Someone mentioned the seben deadwy sinsies on a thread on @infraredturbine’s Folly of Hope series (which are amaaaazing) and I am going to try and do seven bad, bad fluffies.
That pink one fills me with a great rage
Lets look at this biblically since it is themed around a Catholic philosophy.
According to orthodox doctrine as well as some biblical teachings its a far greater sin to inspire sinning in others than to do something yourself, with harsher punishment and far more difficult atonement. That’s not really in question here.
Now, who here is causing the sin? The father has taught the son his wickedness and indoctrinated him to a tradition of gluttony. The son is encouraging his behavior by accusing the accusers of impropriety. Its not clear if that is a Bestest or merely a son idolizing an uncaring father, but it has learned from the father regardless.
In Christ’s teachings the enablers have done wrong, but are differentiated from the sinner and the pure alike. The “little ones” are lead, but not yet walking their own path so much as the shadow and footsteps of those who they learn from. But there isn’t a distinction of when someone is held accountable for themselves. Clearly they are still young, based both on size and the fact he acknowledges them as adolescents.
In Old Testament scorekeeping the children aren’t innocent of shit, you start in the negatives and will mostly go down from there. Though going by purely OT its not exactly clear if there even is an afterlife or punishment of any kind beyond an undefined vague “rest” in the same eternal darkness for literally all things that die. In these accounts minor acts are really unimportant, humans are punished or rewarded based on the tenants of civilization which is why animals are kind of allowed to do their own thing.
So since Fluffy behavior can either be seen through the lens of social contract because they have free will or programming because they are too dumb to actually make decisions, we just have to evaluate their thoughts. Since the father is equating doing a bad thing is knows is bad as a punishment, it is making a choice here. Thus, it is sinning. The pink one seems to have an ingrained idea of right and wrong based on learned hierarchy and privileges, meaning it is choosing to follow a system but the system it was taught is flawed.
Of course this presupposes humanity. Fluffies are partly human, but partly basically everything else. Biblical teaching on animal life is obviously rare although the first humans outside of Eden had to be given permission to eat meat, beating an animal for no reason gets you a harsh reprimand, and the blessed ride horses and are followed by doves even in celestial realms. Literally nothing indicates beasts may be judged by anyone, divine or mortal.
Finally, its a recurring theme that sons can sin against fathers because the duty of a child is to obey, but fathers kind of get to do what they want. Even cause the deaths of their children, so ling as it is actually their children.
So I’d say the father has not sinned by Old Testament standards. Neither has the pink child. Only in New Testament rules is there any wrongdoing, but only in that the father has taught the child wickedness. Its unclear what the punishment is, only that it is recommended someone should drown, starve, or remove the limbs from themselves before even considering leading another astray. This is self-punishment in life though, there is only the implication of some unbelievably horrible fate if you don’t check yourself or at the very least atone for it.
THAT SAID: the OT does give you permission to treat your kids like extensions of yourself, so as long as you adopt the Fluffies you can punish away. In the NT the punishment is totally god’s thing, although the loophole is that you can kick them out and let nature do its thing to them as long as you don’t engineer a fate like putting them in a yard with an attack dog or whatever.
That’s why oldschool sin is both fun and dramatic. Drama because you can’t do anything about it, fun in that villains are allowed to be as shitty as they want until sudden MASSIVE KARMIC FUCK YOU from fate. Though an afterlife with every Fluffy who ever lived as your equals and nobody can hurt each other because god says “FUCK YOU THAT’S WHY” is less fun.
I love you.
Mama always said you can learn things from the most unlikely of places
I’m here for tiny horse abuse and I receive lessons on Catholic philosophy.
This is amazing, I’m willing for the next ones!
Now I’m kinda hoping to see each of the sinning fluffies in their appropriate circle of hell. I think this guy has the poopies room waiting for him hell.
It would be kinda funny if fluffies ended up being held to the same biblical standards as humans, just because they have some human DNA and are somewhat conscious.
Yes that was me, thx
How dare you bring tempered theological discussion to this sacred site of feces and cartoon violence
I would slowly cut up the father and feed him to his kids.
Except the pink one. That one I’d slowly feed to the father.
You committed the greatest crime a fluffy can, Yellow.
The world is a cruel, unfair place to tiny horses.
Can you imagine a church hearing their philosophy discussed in relation to gross, retarded, cartoon horses?
I think Slayer’s got Lust covered.
I’ll post the list if I have to.
Well hell, I love that idea too….since we are going full Catholic, I need to now figure out where each fluffy ends up in the circles of hell! Advice and ideas welcome!
My headcanon has a tenth circle of Hell.
It was built for all the fluffy abusers who go down there.
Modern Catholic doctrine, at least as far as the official chain of command is concerned: “ Whatever gets people thinking, which is the first step to getting asses on pews”. Even under the last pope that was their thing, recommending episodes of shows and cartoons which promote discourse such as Simpsons and Futurama, rule on whether things like Pokemon and Harry Potter are okay for kids (they are), and even evaluate some video games now. Though many folks disregard this advice, which is why you can get suspended from Catholic charter schools for things that are recommended as ways to explore what faith means and promote good lessons.
Local tradition is whatever the priest says. In French southern America you have Cajun Catholics with their own saints no matter how many times the Vatican clarifies they are non-canon. From Rome is the rule vaccines are fine and its actually immoral not to get them, but on the local level you can easily find a priest willing to give you a writ and contact the anti-vax friendly press saying Catholics cannot get vaccinated and your rights were violated by the mere suggestion of it. According to the faith the Pope is god’s representative on Earth and his word is law, but plenty of Catholics call the current pope a “liberal piece of shit” and just disregard everything he says and does.
All points aside, as fucked up as Fluffies as a subculture are they would likely see analysis of it through the religious lens of debating out how AI and human genetic chimeras pertain to scripture, doctrine, and philosophy.
Because of the Abuse, or just something ironic for whatever their other sin was?
Each sin goes to each of Dante’s designated circles, right?
Unless we start talking about the path of redemption, or some new additions to the concept specifically for Fluffies.
Given how fucky and metaphysical while somehow also still having meat the afterlives of most religions is, Fluffies could reasonably be stripped of their programming (brain-attached bulb in my reckoning) and judged by the choices they actually did make. A sudden moment of complete free will, and cosmic awareness to remove the shroud of ignorance of course since the dead in Dante’s works all seem to be aware of things they shouldn’t.
Because of the abuse, yes.