Paul's Passing Thoughts

Subject: Some more questions

What is a cult to you? How do you feel about Harry Potter, DND, Pokemon and harmless stuff like that? What other sects and cults have you looked into? How does one find truth?

Also, I have been reading Religious Tyranny case study. I find it interesting I’m definitely going to check out some of your books. When you publish the Furry stuff will it just be the blog or will it include more information? Will paperback be available or just digital?

Answer:

Very good questions that I will continue to share with our readers. A cult is any person or movement that combines authority with religion. When any religion states that they have been granted authority by God…that’s a cult. Cults came into being after the American Revolution. Why? Because prior to the American Revolution, we had church states. Church states are not cults. Yes, church states combine authority and religion, but it is an overt authority through state force. When the American Revolution put an end to the church state, the church had to use manipulation to control people and the kingdom of cults was born.

So, first, cults claim authority from God, and secondly, must use manipulation and deception to control people. And yes, as you have alluded to in prior emails, this makes the doctrine of hell suspect. Don’t get me wrong, I presently believe in the doctrine of hell, but because of the fear and control factor of it, I will be revisiting this doctrine. In fact, I am thinking about making it the subject of our yearly conference in 2020. At the very least, I believe we look at the doctrine of hell in the wrong way. Christ and the apostles didn’t emphasize it that much; actually, very little. Why? I consider myself a Pauline theologian, but I can only recall Paul writing about hell once. Considering the gravity of the doctrine, why is that?

So, a cult is the claim of authority from God and the use of deception and manipulation to control. Therefore, church is a cult. Between the first and third centuries, Christianity was a sect. Sects are both good and bad. A sect is a cooperative group unified by agreement on central ideas or beliefs and apart from mainstream tradition. This does not exclude agreed upon organization as well. When the most influential apostles died circa 66 AD, the huge debate of apostolic succession began. This was the idea that Christianity needed to be ruled over via a central hierarchy. At that time, a struggle began between the pagan-state and the apostolic successionists which became church (the institutionalization of Christianity). Religion had always been in bed with the state in the form of paganism. With the advent of church, a struggle ensued between the pagans and the church for Rome’s favor and the enforcement of orthodoxy by the state. That’s why the church set up shop in Rome because it was the epicenter of Roman power and influence. Yes, this is the beginning of the Catholic Church. In circa 350 AD, the church won against the pagans and the church state was born. The church state thrived until the American Revolution accordingly. So, the church first hijacked Christianity, became a church state, and is now a cult.

An In-depth look at the above can be found here:
https://www.academia.edu/17123936/From_Christ_s_Assembly_to_the_Institutional_Church_Part_1

And here:
https://www.academia.edu/17124061/From_Christ_s_Assembly_to_the_Institutional_Church_Part_2

One might ask why there is such an evident desire among people to control others. This is why I believe the Bible; it is the only work that gives answers to these kinds of questions. According to the Bible, control-lust is the essence of sin. A desire to control others drives sin. The Bible also states that sin uses condemnation to control others. So, those who are convinced that they are unworthy are going to let you control them, no? All you must do is convince them that they are “sinners” or “totally depraved”…no? But this also includes criticism by others. Sure, there is “constructive criticism,” but in most cases criticism is all about gaining control of others in some way. Primarily, Christ went to the cross to end condemnation and the subsequent enslavement to sin.

The Furry Fandom is therefore a sect and not a cult like church. However, the Fandom’s way of eliminating condemnation is to make everything acceptable, and the Bible states the following about that: it’s not love of self, God, or others. Due to the way we are created by God, all wellbeing comes from earned self-esteem, or a truthful evaluation of self. The Fandom skips all of that and becomes another being of their own making. Rather than being yourself and partaking in person-building, another identity is assumed using whatever building codes you feel like using. The one thing all Fursuiters readily admit follows: it’s escapism, but they frame it as some sort of virtuous escapism.
Another notation: according to the Bible, if one is not born again, sin is able to use the law to create desires that are against the law. The term “law” includes the Bible, the conscience, and the laws of nature. To answer your question on how truth is known, the Bible states that truth is intuitive, but sin creates desires within that refute that truth deliberately. Hence, what is plainly natural becomes a desire for unnatural things. The Bible addresses this in Romans chapters one and two.

Our research involves the above which includes many sects and cults. Our main focus is contemporary church trends like the New Calvinist movement. I wrote “The Truth About New Calvinism” in 2011. However, we have done a lot of research on world philosophy via our associate John Immel. My wife, Susan, another associate of this ministry has done extensive research on the Puritans. I wrote the book, “The Church Lie” with another TANC associate, Andy Young.

The Furry research will be in book form (perfect bind paperback).

By Paul M. Dohse Editor/Author for TANC Publishing

I want to use this post to keep our readers up to speed: NO, we are nowhere near ending the series which will be turned into a published book. Lulls between parts are due to research which will include psychological studies that I have found. The Fandom has been officially classified as a personality disorder by some Psychologists and also associated with certain types of Bi-Polar disorders. Meanwhile, I received the following redacted inquiry via email by a Furry group. It reveals some more details about where the series is headed.

Received via email:

For the past couple of weeks, we in the group have been reading and going over the post. We find it to be a look into someone that has just discovered what a fandom is. We find it fascinating this is why I keep coming back and trying to get answers.

Our final questions are:
1) What is a contra reality? We think we got it but it is a weird term.
2) Is furry the first time you have ever encountered an internet community?
3) Why do you focus so heavily on the negatives and act like that is a general representation?
4) What are your opinions on other fan communities?
5) I have been asked to bring this up… Bronies
6) What makes furry different than any other online community?
7) Are you personally part of any subculture or fandom?

For us, things like subcultures, fandom, avatars, fake names, alternate identities are common online. Truthfully your post seems to be geared towards older people than younger people. It confused everyone under 35. Our chat wants to finish up the puzzle before we move on. Thank you for your time it has been fun and enlightening -Dub Mutt

PS. Would you happen to know of any good book on church history, the bible or Christianity?

Response:

1. It’s an anti-reality. It deliberately rejects God’s order of things. It rejects natural revelation and poses a reality in contrast to God’s creation.
2. Hardly. Our organization has researched several sects and cults over the years that are internet based.
3. Because that’s how Fandom describes itself. We have only begun to research the group, but one upcoming post will address the Burned Fur Manifesto. This group was formed as far back as 2005 because, “Anthropomorphics fandom is being overrun by sexually dysfunctional, socially stunted and creatively bankrupt hacks and pervs” Note the word, “overrun” as far back as 2005.
4. We research sects and cults that are driven by an ideology. Most “fan” organizations can rightly be considered mere hobbies. We make our case extensively in the posts thus far as to why Fandom is not a hobby.
5. There are KEY differences between the two groups which is going to make a good post. The contrast serves to expose Furry Fandom for what it really is.
6. See #5.
7. NO
   PS. Yes, a book I published with Andy Young titled: “The Church Lie and the Biblical Alternative.” Go to tanc.online and either purchase it or read it online for free.

Live Link: https://boxcast.tv/view/the-potters-house-sunday-fellowship-101319-galatians-220-557007

Related link: https://paulspassingthoughts.com/2014/03/14/john-macarthur-was-for-baptismal-regeneration-before-he-was-against-it/

I don’t think President Trump is a great communicator, though he is a great doer.  If you listened to his explanation for pulling out of Syria at the end of his Minnesota rally, you heard an emphasis on individual soldiers and their personal testimonies, but no clear explanation for pulling out of Syria other than, we must stop the “endless wars” policy. If you understand  that Trump is an individualism purest, you can read between the lines.

More than not, American war policy is about the individual’s sacrifice for the country. That’s not really the core of American ideology. America was founded on individual equality and a government for the people and by the people, but for the individual is implicit.

Though the question for Americans in regard to war is usually; “How many American lives would be lost and is the cause worth it?” an individualism purist like Trump is going to ask, “Is the cause worth one American life?”

Take Vietnam for example; the war wasn’t brought to a swift end because we were afraid of Russia. Obviously, if the United States had decided to invade North Vietnam to end the war, it would have been over in short order. Was our fear of Russia resulting in an anemic war plan worth 50,000 lives? Hardly. When Nixon decided to end the war, he did the next best thing that stopped short of forcing a standoff with Russia; he ordered a blockade of North Vietnam. He dropped sea mines in their harbors and bombed all of their railroads and the war was shortly ended thereafter. America won the war at that point. When Watergate happened, everyone knew the impeachment of Nixon would result in North Vietnam invading South Vietnam; no one cared. For the Democrats, getting Nixon out of office was worth more than the 50,000 lives spent in Vietnam.

This is just fact: American solders are expendable for American politics and political wars in general. How do we know? The cost of a war will be expressed in numbers of lives. Have you listened closely to the arguments against Trump’s withdrawal of troops from Syria? It goes something like this: “We are only there giving support for the Kurds and they have lost 11,000 troops while we have only lost a couple of hundred; we are getting a lot of bang for the buck!” Those who have American ideology backwards will always ask how many lives will be lost rather than the following: “Is the war worth one life being lost?” This question weighs the effect on a single family when they lose a young member who had a whole life to live. It reflects the proverb that says, “He who saves one life saves the world.” This is the true measure of life value.

Trump weighed everything going on in Syria including the lack of equal effort by those who have more to gain than us and decided to pull out. Besides, these are wars that Trump inherited and his approach to war is much different because it is based on individualism: he will go in with the full unhindered force of the American military, destroy the enemy, leave abruptly, and leave rebuilding to whom it may concern. Why?

Because the loss of one American soldier is one too many. When Harry Truman found out that an invasion of Japan would cost 700,000 allied and American lives, he decided to use the A-Bomb instead. Trump would use the A-Bomb to save one American life. He measures the cost by the effect on one family, not a hypothetical number of expendable lives.

That’s the difference between collectivism and individualism: one measures the value of life by numbers because it’s a collective mindset, while the other measures the value of life by one. It is the shepherd that leaves 99 sheep to find the single lost one.

paul

The whole widely accepted idea that Christians should read their Bibles must be qualified. If you ask the average Churchian why they should read their Bibles the answers would be varied and interesting. Being a Churchian, it’s just another thing in a list of other things that they do while having no idea why they do it.

So, according to orthodoxy, according to their spiritual heroes, according to the original tenets of the Protestant Reformation, what is the purpose of Bible reading? Answer: Bible reading is one of the “ordinary means of grace.” What’s that? Church is a salvation PROCESS. There are no exceptions. And consequently, according to the Bible, in every case where salvation is not finished one remains under law and the law’s condemnation. In other words, church orthodoxy is biblically defined as pertaining to the unregenerate. And by the way, contemporary mainline Protestant leaders state this publicly all of the time. You are either under grace or under law, you cannot be both, but actually, church claims that under grace does not change your state of being, but is part of the salvation process while remaining under law.

So, why read your Bible according to church? Answer: it aides you as an “ordinary means of salvation (grace).” As you read the Bible, the goal is finding self-condemnation for purposes of returning to the cross for more Jesus, or in other words, more salvation. This is the extreme antithesis of what the Bible states regarding its purpose. According to the Bible, it is the source for learning how to love God and others with no fear of condemnation. In contrast, when Protestant pastors promote Bible reading, it’s the former purpose they are promoting without the parishioners even knowing it. On Sunday, during the “gospel preaching” anything read in the Bible during the week is reflected back as condemnation. It promotes a “lifestyle of repentance.”

Sounds good, doesn’t it? Problem is, it’s a backward look for purposes of gaining more and more salvation rather than a forward look that promotes love. The idea of finding love in the church is an orthodoxed oxymoron unless you are talking about more salvation as the only love prism. Argue with me if you will, but I will quote Calvin and Luther extensively and the argument will be over.

paul