The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Little Hobbo said:
>There are many finer details, but the basics are that 144,00 will go to heaven and help to oversee and rule over the earth. There is no second class though. Everybody else will live on the earth, which will be a paradise once all the wicked ones ruining it have been removed.
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.
>There are many finer details, but the basics are that 144,00 will go to heaven and help to oversee and rule over the earth. There is no second class though. Everybody else will live on the earth, which will be a paradise once all the wicked ones ruining it have been removed.
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.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Chances of going to Heaven: somewhere in the region of 1 in 500,000.
Most likely, yes. I personally am very happy with my deal; eternal life on a paradise earth.
> Chances of going to Heaven: somewhere in the region of 1 in 500,000.
Most likely, yes. I personally am very happy with my deal; eternal life on a paradise earth.
Unbeliever wrote:
> His point is that many good deeds may have been performed in the past
> and the therefore the gates to heaven are closed for the other members
> of society even though they may have done heroic deeds of valour or
> deeds befitting them a place in heaven.
Who are we to judge who enters heaven? Surely our omniscient and omnipotent creator is a better judge than us. It was he who specified the number, not us insignificant mortals.
> His point is that many good deeds may have been performed in the past
> and the therefore the gates to heaven are closed for the other members
> of society even though they may have done heroic deeds of valour or
> deeds befitting them a place in heaven.
Who are we to judge who enters heaven? Surely our omniscient and omnipotent creator is a better judge than us. It was he who specified the number, not us insignificant mortals.
well, that's one person for every 42,000 alive today, and thinking historically, one person for probably triple that for everyone who has ever lived before now. Further, since "paradise" seems a fair distance off, I would imagine that figure will triple again before we see any realistic improvement.
Chances of going to Heaven: somewhere in the region of 1 in 500,000.
Surely most people are better off being sinful and playing the lottery.
Chances of going to Heaven: somewhere in the region of 1 in 500,000.
Surely most people are better off being sinful and playing the lottery.
VenomByte wrote:
> It's likely to leave Earth as a rather overpopulated paradise, too...
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.
> It's likely to leave Earth as a rather overpopulated paradise, too...
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.
His point is that many good deeds may have been performed in the past and the therefore the gates to heaven are closed for the other members of society even though they may have done heroic deeds of valour or deeds befitting them a place in heaven.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> 144,000? Do you have any idea how small a number that is?
Indeed I do. Your point is what?
> 144,000? Do you have any idea how small a number that is?
Indeed I do. Your point is what?
There are that many people born every day... doesn't do my chances of getting into heaven much good.
It's likely to leave Earth as a rather overpopulated paradise, too...
It's likely to leave Earth as a rather overpopulated paradise, too...
Little Hobbo wrote:
> I think you've got mixed up there somewhere. There are many finer
> details, but the basics are that 144,00 will go to heaven and help to
> oversee and rule over the earth.
144,000? Do you have any idea how small a number that is?
> I think you've got mixed up there somewhere. There are many finer
> details, but the basics are that 144,00 will go to heaven and help to
> oversee and rule over the earth.
144,000? Do you have any idea how small a number that is?
Light wrote:
> Hobbo: Weren't all the places in heaven filled back in the 70's? I
> realise I'm a little behind on the precepts of your church (last I
> read of it was back in the mid 90's if I'm honest), but I believe that
> there were a limited number of places in the top tier of heaven and
> that they were all filled, thus ensuring that the remainder of the
> righteous get 2nd class heaven whilst the rest of us are condemned.
I think you've got mixed up there somewhere. There are many finer details, but the basics are that 144,00 will go to heaven and help to oversee and rule over the earth. There is no second class though. Everybody else will live on the earth, which will be a paradise once all the wicked ones ruining it have been removed.
> As a side point, I also have to say that the JW church inspires a fair
> old amount of loathing in me; mainly due to the covering up of child
> abuse by the church. I've got nothing against you obviously (no point
> in being prejudiced against someone for no good reason...), but the
> church itself...well, I personally find it as vile and totalitarian as
> any other organised religion.
Can I ask where you on earth you got the crazy notion that we cover up child abuse. Child abuse it one of the things we sincerely detest, I think we even had a recent magazine on the subject, pointing out not only sadly how prolific it is throughout the world, but also that it is a disgusting thing. Any JW found practising something as vile as that would be expelled from the church instantly.
Can I also ask why you consider us to be totalitarian?
> That said, kudos for standing up and being counted.
Thanks. It's hard at times.
> Hobbo: Weren't all the places in heaven filled back in the 70's? I
> realise I'm a little behind on the precepts of your church (last I
> read of it was back in the mid 90's if I'm honest), but I believe that
> there were a limited number of places in the top tier of heaven and
> that they were all filled, thus ensuring that the remainder of the
> righteous get 2nd class heaven whilst the rest of us are condemned.
I think you've got mixed up there somewhere. There are many finer details, but the basics are that 144,00 will go to heaven and help to oversee and rule over the earth. There is no second class though. Everybody else will live on the earth, which will be a paradise once all the wicked ones ruining it have been removed.
> As a side point, I also have to say that the JW church inspires a fair
> old amount of loathing in me; mainly due to the covering up of child
> abuse by the church. I've got nothing against you obviously (no point
> in being prejudiced against someone for no good reason...), but the
> church itself...well, I personally find it as vile and totalitarian as
> any other organised religion.
Can I ask where you on earth you got the crazy notion that we cover up child abuse. Child abuse it one of the things we sincerely detest, I think we even had a recent magazine on the subject, pointing out not only sadly how prolific it is throughout the world, but also that it is a disgusting thing. Any JW found practising something as vile as that would be expelled from the church instantly.
Can I also ask why you consider us to be totalitarian?
> That said, kudos for standing up and being counted.
Thanks. It's hard at times.
Page: