The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I confess that I've been looking for an excuse to talk about this subject for some time and recently I have been given an opportunity. 1 night a week for the last 3 weeks I have invited two young gentlemen into the house where I live. They have stayed for about an hour and a half each time and when have gone, all three of us are left feeling tired and yet sated and satisfied. Yes, I'm talking about Mormons.
For anyone who doesn't know about the Mormons (or the Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints to give them their full title), they are members of a church founded in America around about 1820 by a bloke called Joseph Smith. Their basic beliefs are that Joe was a prophet in the fine traditions of the Old Testament (no, he didn't go round causing plagues of locusts or smiting his enemies with holy fury; even if he had done, 19th Century America had more pressing issues such as wiping out the natives and stealing their land to notice any vaguely biblical disasters...). He also had possession of a set of gold plates. Whereas you or I may think "Hmmm...I could get a few quid for these", Joe said that the inscriptions on them were in fact books of the Bible that never actually made the final draft, and had been buried in America since then. These inscriptions formed the basis of the book of Mormon, which in turn is the basis of their religion. And that, aside from the fact that they're really good at tracing family trees so that they can baptise their ancestors (does this involve digging them up and baptising them? Surely a body is pretty much soluble after a couple of hundred years underground; would you let yourself get baptised in the same water as 3 dozen dead and dissolved relatives?), is pretty much all you need to know about the Mormons.
Like Jehovah's Witnesses, they also seem to feel the need to go door-to-door and preach the word of Moroni (the angel who enlightened Joe Smith). Unlike Jehovah's Witnesses, they are a fairly affable bunch with none of the hellfire and damnation (and, let's face it, pathological misery) of the Witnesses. I was very welcoming of them, which quite naturally scared the bejeezus out of them as they are used to having doors slammed in their face and abuse thrown at them. It was actually nice to have them round as the JW have quite possibly marked my house with a big black cross since their last visit (the poor woman is quite possibly still having to attend three prayer meetings a day to overcome the horrible memory of "...that satanic man who told me that the founder of our great church was a con- man with convictions for fraud!" Which he was by the way...)
Anyway, I won't presume to bore you with the details of the debates that have ensued from their visits. Needless to say that I'm enjoying being educated about their religion and they are having to put up with being educated about my views on life, the universe, and everything. What I will presume to bore you with is something that has been playing on my mind since their last visit. The two gentlemen who've been coming to argue with me are both polite and tolerant young men. They have listened attentively to my arguments and been respectful of my views despite the fact that are in flagrant breach of the rules that govern their lives, and because of this I have shown them the same courtesy when listening to their arguments.
So how come religion is one of the largest bastions of intolerance and ignorance in the known world? What causes it to develop from 2 polite young men talking reasonably to someone who doesn't accept their point of view to an autocratic institution that breeds ignorance and fear of any beliefs that differ from it's own? I really don't understand how it can happen.
What further confuses me is that despite the fact that religions have been schisming, spasming, and splitting pretty much since they began, literally billions of people choose to place their faith in them. Essentially, people are handing over a portion of their lives to an intangible concept which, even if you accept it's existence, has representatives on earth who act in their own self interest and not that of their followers. Now maybe it's just me, but I don't get it.
Take the Catholic Church as an example (oh, in case you're a Christian of any sort, I'm not being biased against you. The Muslim faith also split into two distinct branches, the Sunni and the Shi'a. I'm not going to go into detail about them as A: I don't know much about the differences between the two, and B: I'm not stupid enough to make the same mistake that Salman Rushdie did...). The Catholic Church as it is now is the result of 2000 years of infighting, backbiting, self-aggrandising politicking, and general unpleasantness and intolerance. You disagree? Okay, well let's take a look at a few examples...
Firstly, despite what you may have been taught, the church was not the sole source of spiritual enlightenment and comfort until some German anti-Semite nailed a piece of paper to a door and started the first of the many Protestant faiths (which have also split and proliferated like horny mice in a grain store). The first major split (not counting the power struggle between Paul and Jesus’ brother James that took place after Jesus’ death. Oh, and the numerous minor battles between different small sects of Christians) occurred way back in 313AD. It was called Arianism, and it led to the mutilation, maiming and murder of hundreds of thousands of people as both sides attempted to have their point of view accepted as the one true way. And can you guess what it was about? Was it perhaps an argument of whether Christ existed? Or about the nature of the relationship between God and the Devil (and maybe even Bob)?
Nope. It was about the word "and".
I'm serious. A holy war was waged over one of the most common words in the language. Catholics believed that there was the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost and they were three separate and distinct entities who existed simultaneously. Arians said that there was Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (notice that there is one less "and"). God is the main man, he sent his Holy Spirit from heaven and inhabited a man who was the son. In other words, the three cannot exist at the same time.
Frankly, if I'd died over something as trivial and inconsequential as that I daresay I would have been somewhat annoyed on getting to the pearly gates...
And it doesn't stop there. In the ninth century the church split once more into Eastern Orthodox and Western Catholic (and yes, the churches of the East have themselves split repeatedly). And lest anyone think that these holy wars are a relic of history, I would invite you to consider the Protestant-Catholic split in Ireland, the Christian-Islamic conflicts that are scarring Nigeria, the Sudan, and various parts of Africa, or the Hindu-Moslem tension in India. I'm sure it's not a revelation when I say that the biggest cause of worldwide strife is conflicts between religions that supposedly preach peace and brotherhood.
When we take these various splits into account, there is something like 50 major religions and countless minor cults that all claim to preach the true word of God. The only thing they seem to hate more than the works of the Devil are religions whose views differ from their own by about 3 words in paragraph 8 of page 106. AND PEOPLE ACTUALLY TRUST AND BELIEVE THEM!!
Apologies again if what I'm saying causes offence, but doesn't anyone else think that it's about time we consigned these outmoded and outdated methods of thought control to the dustbin of history? I accept that we do need some sort of receptacle for our faith (I've often commented on how mankind seems to have a God-shaped hole in their head; we all seem to need a religion to fill it) but could we not perhaps spend some time pondering our own individual thoughts on the nature of the universe rather than relying on a set of religions that seek to keep us from thinking for ourselves and serve no purpose other than their own glorification? At least then any future wars over religion will actually be down to something people genuinely believe in rather than principles that have been imposed on them by a church that is no longer relevant.
For anyone who doesn't know about the Mormons (or the Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints to give them their full title), they are members of a church founded in America around about 1820 by a bloke called Joseph Smith. Their basic beliefs are that Joe was a prophet in the fine traditions of the Old Testament (no, he didn't go round causing plagues of locusts or smiting his enemies with holy fury; even if he had done, 19th Century America had more pressing issues such as wiping out the natives and stealing their land to notice any vaguely biblical disasters...). He also had possession of a set of gold plates. Whereas you or I may think "Hmmm...I could get a few quid for these", Joe said that the inscriptions on them were in fact books of the Bible that never actually made the final draft, and had been buried in America since then. These inscriptions formed the basis of the book of Mormon, which in turn is the basis of their religion. And that, aside from the fact that they're really good at tracing family trees so that they can baptise their ancestors (does this involve digging them up and baptising them? Surely a body is pretty much soluble after a couple of hundred years underground; would you let yourself get baptised in the same water as 3 dozen dead and dissolved relatives?), is pretty much all you need to know about the Mormons.
Like Jehovah's Witnesses, they also seem to feel the need to go door-to-door and preach the word of Moroni (the angel who enlightened Joe Smith). Unlike Jehovah's Witnesses, they are a fairly affable bunch with none of the hellfire and damnation (and, let's face it, pathological misery) of the Witnesses. I was very welcoming of them, which quite naturally scared the bejeezus out of them as they are used to having doors slammed in their face and abuse thrown at them. It was actually nice to have them round as the JW have quite possibly marked my house with a big black cross since their last visit (the poor woman is quite possibly still having to attend three prayer meetings a day to overcome the horrible memory of "...that satanic man who told me that the founder of our great church was a con- man with convictions for fraud!" Which he was by the way...)
Anyway, I won't presume to bore you with the details of the debates that have ensued from their visits. Needless to say that I'm enjoying being educated about their religion and they are having to put up with being educated about my views on life, the universe, and everything. What I will presume to bore you with is something that has been playing on my mind since their last visit. The two gentlemen who've been coming to argue with me are both polite and tolerant young men. They have listened attentively to my arguments and been respectful of my views despite the fact that are in flagrant breach of the rules that govern their lives, and because of this I have shown them the same courtesy when listening to their arguments.
So how come religion is one of the largest bastions of intolerance and ignorance in the known world? What causes it to develop from 2 polite young men talking reasonably to someone who doesn't accept their point of view to an autocratic institution that breeds ignorance and fear of any beliefs that differ from it's own? I really don't understand how it can happen.
What further confuses me is that despite the fact that religions have been schisming, spasming, and splitting pretty much since they began, literally billions of people choose to place their faith in them. Essentially, people are handing over a portion of their lives to an intangible concept which, even if you accept it's existence, has representatives on earth who act in their own self interest and not that of their followers. Now maybe it's just me, but I don't get it.
Take the Catholic Church as an example (oh, in case you're a Christian of any sort, I'm not being biased against you. The Muslim faith also split into two distinct branches, the Sunni and the Shi'a. I'm not going to go into detail about them as A: I don't know much about the differences between the two, and B: I'm not stupid enough to make the same mistake that Salman Rushdie did...). The Catholic Church as it is now is the result of 2000 years of infighting, backbiting, self-aggrandising politicking, and general unpleasantness and intolerance. You disagree? Okay, well let's take a look at a few examples...
Firstly, despite what you may have been taught, the church was not the sole source of spiritual enlightenment and comfort until some German anti-Semite nailed a piece of paper to a door and started the first of the many Protestant faiths (which have also split and proliferated like horny mice in a grain store). The first major split (not counting the power struggle between Paul and Jesus’ brother James that took place after Jesus’ death. Oh, and the numerous minor battles between different small sects of Christians) occurred way back in 313AD. It was called Arianism, and it led to the mutilation, maiming and murder of hundreds of thousands of people as both sides attempted to have their point of view accepted as the one true way. And can you guess what it was about? Was it perhaps an argument of whether Christ existed? Or about the nature of the relationship between God and the Devil (and maybe even Bob)?
Nope. It was about the word "and".
I'm serious. A holy war was waged over one of the most common words in the language. Catholics believed that there was the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost and they were three separate and distinct entities who existed simultaneously. Arians said that there was Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (notice that there is one less "and"). God is the main man, he sent his Holy Spirit from heaven and inhabited a man who was the son. In other words, the three cannot exist at the same time.
Frankly, if I'd died over something as trivial and inconsequential as that I daresay I would have been somewhat annoyed on getting to the pearly gates...
And it doesn't stop there. In the ninth century the church split once more into Eastern Orthodox and Western Catholic (and yes, the churches of the East have themselves split repeatedly). And lest anyone think that these holy wars are a relic of history, I would invite you to consider the Protestant-Catholic split in Ireland, the Christian-Islamic conflicts that are scarring Nigeria, the Sudan, and various parts of Africa, or the Hindu-Moslem tension in India. I'm sure it's not a revelation when I say that the biggest cause of worldwide strife is conflicts between religions that supposedly preach peace and brotherhood.
When we take these various splits into account, there is something like 50 major religions and countless minor cults that all claim to preach the true word of God. The only thing they seem to hate more than the works of the Devil are religions whose views differ from their own by about 3 words in paragraph 8 of page 106. AND PEOPLE ACTUALLY TRUST AND BELIEVE THEM!!
Apologies again if what I'm saying causes offence, but doesn't anyone else think that it's about time we consigned these outmoded and outdated methods of thought control to the dustbin of history? I accept that we do need some sort of receptacle for our faith (I've often commented on how mankind seems to have a God-shaped hole in their head; we all seem to need a religion to fill it) but could we not perhaps spend some time pondering our own individual thoughts on the nature of the universe rather than relying on a set of religions that seek to keep us from thinking for ourselves and serve no purpose other than their own glorification? At least then any future wars over religion will actually be down to something people genuinely believe in rather than principles that have been imposed on them by a church that is no longer relevant.
Page:
Insane Bartender wrote:
> How convenient. Religion is defined for the societies which exist
> around the time of its conception, and as society evolves beyond
> anything that can be predicted, the religion is made to change.
> Religions aren't written by stupid people.
It hasn't changed.
> Yet paradise is to be on earth. Why?
Like the rabbit asks it's owner why it must live in a cage and not in the house with him. We can't question the decisions made by our creator and owner, but we can be grateful for the gift of life in the first place.
> How convenient. Religion is defined for the societies which exist
> around the time of its conception, and as society evolves beyond
> anything that can be predicted, the religion is made to change.
> Religions aren't written by stupid people.
It hasn't changed.
> Yet paradise is to be on earth. Why?
Like the rabbit asks it's owner why it must live in a cage and not in the house with him. We can't question the decisions made by our creator and owner, but we can be grateful for the gift of life in the first place.
Little Hobbo wrote:
> It is our belief that present system we live under will not be around
> for much longer. According to bible prophecy we are now in the 'time
> of the end'.
But when you read revelation it says that Jesus will rule for a thousand years after he wins the final victory before the end of the earth. This gives some credence to Bartenders argument because the second coming hasn't arrived yet so we have a while to go.
> It is our belief that present system we live under will not be around
> for much longer. According to bible prophecy we are now in the 'time
> of the end'.
But when you read revelation it says that Jesus will rule for a thousand years after he wins the final victory before the end of the earth. This gives some credence to Bartenders argument because the second coming hasn't arrived yet so we have a while to go.
Little Hobbo wrote:
> It is our belief that present system we live under will not be around
> for much longer. According to bible prophecy we are now in the 'time
> of the end'.
How convenient. Religion is defined for the societies which exist around the time of its conception, and as society evolves beyond anything that can be predicted, the religion is made to change. Religions aren't written by stupid people.
> Don't generalise all religions. We don't know that fact to be true or
> not, and don't claim to know either.
Yet paradise is to be on earth. Why?
> It is our belief that present system we live under will not be around
> for much longer. According to bible prophecy we are now in the 'time
> of the end'.
How convenient. Religion is defined for the societies which exist around the time of its conception, and as society evolves beyond anything that can be predicted, the religion is made to change. Religions aren't written by stupid people.
> Don't generalise all religions. We don't know that fact to be true or
> not, and don't claim to know either.
Yet paradise is to be on earth. Why?
Flanders wrote:
> I'm just interested reading some of the stuff from Hobbo's viewpoint -
> I don't believe it but I'm interested in seeing what he has to say so
> I can work on converting him later !!!
Or the other way round. :-p
> I'm just interested reading some of the stuff from Hobbo's viewpoint -
> I don't believe it but I'm interested in seeing what he has to say so
> I can work on converting him later !!!
Or the other way round. :-p
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Flanders wrote:
> Actually for each individual its 50 / 50 - that's not bad odds....
>
> If you assume that billions of people have lived and died before you
> were even conceived, then chances are, of the 144,000 places
> available, almost all, if not all, are spoken for.
>
> I would imagine that, when first written, 144,000 was chosen as a
> number because at the time, it was enough to include entire
> civilisations.
>
> Nowadays, you'd be hard pressed to fit a large town in it.
I'm not a JW - I don't believe in the 144,000 stuff.....
I'm just interested reading some of the stuff from Hobbo's viewpoint - I don't believe it but I'm interested in seeing what he has to say so I can work on converting him later !!!
> Flanders wrote:
> Actually for each individual its 50 / 50 - that's not bad odds....
>
> If you assume that billions of people have lived and died before you
> were even conceived, then chances are, of the 144,000 places
> available, almost all, if not all, are spoken for.
>
> I would imagine that, when first written, 144,000 was chosen as a
> number because at the time, it was enough to include entire
> civilisations.
>
> Nowadays, you'd be hard pressed to fit a large town in it.
I'm not a JW - I don't believe in the 144,000 stuff.....
I'm just interested reading some of the stuff from Hobbo's viewpoint - I don't believe it but I'm interested in seeing what he has to say so I can work on converting him later !!!
Insane Bartender wrote:
> At the moment, sure. But what about in a few decades time, when the
> population hits 7billion, or a few decades later on, or a few
> centuries, where we could hit disastrous proportions of 10billion or
> more? What about when we've colonised other worlds or satellites?
It is our belief that present system we live under will not be around for much longer. According to bible prophecy we are now in the 'time of the end'.
> Another irritating folly around so many religions is that they seem to
> feel that the universe revolves around planet earth.
Don't generalise all religions. We don't know that fact to be true or not, and don't claim to know either.
> At the moment, sure. But what about in a few decades time, when the
> population hits 7billion, or a few decades later on, or a few
> centuries, where we could hit disastrous proportions of 10billion or
> more? What about when we've colonised other worlds or satellites?
It is our belief that present system we live under will not be around for much longer. According to bible prophecy we are now in the 'time of the end'.
> Another irritating folly around so many religions is that they seem to
> feel that the universe revolves around planet earth.
Don't generalise all religions. We don't know that fact to be true or not, and don't claim to know either.
Unbeliever wrote:
> Good cannot exist without evil or the implication of evil which is
> dictated by moral codes in religion. Therefore "wickedness"
> is just a definition of certain acts that are assumed to be evil. What
> I mean to say is, if there was no religious moral code, humans would
> be free to pursue the limits of their desire, be they right or wrong.
> Religion acts as muzzle on humans.
Right, so I can go hold up a bank, viciously kill some innocent young children and rape someone. I think there is a clear definition there. But the point is - Our moral laws are determined by God not us.
> Good cannot exist without evil or the implication of evil which is
> dictated by moral codes in religion. Therefore "wickedness"
> is just a definition of certain acts that are assumed to be evil. What
> I mean to say is, if there was no religious moral code, humans would
> be free to pursue the limits of their desire, be they right or wrong.
> Religion acts as muzzle on humans.
Right, so I can go hold up a bank, viciously kill some innocent young children and rape someone. I think there is a clear definition there. But the point is - Our moral laws are determined by God not us.
Flanders wrote:
> Actually for each individual its 50 / 50 - that's not bad odds....
If you assume that billions of people have lived and died before you were even conceived, then chances are, of the 144,000 places available, almost all, if not all, are spoken for.
I would imagine that, when first written, 144,000 was chosen as a number because at the time, it was enough to include entire civilisations.
Nowadays, you'd be hard pressed to fit a large town in it.
> Actually for each individual its 50 / 50 - that's not bad odds....
If you assume that billions of people have lived and died before you were even conceived, then chances are, of the 144,000 places available, almost all, if not all, are spoken for.
I would imagine that, when first written, 144,000 was chosen as a number because at the time, it was enough to include entire civilisations.
Nowadays, you'd be hard pressed to fit a large town in it.
Little Hobbo wrote:
> Only yesterday I was reading about this issue. What fools you into
> thinking this is the current ditribution of poulation over the earth
> at the moment. If you take into account all the unused and desolated
> areas of the world at the moment, over-population is not a problem.
At the moment, sure. But what about in a few decades time, when the population hits 7billion, or a few decades later on, or a few centuries, where we could hit disastrous proportions of 10billion or more? What about when we've colonised other worlds or satellites?
Another irritating folly around so many religions is that they seem to feel that the universe revolves around planet earth.
> Only yesterday I was reading about this issue. What fools you into
> thinking this is the current ditribution of poulation over the earth
> at the moment. If you take into account all the unused and desolated
> areas of the world at the moment, over-population is not a problem.
At the moment, sure. But what about in a few decades time, when the population hits 7billion, or a few decades later on, or a few centuries, where we could hit disastrous proportions of 10billion or more? What about when we've colonised other worlds or satellites?
Another irritating folly around so many religions is that they seem to feel that the universe revolves around planet earth.
Insane Bartender wrote:
>
> Chances of going to Heaven: somewhere in the region of 1 in 500,000.
Actually for each individual its 50 / 50 - that's not bad odds....
>
> Chances of going to Heaven: somewhere in the region of 1 in 500,000.
Actually for each individual its 50 / 50 - that's not bad odds....
Page: