we need to come up with magic to explain it. That's what we did when evolution was too complex for our understanding. We came up with Genesis or the creation stories from other religions. That's the neat thing about science. We don't know everything yet. I'm very tollerent of religious people though, and have close friends of many different faiths. So this isn't an attack or anything, it is my worldview :D
Do you mean that we have traced down to the seconds of the universe's formation in regards to the theory of the big bang? That is what I'm aware of at least unless there is another theory you're talking about involving the creation of early humans seconds after the big bang lol.
I think you must have understood. I said "but we've traced our history to within seconds after the big bang's occurrence." Meaning that we can trace the history of the universe to literally seconds after the big bang. I suppose that is somewhat ambiguous the way I said it. When I said our, I mean that the basic organisms were in play from seconds after the big bang, and we've traced all of that. There aren't significant gaps in our knowledge from there on out. The gaps in the fossil record that people would point out in years gone by are no longer missing. I'm not a historian or biologist by trade, but I am a science enthusiast. :)
I used to be a catholic, now I'm the closest to an atheist. My zoophilia definitely had a bug impact on this subject. Curiosity why god thinks bestiality is a sin made me searching for the reason. In bible. Many atheists will say you this is the best way to become one of them. Just read a bible. I found an answer, well, two answers; one can be used to ban breathing ("People who lived in the holy land before you have been doing the same") and second was just "I'm disgusted by those people". In the meantime I found much more problems, ridiculous laws etc. Now I just don't know if there is any god, afterlife or if the universe is created by someone, but it doesn't look like. Maybe we have a creator, but if so, then he/she/it just initiated everything and eventually manually change things sometimes. I've got a theory that we are in some kind of simulation, probably experiment, but maybe just a program made for fun. But this requires ability to save the universe in limited amount of data. It can't be infinite. String theory may break this. However I haven't analyzed this subject enough to be sure. And of course it was not proven yet, but it made me doubting.
[deleted]
Thanks.
I'm really surprised someone put there something like this:
There won't because of our physic. We can use electricity, or some other phenomenons more effectively and therefore increase our processing power, but it doesn't affect how much processing power is needed to keep physic working. If this problem was occurring, it would be rather related to corpuscular-wave duality or would be just overcame by longer processing Planck's time.
I'm an atheist, and always have been, myself. My Mother was religious, but she was an armchair Christian if I had to put a name to it(note: Very religious, just not in the sense that she actually read the scriptures). I've always placed extreme value on my place as an individual, though. Everything is its own being(or thing, rather) by necessity, even in a theoretical hive mind, and while many are connected, related, or at least effectual on others in some capacity, we really are independent of one another in most ways.
While I do contemplate my actions based on how they'll affect the bigger picture, I don't subscribe to any idea of collectiveness due to origin. It's an elegant and beautiful concept, to be certain, but it is also a somewhat scary simplification that seems to divorce the individual from their individuality. Personal identity is one of the things I value most in myself. It's easy to lose it with a lifestyle like mine, milling between commercial research and personal research with little else but this to fill in the gaps. In a way, a shift in your identity and personality is akin to death. As we change and evolve, we become less and less like we are, and were. Becoming rigid is no better, but it's a chilling thought for me, the thought that a single life is really a chain of death and rebirth.
I also fear that a philosophy of shared origin as a means to promote peace, positive actions, etc, is more an exploitation of the ingroup bias than an answer I would want myself. That's not to say it's bad, but it just isn't the solution for me personally. I know my thoughts on this matter, but it's proving rather arduous to articulate them, and certainly impossible to do so with any semblance of brevity. We just are, but because we are as we are, we have meaning, and assign meaning to everything around us, what is, what happens, what was... but we should never assign negative meaning to something we don't yet understand ourselves, nor should we take on the meanings other people assign it as our own. Meaning is most valuable when it is sculpted, rather than materialized or taken. 'Should' and 'valuable' don't accurately represent my thoughts here, mind. There just aren't any words that suit the ideas they represent. I can't really say much more than that on the issue of how I approach issues and things because the rest is beyond my verbal understanding, frankly.
I personally separate myself from issues of good and evil and reflexive 'shoulds'... as far as I can, anyway. I have a unique thought process, I suppose, in that I don't think that criminals, for instance, deserve x for doing x, but rather that enforcement against them is currently among the best outcomes.
Anyway, I think that's all for now. I'm ending this with an incomplete thought, but I'm tired.
Right I think we've talked about this a bit more lol.
It's funny you say that bit because I personally think being art while simultaneously creating art is pretty beautiful lol. Individuals have a level of individuality, but the universe also has a way about things where everything ends up being recycled at some time or another. I see it as only fair that us as the individuals we are are as well, and also humbling. But yeah again that's just my viewpoint of the whole thing lol. What a great surprise it would be to one day not die but rather wake up to see that you were not the "one" that you thought you were, but rather you were behind every mask, every thing, that ever was all along, playing a long "game" with yourself, if you will.
I can relate to trying to separate from good and evil as one thing often always is to the benefit of one and to the loss of another, and that's just the reality of it but I have a strong emotional sense of empathy so it can be a fight to always view things objectively, and then getting into the loop of being a "free" individual with agency and whatever but that also meaning that I can choose to play that role in my life because of that etc etc. if that makes any sense lol.
Technically I'm an agnostic-atheist, but it's easier just to so I'm atheist. I don't really feel spiritual or believe in any higher power or deity. I used to believe in God (Christianity) but stopped when I was around 12/13years old. My family is kinda mixed... My grandmother strongly believe in God (Christianity) and my dad do believe in God but not in a strong way, while my mom is more spiritual and believes in energies...
Technically, being an agnostic AND an atheist is impossible. You cannot be undecided (agnostic) AND simultaneously say that god does NOT exist at all (atheist). Or, of course you can be both, but then, your ability to think coherently within a logical system would be in question. Not to mention that atheism in itself isn´t science, but another belief system (spledidly abbreviated as BS). Atheists BELIEVE there´s no god, they equally fail to provide any hard proof of their beliefs as Theists, the ones who claim a god exists. Theist = 1, Atheist = -1 and Agnostic = 0 or proton (+), electron (-) and neutron (0)
You can be a agnostic-atheist. If I said I was a atheist I would say that I know for sure there is no god, but I don't...
Theist = There is a god. Agnostic-theist = I don't know, but I do believe in god. Agnostic = I don't know. Agnostic-atheist = I don't know, but I don't believe in god Atheist = There is no god.
I was raised pretty hardcore (but not hateful) non-denominational Christian, and both me and my parents are much less hardcore now. I do still consider myself Christian because the basic beliefs are still there, but I'm not really traditional and I've incorporated some other things into my spiritual path. I do believe in energies, that animals have souls and go to Heaven (my family was never the type of Christians who didn't think that), and have researched Buddhism and follow some aspects of that as well. More on the philosophical side than the religious though. I'm a pretty spiritual person overall, more spiritual than religious. I don't follow a lot of the traditions of Christianity or go to church.
I did struggle a bit when I first realized I was zoo. But I think my parents' beliefs actually helped a lot with that. The only part of the Bible that specifically condemns bestiality is Leviticus. We obviously don't follow all of the laws outlined in Leviticus, why would we pick and choose? Based on what we read in the New Testament, Jesus was the fulfillment and replacement of the Old Testament laws and made them obsolete, we don't have to follow the laws given in Leviticus anymore.
I'm also bisexual and figured that out before I figured out I was zoo. I view being zoo somewhat similarly. I view both bisexuality and zoosexuality as something inherent that I was born with. If God had an issue with either of those things, why would he make me that way? Or I figure at least by now I would've gotten a message that I was living in sin lmao. But I don't believe I am. I've always been passionate about animals and being zoo has driven me to understand, care for, and appreciate all the animals God has created even more. If anything, it's a positive thing that's helped shape my understanding of animals and nature. If God has a problem with that, I'm pretty sure He'd let me know.
Right, Jesus was purportedly sent here to forgive our sins since all humans, even the best of 'em, are sinful by nature. It's too bad a lot of religion these days looks less at the teachings of Jesus these days and instead tries to preach other things that are more divisive. He was all about love and respect for all, a truly dope dude. And although I don't treat the Bible as scripture the church would make a much better moral compass for people if they focused more on trying to have people follow in his footsteps.
My family (and myself by extension) have never liked traditional organized churches for exactly that reason. So many get wrapped up in traditions or teaching their own interpretations of things, and not actually what Jesus himself said. Both of the churches my family were a part of for many years were very non-traditional and lined up with this mindset (first a Vineyard church and then a non-denominational one). None of us go to church currently because we haven't found any others like that. Personally I'm at the point where I don't really want to go to church anyway, I'm doing well with my spirituality on my own and am more comfortable that way.
Have you stop to consider that god is actually evil? Why be against murder and create serial killers. And if I where you, I would not side with your god, your god has been specific about sending zoosexuals to hell. And your god has supported the genocide of gays and zoos. Why take his side when your god clearly is not on your side?
Why do you do this?
He should know with who he is dealing with. So maybe he can free himself from that evil god. I'm just trying to help him.
How that can help? Why do you think his belief is bad? He successfully dismissed toxic fragments by considering them bad. It makes him happy. Even if he's wrong, that helps him. Don't mess it up please.
He is supporting a evil god that wants innocent people to be murdered and in suffering.
Is some one that supports Hitlers actions a bad person with bad believes? Most people will think yes. Replace the christian god with Hitter.
Yet, still supports an evil god. If a jew dismissed the evil fragments of Hittler and focus on the good stuff, would that means is OK for that jew to support Hitler? NOPE.
And doing cocaine helps people with depression, that doesn't mean is OK to let it happen. Such people needs actual help to deal with their depression. I'm trying to help him by letting him know that his god is evil and not much of a god. if he wakes up from his religion and becomes atheist/agnostic, he will thank me later. Like thousands of other atheists/agnostics that thanked people who help them get free from evil religions.
Anyways, all I'm doing is trying to make him think about his god. If he never does that he won't see how bad that god is.
To support - no, to follow those good parts - yes.
Because cocaine causes another problems. It returns to the argument that he rejected bad parts of faith. Rejected by considering wrong, not misunderstood. I don't see a problem if someone's views makes him better person, even if they are irrational.
Why do you care? You think this god doesn't exist, so it doesn't matter what others or bible says about him. In this case only what Battlecrops thinks matters. "he won't see how bad that god is" and what? Maybe he just doesn't want? If it doesn't influence his decisions in any harmful way, then you should explain that only if he asks you. You can do more harm than good.
A Christian that calls himself a Christian is supporting god. All the good and ALL THE BAD parts.
Just like religion causes other problems, like discrimination of sexual minorities.
While still supporting a evil god and his evil deeds.
Irrational believes leads to harm. Religion itself is proof of that.
Why do you care to know my motives?
I'm agnostic, I don't believe that dog doesn't exist. That would be an atheist.
The bible is one of the reason zoosexuals gets discriminated and prosecute. The less people supporting that irrational book the better.
if he doesn't want to see it, then there is nothing I can do to help him.
Doing nothing also does more harm than good. The less religious people we have the better.
I grew up as a hardcore christian until my parents found out it was pretty much a hypocritical bunch of folk acting righteous. we've then been church hopping every so often, and whilst my elderly bounce church, I've stopped going altogether.
The thing you pointed out with Leviticus is simple to me, try living like those standards is downright impossible. I feel that that it's point is really; to show that to follow "God's standard" is impossible. That's why he sent the redeemer after all. I know I "sin" and consider it part of life, I'm human, I have "imperfect" feelings, part of life.
I know I cannot live a perfect life, and I've found that trying your hardest still makes you fail anyhow (and beat yourself over it). Paul himself had something in his life, that he couldn't conquer. (most likely a sin) Even though he is seen as the founder of the church and saint, he still was imperfect (and don't get the previous life where he chased folk down for believing something else)
When it comes to religion, I still believe in God, that might very well be from the hardcore raising, I do not know. For me, I feel that there is something there, I call it God, it's familiar, and I'm alright with it. It doesn't hold me back developing, it doesn't affect others negatively so there isn't any downside. One can call me a retard for talking to "God" when I feel shit, but it helps me focus, and that is what matters. It also contains good guides on how to treat other people and a firm base for a moral compass. One of the most important rules is: Do unto others as you want to be done unto you. TL;DR: don't be a cunt
I wouldn't want to be judged if I share something in trust, so neither will I judge others when they come to me. Sure, I have an opinion of it, but I wont tell it unless you ask for it.
As of zoophilia, like gay, or stealing, lying, cheating, gossiping and judging, its a sin. Not a single person is perfect, the first one who comes to claim that he is righteous, can sod off and lick my donut, I don't need fools around me. This is my main issue with church, Jesus' and his teachings didn't care if you were a sinner or not, he wanted to be around you anyway. Boy, if you said you were gay, or zoo, hide boy, they gonna tar and feather you with judge-preaching, because they hold the key to curing you. They know the truth, they know how to live your life.
If anything, Jesus warned that this judging is the most dangerous sin of all as it makes other hearts cold. Sadly, the majority of the church seems to have forgotten this.
The church we used to go was somewhat like a pissing contest, who was the most righteous, did donate most of his money, did most volunteering, did evangelize on the streets most, ect.
Im not a fan of organised religion and I dont believe there's an all powerful god but I do think there is some kind of higher energy of the universe or something like that. without getting too hippy the more in touch with nature I get the happier I become. I think theres something powerful out there that I cant quite put my finger on.
also karma exists. good things happen to good people. hence why my life is pretty sweet :P
I feel that 100% lol. Nature is where it's at; it's too bad society is slowly creeping further and further away from it instead of integrating it better into its future planning.
Nice. yeah, capitalism is a drug that people dont even realise theyre hooked on (inb4 /r/im14andthisisdeep). buying shit is good fun but all it does is leave you poor with tons of shit to take care of. I'm happy as long as I have a dog and a motorbike. simple living is where its at and appreciating nature goes hand in hand with that. Also nature's free!
Yeah as pseudo deep as it is its totally true. I've been getting rid of my possessions over the past year and its great not only to have the physical space but mentally its just been such a huge relief knowing I only have to worry about a few essentials.I'm getting myself into the position to where I can focus on life experiences rather than owning things. The whole hippie life seems like a really attractive and adventurous one lol.
man, exactly. I never used to understand travel because I figured you never really own anything from it. I always thought having something would be better than doing something. oh how wrong I was. I'm trying to make up for lost time at the moment and all the holiday I get off work I've used on going to europe on the bike. The people I've met have been amazing, the places I've been to have been stunning and the little slice of life type things that have happened I couldn't even have imagined.
Theres so much stuff out there to explore I'm gutted I left it so late, and I'm not even close to calling myself old.
I'm Christian but I can relate to this too. They say God is in everything He created so to me, I feel closest to God when I'm in nature. For a good while instead of going to church on Sundays, I would hike into the woods and spend the day there. I feel much more connected to God in the midst of nature than I ever have in a church service. Nature also plays a big role in the non-traditionally-Christian aspects of my spirituality.
Isn't it great, that ability to feel such a connectedness with the world around you on such a raw and emotional level. It is not bound by any given religion but rather an emotion you can hone to feel more in a given setting.
One reason I've gotten more into philosophy lately is because in part of the idea that God is in everything, granted I was not looking at it in the biblical sense but in what I'd mentioned earlier, in that we are all in a way in part of the same creator and creation. Introspection and pondering philosophy and really just digging around in your own mind can be an amazing way to reflect on the ways of the world, especially if you can bring that pondering out and discuss it with other people. Nobody can measure how deep the mind goes, or how big it is from the inside. It's like the reverse of prodding at trying to get to the far reaches of the universe lol.
It has nothing to do with how I go about being a zoo, but I'm an agnostic atheist. People tried to brainwash/indoctrinate Baptism/Christianity on me as a kid, once I got to my teenage years and figured out that it was BS and started exploring other spiritual paths. I discovered wicca/paganism and LaVeyan Satanism and that stuck throughout my teenage years. Then I got to my 20's and started to think anything organized and practiced as such was BS. I became a hard atheist for a while, up until a couple of years ago when I was going through a lot of self-changes, which included wanting to be as open-minded as possible while still retaining my personal values and knowing my personal experiences are not other people's personal experiences. I also had to think really hard about what happened to me growing up and how I could just dismiss the fact that I grew up in a haunted house and that I've experienced paranormal things that can't be explained by science or reason. So, I became an agnostic atheist, because while I personally don't think any gods exist, I do believe there is something spiritual about the universe and there are things that we don't know about or can't be explained. For all I know, my haunted house experience could be aliens fucking with me and my parents for entertainment value, or somehow someone in the future invented a time machine and what I saw was some trace of visitors from the future. I just know that I'm not delusional for seeing what I saw or experienced, because both of my parents saw and experienced the same thing.
Denying the existence of a "god", yet believing in something like a "great game plan" within all isn´t being an agnostic, this is called being a deist. Hell, how I hate shoving exact terminology in everyone´s faces...;) An agnostic says that you can´t prove the existence of a god, but neither can you disprove it, thus remaining neutral. Gnoscere = latin for "to know"..and an agnostic is someone who simply says that we cannot make any verifiable statement about god/gods because we just don´t KNOW. Deism isn´t so bad though...deism doesn´t need a "god". Sensing/feeling something bigger than us in the universe without manifesting it as a "god" is absolutely fine with me. Much like the Gaia-hypothesis before the spiritualists desecrated and defiled what was a holistic scientific theory into esoteric mumbo jumbo...what does this "newbies coming in, knowing little, understanding less, defiling the core basic ideas with their bullshit" remind me of? Hmm, I can´t guess it...;)
I was raised in a nominally christian home, but we were encouraged to ask hard questions and to find answers to our questions.
Probably due to being raised to believe in a diety, I spent my early years experimenting with various belief systems, trying to find one that was not only internally consistent, but that actually worked in the world we live in. In the process I read a lot of religious texts; several versions of the Bible, The book of Mormon, Vedas, Sutras, Upanishads, etc, etc, etc. I've read so many that I've honestly lost track. I've also read a lot of philosophy; Plato, Lao Zi, Epicurus, Zoroaster, Hume, Bentham, Mill, Skinner, to name but a few. So don't think that I've just lazily decided there isn't a diety without actually looking.
Eventually I had to accept the position of atheist. I don't claim to have the answer and if someone could show me compelling evidence for a divine being I'll gladly examine it, I've been doing so for decades and haven't found any yet. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence though, so I keep looking and I do enjoy talking to the faithful.
On that note, I have talked to many people about faith. I don't tend to bring it up, but when it's tossed out I am loathe to leave it there unexamined. I'm rather proud of the fact that I have helped a few people learn how to think clearly and to test claims made by their religion, many to the point of them rejecting their former beliefs. I don't particularly care if someone believes in a creator, but it's a pet-peeve of mine for people to claim to have The Answer and to not bother applying it, so I'm a prone to poke holes in the promulgations of the Righteous(tm). On the flipside, if someone is honest in their belief, I'm more than willing to help them find inspiration in their faith.
I'll even go one step farther and put forward something I accept, but I don't have hard evidence for. It's probably unknowable, at least in my lifetime, but I am swayed by the evidence...that freewill is an illusion.
In the end the "answer" doesn't really matter because whatever happens is gonna happen
That's a tautology, of course what happens happens, how could it be any other way? It doesn't provide any useful information though.
I think it does indeed matter though, one can spend their life trying to figure out how our world works or one can accept an assumed truth that all non-belivers must die. It's an extreme example, but the result of either of these is not only significantly different for the individual, but for the rest of us as well. One of those paths will result in expanding consciousness of the world we live in and the other in attempting to snuff that consciousness out in others.
Even in less extreme examples the difference is still quite apparent. I can believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster heals all believers who eat spaghetti on Fridays, but that is going to have little effect upon a growing cancer in my body. Not all answers are equivalent, they yield vastly differing results. Maybe that doesn't matter for some people, but for those pushing that they have a more correct answer that is demonstratably false, it is a disservice to leave them in error. If I am in error I am very unlikely to discover that error on my own, I will only compound the error unless my folly is shown to me and I am led to understand where and how I am in error. Given, some people are not open to correcting their errors, but those people are typically not interested in real answers to begin with.
Edit: FFS, proof-read and still missed typos
I was raised with some what christian parents. I was never gullible enough to drink all that bullshit. IMO: Religion is a waste of time, world would be better without it, not mentioning that half of religions wants zoosexuals stoned to death and are the cause of most anti-zoosexual laws. I can't understand how some one can chose to be a christian when he/she is also a zoosexual when their own god wants them death and burning in hell.
PS: I'm Agnostic.
Autistic, Aluzky...the word´s autistic.
I mean to say Agnostic.
Gotta remove this, dude. I don't like Aluzky either but he didn't say anything dumb in this post, and you replied just to insult him.
Also being autistic isn't an insult.
What? This wasn´t meant as an insult, it was an honest estimation what Aluzky suffers from. No insult meant here. Though being autistic isn´t an insult, acting toxic like Aluzky is doing under practically every single yt vid dealing with "zoophilia" yearns for an intervention. He damages our public image more than any anti could by simply proving all "their" prejudices to be true and accurate.
Since I´ve come to the conclusion that Aluzky is suffering from an actual mental defect, I don´t joke about or insult him anymore. I may seem like a total asswipe to many in here, but I won´t make fun of people who are actual mental cases. And this isn´t meant in a derogatory way, it´s just what I see shining through his posts, his style, his actions, his emotionless display of himself in here and elsewhere. Delete it if you want, but that doesn´t change a single thing about the issue "Aluzky". Out of sight, out of mind tactics don´t work...
A year or so ago you told me autism was "made up," caused by "helicopter parents," and "it's society that's nuts, not you." Changed your opinon since then? That's good, but you also literally just used the phrase "autistic screeching" in a comment a few days ago which... doesn't really help your case much. But since you said that recently, with that context, I think it's understandable why I thought this comment here was meant in an insulting way. Your track record with this subject isn't great, so I was going off what I had heard from you before.
I agree there's probably something up brain-wise with him. But it's just not really appropriate (and kinda in poor taste imo?) to "diagnose" someone based on their internet comments and actions and present that "diagnosis" as 100% truth when talking about that person. Whether he's autistic or not, that's still not an excuse to be toxic or an asshole (which he is), and that's what should be addressed when talking about Aluzky, not speculation about his mental health or disorders.
I can live with that reply as a conclusion...
Ever hear of the flim/play Equus? "Equus is a play by Peter Shaffer written in 1973, telling the story of a psychiatrist who attempts to treat a young man who has a pathological religious fascination with horses" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equus_(play)
I'm atheist, and was raised in an atheist family.
For me, religion is like a cancer. A way to come back to middle age just because "It's heresy !!!" (of something close).
Science is my true religion. Knowledge is my way.