The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 wrote:
> You don't get the point. The crux of the matter is this. It is
> imperative that all people come to know the will of God.
The Will of God: I just hope He's gotten over His jealous and genocidal tendancies. The last time I read the Old Testament I lost count of the times He wantonly brought death & destruction to those who opposed His Will.
> You don't get the point. The crux of the matter is this. It is
> imperative that all people come to know the will of God.
The Will of God: I just hope He's gotten over His jealous and genocidal tendancies. The last time I read the Old Testament I lost count of the times He wantonly brought death & destruction to those who opposed His Will.
Little Hobbo wrote:
> You think it's easy what we do? We do it because we enjoy it? I'll
> tell you something, it's the hardest thing I have ever done in my
> life. It's not through choice that we knock on doors, but through the
> comission given in Matthew 24:14, which we believe is our divine
> responsibility to fulfill.
Let me put it this way. I live the way I want to, and I don't presume to tell anybody else how to live their life. Sure, I have no divine mandate, but it's clear to me and should be clear to you that while you may believe that you are fulfilling some heaven sent resposibility, to the majority of the rest of the population, you're an irritance and a pest.
People slam the door in the faces of window salesmen, people who actually offer to add value to a home, and quality to life. So you must know that what you do is easilly asking for far worse treatment than any other door to door offers.
I mean, in all seriousness, which would rub you up more:
1) Buy our new vacuum cleaner, which sucks up anything not nailed down
2) Buy our new double glazing, which will add double its value to your homes pricetag, save on energy and noise pollution and keep the house warm in winter.
3) Please take up our offer of a free assessment if you should choose to put your house on the market before the end of March.
4) Don't live your life the way YOU want to, live it the way WE want you to live it. Hey, look at my son, Jeff, who is with me to play on your sympathies, deter you from screaming profanities, slamming the door and otherwise traumatising the boy, and also giving you few other options other than to listen to what we have to say.
Now, salesmen irritate me. In a world where anything you want is at your fingertips, why should I have to be preached to about products I'm already aware of and can purchase at any time I please?
But being told how to go about my life? That just takes the cake.
Like I said, I have nothing against any other aspect of the religion, though do admit to being largely ignorant of it, but if I want to change my moral code, I will do so on my own time, and by my own rules. I don't need to be told how I should conduct myself.
> You think it's easy what we do? We do it because we enjoy it? I'll
> tell you something, it's the hardest thing I have ever done in my
> life. It's not through choice that we knock on doors, but through the
> comission given in Matthew 24:14, which we believe is our divine
> responsibility to fulfill.
Let me put it this way. I live the way I want to, and I don't presume to tell anybody else how to live their life. Sure, I have no divine mandate, but it's clear to me and should be clear to you that while you may believe that you are fulfilling some heaven sent resposibility, to the majority of the rest of the population, you're an irritance and a pest.
People slam the door in the faces of window salesmen, people who actually offer to add value to a home, and quality to life. So you must know that what you do is easilly asking for far worse treatment than any other door to door offers.
I mean, in all seriousness, which would rub you up more:
1) Buy our new vacuum cleaner, which sucks up anything not nailed down
2) Buy our new double glazing, which will add double its value to your homes pricetag, save on energy and noise pollution and keep the house warm in winter.
3) Please take up our offer of a free assessment if you should choose to put your house on the market before the end of March.
4) Don't live your life the way YOU want to, live it the way WE want you to live it. Hey, look at my son, Jeff, who is with me to play on your sympathies, deter you from screaming profanities, slamming the door and otherwise traumatising the boy, and also giving you few other options other than to listen to what we have to say.
Now, salesmen irritate me. In a world where anything you want is at your fingertips, why should I have to be preached to about products I'm already aware of and can purchase at any time I please?
But being told how to go about my life? That just takes the cake.
Like I said, I have nothing against any other aspect of the religion, though do admit to being largely ignorant of it, but if I want to change my moral code, I will do so on my own time, and by my own rules. I don't need to be told how I should conduct myself.
I don't read the Bible and I never have or will because I don't agree with what's written in it. As a person said to me once, "It's the greatest story ever told" - after all, surely the New Testament is subject to a lot of change and disagrement since it wasn't written at source? As well as this, there is something lost in the translation to English. Wasn't it written in Hebrew originaly?
That's just my opinion, although I agree with certain other aspects of religion.
That's just my opinion, although I agree with certain other aspects of religion.
Unbeliever wrote:
> That's your prerogative then, mate. If it gives you a sense of
> "doing good for the world" then by all means, go ahead and
> do it. Just don't expect an easy ride.
It does give us a sense of satisfaction, yes. And don't worry, the fact that we won't be getting an easy ride was foretold in Matthew 24:9. Which says something to the effect that we would become objects of hatred. That is just a test of our loyalty.
> That's your prerogative then, mate. If it gives you a sense of
> "doing good for the world" then by all means, go ahead and
> do it. Just don't expect an easy ride.
It does give us a sense of satisfaction, yes. And don't worry, the fact that we won't be getting an easy ride was foretold in Matthew 24:9. Which says something to the effect that we would become objects of hatred. That is just a test of our loyalty.
That's your prerogative then, mate. If it gives you a sense of "doing good for the world" then by all means, go ahead and do it. Just don't expect an easy ride.
Unbeliever wrote:
> We are fulfilling our commission? So we were born to preach? I don't
> hold by that view at all. Okay, it's a duty to impart our knowledge to
> others about life in general , be it religion or otherwise. However,
> our duty is only to ourselves - we are in charge of our own destiny
> and should convey ourselves in life according to that principle.
You don't get the point. The crux of the matter is this. It is imperative that all people come to know the will of God. Then they can make an informed decision on what to do. Once that has been accomplished it is up to each individual to decide what path to take.
> We are fulfilling our commission? So we were born to preach? I don't
> hold by that view at all. Okay, it's a duty to impart our knowledge to
> others about life in general , be it religion or otherwise. However,
> our duty is only to ourselves - we are in charge of our own destiny
> and should convey ourselves in life according to that principle.
You don't get the point. The crux of the matter is this. It is imperative that all people come to know the will of God. Then they can make an informed decision on what to do. Once that has been accomplished it is up to each individual to decide what path to take.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> My point is, I have what I see as a perfectly acceptable standpoint on
> life. But I don't go door to door trying to get other people to adopt
> it.
You think it's easy what we do? We do it because we enjoy it? I'll tell you something, it's the hardest thing I have ever done in my life. It's not through choice that we knock on doors, but through the comission given in Matthew 24:14, which we believe is our divine responsibility to fulfill.
> My point is, I have what I see as a perfectly acceptable standpoint on
> life. But I don't go door to door trying to get other people to adopt
> it.
You think it's easy what we do? We do it because we enjoy it? I'll tell you something, it's the hardest thing I have ever done in my life. It's not through choice that we knock on doors, but through the comission given in Matthew 24:14, which we believe is our divine responsibility to fulfill.
Little Hobbo wrote:
> That's fine. If you are happy the way you are then there's no
> problem. It is our duty to inform people of our beliefs,
> determinations and prospects for the future. Whether anyone responds
> to that or not makes little difference to us. We are fulfilling our
> comission by doing what we currently are, regardless of whether anyone
> listens.
We are fulfilling our commission? So we were born to preach? I don't hold by that view at all. Okay, it's a duty to impart our knowledge to others about life in general , be it religion or otherwise. However, our duty is only to ourselves - we are in charge of our own destiny and should convey ourselves in life according to that principle.
> That's fine. If you are happy the way you are then there's no
> problem. It is our duty to inform people of our beliefs,
> determinations and prospects for the future. Whether anyone responds
> to that or not makes little difference to us. We are fulfilling our
> comission by doing what we currently are, regardless of whether anyone
> listens.
We are fulfilling our commission? So we were born to preach? I don't hold by that view at all. Okay, it's a duty to impart our knowledge to others about life in general , be it religion or otherwise. However, our duty is only to ourselves - we are in charge of our own destiny and should convey ourselves in life according to that principle.
My point is, I have what I see as a perfectly acceptable standpoint on life. But I don't go door to door trying to get other people to adopt it.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> I am at will to change my morals any time I wish. I will not be bound.
That's fine. If you are happy the way you are then there's no problem. It is our duty to inform people of our beliefs, determinations and prospects for the future. Whether anyone responds to that or not makes little difference to us. We are fulfilling our comission by doing what we currently are, regardless of whether anyone listens.
> I am at will to change my morals any time I wish. I will not be bound.
That's fine. If you are happy the way you are then there's no problem. It is our duty to inform people of our beliefs, determinations and prospects for the future. Whether anyone responds to that or not makes little difference to us. We are fulfilling our comission by doing what we currently are, regardless of whether anyone listens.
Page: