Paul's Passing Thoughts

Many thanks to Furry Fandom sources contributing data/information for the book. This post is an important link for you—you may contribute additional information anonymously by commenting below. No comment will be posted and only seen by TANC members working on the book, and you do not have to post your email address. For those who want to refer to their former contributions, your identity will be confirmed by your prior contributions. I am particularly interested in previously shared information that I no longer have access to.

Thanks,

Paul Dohse

Many are still scratching their heads because of my focus concerning the Furry Fandom, and that includes myself during the beginning of the research. But, research on the Furry Fandom has led me to a greater understanding of countercultures.

Countercultures are groups that reject cultural norms, but in many cases, this is the symptom of a greater problem: who is responsible for the cultural norms? Answer: people. Rejecting cultural norms is merely the result of having a problem with humanity itself. Philosophy is a focus of TANC Ministries, and this is a very philosophical subject.

So far, the book is leaning heavily towards identifying the Fandom as an anti-human counterculture, and many of my findings can be applied to philosophy across the board, or spectrum.

If you want to reject humanity and the norms it creates, would there be any better way than becoming an animal? Though becoming an animal, is, of course, impossible, the community norms of animals can be adopted as a lifestyle and a  means of rejecting humanity. These same elements can define many other anti-human ideologies.

Interestingly, and much touted in the Fandom, is the promotion of nonsensical gibberish. As an adolescent, I loved listening to 60s rock music, but could not stand to listen to musicians like the Beatles and the Monkeys talk. The conversations were always overly animated and nothing but annoying silliness. I believe this was a 60’s counterculture calling card that rejected human logic. Rejecting human seriousness and the “mundanes” (an idiom for humans) was a theme of the 60s counterculture promoted in comix magazines that were widely popular during that time.

I have heard many comments about the Super Bowl commercials this year and how they made no logical sense for humor value or anything else. I watched them, and took note of the fast paced animation and steroidal silliness. In other words, some sort of sound logic is no longer selling a product, but what someone remembers as a visual subjective experience and its attack on the senses.

There are a lot of dots to connect, but I believe anti-humanity ideologies need a lot more focus and study.

paul

We have been hit with a lot of news lately about tragedy visiting the rich and famous. Some are rich and famous for un-profound reasons while others enjoy riches and fame because of their profound impact on society and history.

In both cases, all of those involved speak of their endeavor to be right with God. Indeed, no matter what you have obtained in life, death levels the playing field, completely, and questions what the future holds. Everyone knows God holds the keys to life after death. The Bible states that God has implanted that truth in every individual and a denial of such is “suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.”

When you have it all, or the more you have, death has more to take away. Success only amplifies the eternity question. Some of the famous who have everything except a get-out-of-death–free card share their plan for meeting God, while others keep it private.

Evangelicals and church folk in general will be concerned with the doctrinal aspects of one’s plan for dealing with the death issue.  Church orthodoxy loves its pithy truisms like, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions” while being directly responsible for creating insurmountable barriers to finding the truth about salvation. All churches are the same; they would all love to have a monopoly on their version of the gospel and the power it would give them. There is no power like having power over someone’s eternal destiny.

Jesus acknowledged religion’s efforts in hiding the truth about salvation for its own gain. Church is particularly guilty of that. In response, He promised that those who seek will find. Curiously, this points to an individual seeking. Jesus wasn’t in the least bit impracticable; so, why wouldn’t He cut to the chase and tell seekers to find a local Baptist church? Especially since Baptists believe that John the baptist was the first Baptist pastor. I’m not kidding. How stupid is that? Even as a former rabid Baptist pastor, I laughed out loud when I heard it in a sermon. With that said, though I was doing a lot of LOL before LOL was cool, an honest seeking can be taking place in any given church or no church at all.

Motives do matter; for example, the thief on the cross wasn’t theologically savvy in the least and didn’t quote any Rabbis. By no means am I endorsing soteriological ignorance, but I do think we should consider the verse that states, “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.”

I believe good doctrine enables people to find salvation easier, and leads to a more abundant entrance into God’s kingdom not infected with doubt. Nevertheless, God is  attentive to those fighting to overcome the obstacles of institutional religion.

But, when one is at death’s door, little is more important than the quality of the entrance.

paul

As human beings, we have desires of all kinds. In regard to some of those desires, society is a hindrance. If we are running late for work, a desire forms in our heart; a desire to arrive at work on time, and also, a desire to avoid repercussions for being late, but societal law calls for speed limits. Actually, this one event can lead to the formations of many desires; for example, a very strong desire for the car in front of you to move out of the left lane and into the right lane.

Desires often clash with societal norms and laws. The closest thing we can get to living out those desires without society objecting is a thing called, “fantasy.”

Suppose a culture announced the building of a new town with its own jurisdiction. Everyone in the culture is free to live there or not live there, it is purely a choice. The town is called Freedomville because there are no laws or cultural norms; everyone is free to live according to their own desires. The only law is the freedom to live out personal desires.

Initially, would the town be popular? What would be your thoughts about such a place?

paul

Don’t get me wrong, I think Prager U is a godsend. That’s why I was surprised at this video where they toe the line on traditional church orthodoxy. Secondly, regarding this view, they mange to contradict themselves with another viewpoint, which for them, is another anomaly.  First of all, I reject the premise of the question, “Is mankind basically good or basically sinful?” But, if you would have to choose one, “basically good” is the best answer. Perhaps I will present that argument in another post, but for time sake, this post is about the argument that Prager presents against its own view.

Overall, Prager U presents the idea that basically sinful people can create things that are basically good and teach people to be good. In addition, in the aforementioned video, Dennis Prager states,

Ok, then, are people basically good? As I will show, given humanity’s history, the answer should be obvious. Of course, human nature isn’t basically good. Now, this doesn’t mean that people are basically bad. We are born with real potential to do good. But we are not basically good.

This is why I say the question itself doesn’t have a proper premise. And, it wouldn’t be correct to say that Prager is totally onboard with church orthodoxy which is more consistent on this issue. In fact, church orthodoxy states that mankind cannot do any good work because mankind is basically evil or “totally depraved.” So, Prager is kind of half-pregnant on the issue.

Biblically, we find that the “works of the law” written into the being of everyone born into the world teaches us what is good and evil and either accuses us or excuses us. This is part of being created in the image of God.

Prager, in the video, offers the following point to prove his thesis: if man is basically good we wouldn’t need to create laws or teach children to be good. Plus, historically, people have done really, really, bad things. Well, historically, people have done really, really good things. And, children do good things that they have never been taught to do. And, laws created by men are often good, right?

However, Prager’s greatest contradiction is in this video that is otherwise profound. He states that America is an idea that has been a greater force for good than anything else in human history as far as governments are concerned. Hence, the idea that America needs “fundamental change” is an idea vigorously rejected by conservatives.

I contend that those who create something fundamentally good are not fundamentally sinful.

paul