The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Since I was a teenager, I've been fascinated with the idea of faith (and yes, I was something of a geeky teen...). At first, it was religious faith that interested me. I couldn't for the life of me understand why otherwise sensible and rational people would live their lives according to a set of principles that evolved over a thousand years ago, the lynchpin of which was a mythical father figure of who's existence there is no proof at all. I wanted to know what drove these people to their conclusion that a particular faith was best suited to them, what made them reject the alternative faiths on offer, and most of all I wanted to know whether these gullible fools would be interested in buying these magic beans I had for sale.
But as time has passed, I've thought about faith a little more (which just goes to show how boring life can be in Newcastle) and I've gradually and belatedly come to realise that faith isn't just limited to religion. We are constantly encouraged to show faith in, for example, our employers who have our best interests at heart, so have faith and don't ask too many questions about why pay rises are heading the same way as the Dodo. Or our government; Tony Blair and Dubya in particular are fond of using their opportunist religious principles to support their calls for us to have faith in them, so don't look too closely at what they're doing because it'll all work out for your benefit, honest. Unsurprisingly, we in the west are now completely cynical about having faith in anything; in general we greet whatever new soul-sapping announcement is guaranteed to make ones life that little bit less enjoyable with black humour and a wry smile. On the plus side, this means that religion no longer has the influence it once did on everyday life. On the down side, it means that we are losing the most important item of faith that we have; faith in ourselves.
Of course, I say that we're losing that aspect of faith; it has never exactly been widespread anyway. If one looks back through history, we've never really been encouraged to have any faith in ourselves as individuals. It has always suited whoever was on the top of the social heap to make us think that, in order to make anything out of our lives, we would need to rely on those in charge. The message has always been "Trust in your leaders, because if you don't then the world will turn to sloppy dogsh!t". We're indoctrinated with that belief and have been since the dawn of civilisation. Because of that, it is a very special person indeed who has enough faith in himself or herself to take chances in their life and follow a different path from the norm. And, human nature being what it is, those rare and precious few invariably take up a position in what could loosely be termed the ruling classes of society and become part of the same system that tries to keep people down.
Now, I'm not enough of an anarchist to follow this train of thought through to the conclusion "We need no leaders if we all have faith in ourselves". Frankly, although I think the idea that we could live in a world without leaders is a lovely one, human nature being what it is, we'd almost certainly find ourselves in a situation that closely resembled hell on earth. But on the other hand (and this is a very naive thing to say), surely having large numbers of self-confident people who are willing to think for themselves is good for society as a whole? How can it profit a government to keep the population timid and meek, accepting of their lot in life no matter how indifferent it may be?
The obvious answer is, of course, because the ruling classes are not interested in anyone other than themselves. The general populace needs to be kept fearful and paranoid in order to keep them in power? No problem; just look at the constant propaganda we see in the media telling us to be afraid of bombs and of evil terrorists. Look at the Anthrax scare in America ("No, please no! Not anthrax!! Not the disease that is easily curable by anti-biotics!! Nooooooooo!!!"), or the pointless evacuation exercise that took place in London last weekend. We would seem to faced with a contradiction; the people we elect to power to serve our interests will gladly sacrifice those interests in order to remain in power. All because we don't have enough faith in ourselves to stand up and say "Actually, I'm not happy with the way things are being done." We fear being ridiculed for doing so, and that fear and lack of faith keeps us paralysed and allows those fortunate enough to have a measure of control over their lives to extend that control over ours.
Not surprisingly, this state of affairs has led to discontent. In particular we are seeing that discontent among the people of the Islamic world, who have long been burdened with oppressive and unrepresentative governments who use religious faith as a tool for political control. To put things in perspective, I'm sat here complaining about the lack of control I am afforded in my life, but at least I am not in danger of being imprisoned by my government for doing so. Yet how is this discontent being expressed (or at least, how is the majority of that discontent being expressed)? By putting faith in organisations that remain equally unrepresentative of their supporters and have their own agenda which invariably involves replacing the current ruling classes of their society with the leadership of the organisation. This is true of Al-Quaida in all it's many and varied forms, of Hamas, of Islamic Jihad, of the ultra-violent Islamic rebels of North Africa. All of these so-called revolutionaries are equally dependant on discouraging people from having any faith in themselves, and encouraging them to believe that their problems can only be dealt with by the leaders of the organisation.
In abusing the trust of the very people whom they are meant to serve, governments are effectively sowing the seeds of their own destruction. We're encouraged to have faith in our leaders, but our leaders constantly lie to us and are visibly and demonstratably self-serving buckets of bullbollocks. However, thanks to centuries of being told we shouldn't rely on ourselves, we turn to organisations that encourage us to have faith in them instead, and they in turn abuse that trust to achieve their own aims. Isn't it time to stop placing all of our hopes in groups who couldn't care less about us, and only view us as a means to gain power and control over their own destiny? Isn't it time we started to think a little more of ourselves, of our own potential, and act on it? Or will we simply wait for the group of our choice to tell us that it's okay to have a little self-belief? Time will tell I suppose, but I can only hope that we start to believe in ourselves long before there is no other option.
But as time has passed, I've thought about faith a little more (which just goes to show how boring life can be in Newcastle) and I've gradually and belatedly come to realise that faith isn't just limited to religion. We are constantly encouraged to show faith in, for example, our employers who have our best interests at heart, so have faith and don't ask too many questions about why pay rises are heading the same way as the Dodo. Or our government; Tony Blair and Dubya in particular are fond of using their opportunist religious principles to support their calls for us to have faith in them, so don't look too closely at what they're doing because it'll all work out for your benefit, honest. Unsurprisingly, we in the west are now completely cynical about having faith in anything; in general we greet whatever new soul-sapping announcement is guaranteed to make ones life that little bit less enjoyable with black humour and a wry smile. On the plus side, this means that religion no longer has the influence it once did on everyday life. On the down side, it means that we are losing the most important item of faith that we have; faith in ourselves.
Of course, I say that we're losing that aspect of faith; it has never exactly been widespread anyway. If one looks back through history, we've never really been encouraged to have any faith in ourselves as individuals. It has always suited whoever was on the top of the social heap to make us think that, in order to make anything out of our lives, we would need to rely on those in charge. The message has always been "Trust in your leaders, because if you don't then the world will turn to sloppy dogsh!t". We're indoctrinated with that belief and have been since the dawn of civilisation. Because of that, it is a very special person indeed who has enough faith in himself or herself to take chances in their life and follow a different path from the norm. And, human nature being what it is, those rare and precious few invariably take up a position in what could loosely be termed the ruling classes of society and become part of the same system that tries to keep people down.
Now, I'm not enough of an anarchist to follow this train of thought through to the conclusion "We need no leaders if we all have faith in ourselves". Frankly, although I think the idea that we could live in a world without leaders is a lovely one, human nature being what it is, we'd almost certainly find ourselves in a situation that closely resembled hell on earth. But on the other hand (and this is a very naive thing to say), surely having large numbers of self-confident people who are willing to think for themselves is good for society as a whole? How can it profit a government to keep the population timid and meek, accepting of their lot in life no matter how indifferent it may be?
The obvious answer is, of course, because the ruling classes are not interested in anyone other than themselves. The general populace needs to be kept fearful and paranoid in order to keep them in power? No problem; just look at the constant propaganda we see in the media telling us to be afraid of bombs and of evil terrorists. Look at the Anthrax scare in America ("No, please no! Not anthrax!! Not the disease that is easily curable by anti-biotics!! Nooooooooo!!!"), or the pointless evacuation exercise that took place in London last weekend. We would seem to faced with a contradiction; the people we elect to power to serve our interests will gladly sacrifice those interests in order to remain in power. All because we don't have enough faith in ourselves to stand up and say "Actually, I'm not happy with the way things are being done." We fear being ridiculed for doing so, and that fear and lack of faith keeps us paralysed and allows those fortunate enough to have a measure of control over their lives to extend that control over ours.
Not surprisingly, this state of affairs has led to discontent. In particular we are seeing that discontent among the people of the Islamic world, who have long been burdened with oppressive and unrepresentative governments who use religious faith as a tool for political control. To put things in perspective, I'm sat here complaining about the lack of control I am afforded in my life, but at least I am not in danger of being imprisoned by my government for doing so. Yet how is this discontent being expressed (or at least, how is the majority of that discontent being expressed)? By putting faith in organisations that remain equally unrepresentative of their supporters and have their own agenda which invariably involves replacing the current ruling classes of their society with the leadership of the organisation. This is true of Al-Quaida in all it's many and varied forms, of Hamas, of Islamic Jihad, of the ultra-violent Islamic rebels of North Africa. All of these so-called revolutionaries are equally dependant on discouraging people from having any faith in themselves, and encouraging them to believe that their problems can only be dealt with by the leaders of the organisation.
In abusing the trust of the very people whom they are meant to serve, governments are effectively sowing the seeds of their own destruction. We're encouraged to have faith in our leaders, but our leaders constantly lie to us and are visibly and demonstratably self-serving buckets of bullbollocks. However, thanks to centuries of being told we shouldn't rely on ourselves, we turn to organisations that encourage us to have faith in them instead, and they in turn abuse that trust to achieve their own aims. Isn't it time to stop placing all of our hopes in groups who couldn't care less about us, and only view us as a means to gain power and control over their own destiny? Isn't it time we started to think a little more of ourselves, of our own potential, and act on it? Or will we simply wait for the group of our choice to tell us that it's okay to have a little self-belief? Time will tell I suppose, but I can only hope that we start to believe in ourselves long before there is no other option.
Page:
Suspect, presume and surmise what you will. But don't you think if I was that serious, I would have spent £400 on a full set of stormtrooper armour, rather instead pump a similar amount of money into learning to scuba dive?
> I also own a Predator 2 full face mask and a Guyver 1 full latex head
> mask. In truth I don't wear them much, they're mostly for display,
> but a few pictures have been taken, for comedy value.
>
> Including some of the more notorious ones, such as these:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/gazrip/images/trooper_gimp.jpg
> http://www.geocities.com/randomscope/dscf0004.jpg
>
> The general lack of full attire in these pictures has led to the
> title of "Porn Trooper".
Dear lord. I've seen the depths of fanboydom now. I know you say they are for comedic value, but I have a sneaking suspicion you were (if it is you) deadly serious ..................
> mask. In truth I don't wear them much, they're mostly for display,
> but a few pictures have been taken, for comedy value.
>
> Including some of the more notorious ones, such as these:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/gazrip/images/trooper_gimp.jpg
> http://www.geocities.com/randomscope/dscf0004.jpg
>
> The general lack of full attire in these pictures has led to the
> title of "Porn Trooper".
Dear lord. I've seen the depths of fanboydom now. I know you say they are for comedic value, but I have a sneaking suspicion you were (if it is you) deadly serious ..................
"I find your lack of faith disturbing".
Best Starwars line ever.
Best Starwars line ever.
Hilarious.
No you don't.
*shakes fist*
Have you not realised that it is my lot in life to find ways to disagree???
*shakes fist*
Have you not realised that it is my lot in life to find ways to disagree???
Insane Bartender wrote:
> Faith is something that, as you once did yourself, relate to religion.
> Hence I find it completely dismissable.
A fair point. But I've also made the point that it is not just to do with religion. In this very thread. And as we're talking about faith in oneself, it becomes less dismissable. Or to me it does anyway...
>
> Life is a gamble, religion is a belief that it isn't a gamble.
Not arguing with you there; organised religion bites the big one.
>
> I don't kno the future, that doens't mean I'm praying for things to
> fall my way - I'd like them to, and I'm betting that to some extent
> they both will and won't, and am preparing myself for the most likely
> eventualities. That's not what I would call faith. Just being
> realistic.
Again, we're at cross purposes because I would call that realism Faith in yourself that you'll be able to deal with the most likely eventualities. Just differing terminologies I suspect.
>
> If people want to live on faith alone, good luck to them. Not that
> they believe they need it.
Umm...I'm not saying people should get by on faith alone; I'm saying we should show some self belief and faith in oneself. So in that regard, I agree with you as well.
> Faith is something that, as you once did yourself, relate to religion.
> Hence I find it completely dismissable.
A fair point. But I've also made the point that it is not just to do with religion. In this very thread. And as we're talking about faith in oneself, it becomes less dismissable. Or to me it does anyway...
>
> Life is a gamble, religion is a belief that it isn't a gamble.
Not arguing with you there; organised religion bites the big one.
>
> I don't kno the future, that doens't mean I'm praying for things to
> fall my way - I'd like them to, and I'm betting that to some extent
> they both will and won't, and am preparing myself for the most likely
> eventualities. That's not what I would call faith. Just being
> realistic.
Again, we're at cross purposes because I would call that realism Faith in yourself that you'll be able to deal with the most likely eventualities. Just differing terminologies I suspect.
>
> If people want to live on faith alone, good luck to them. Not that
> they believe they need it.
Umm...I'm not saying people should get by on faith alone; I'm saying we should show some self belief and faith in oneself. So in that regard, I agree with you as well.
I think I'm going to spend some time re-learning how to type...
Faith is something that, as you once did yourself, relate to religion. Hence I find it completely dismissable.
Life is a gamble, religion is a belief that it isn't a gamble.
I don't kno the future, that doens't mean I'm praying for things to fall my way - I'd like them to, and I'm betting that to some extent they both will and won't, and am preparing myself for the most likely eventualities. That's not what I would call faith. Just being realistic.
If people want to live on faith alone, good luck to them. Not that they believe they need it.
Life is a gamble, religion is a belief that it isn't a gamble.
I don't kno the future, that doens't mean I'm praying for things to fall my way - I'd like them to, and I'm betting that to some extent they both will and won't, and am preparing myself for the most likely eventualities. That's not what I would call faith. Just being realistic.
If people want to live on faith alone, good luck to them. Not that they believe they need it.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> I think it's logical to say that I can maintain my current path. Of
> course, I don't know the future, but it's not faith that I have in
> myself. Faith is for those who are insecure without the belief that
> something special could happen at any time, for no real reason.
Right...so you don't know the future, yet it's logical to say that things will carry on their current course. I'm not disputing that logic as I simply don't know you or your circumstances, but the fact is that you have faith that your logic will hold. You have to have faith, because it is impossible for you to know
As for your dismissal of all faith...well, each to their own I suppose. I only wish everyone in the whole world could know everything there was to know, and be well-adjusted enough to know that whatever the future may hold, there is no question that they will be able to deal with it.
As I say, we're pretty much at cross purposes here. The only difference being that you seem to view anything short of absolute knowledge as a weakness, and so refuse to admit to anything less than that in yourself. Doubtless you'll reply along the lines of how I'm just using semantics, but there y'go.
By the way, the porntrooper picture is now fated to plague me in my nightmares...
I'm trying to think of a way to say "nice helmet" without it being a double entendre. You'll just have to take my word it's not!
> I think it's logical to say that I can maintain my current path. Of
> course, I don't know the future, but it's not faith that I have in
> myself. Faith is for those who are insecure without the belief that
> something special could happen at any time, for no real reason.
Right...so you don't know the future, yet it's logical to say that things will carry on their current course. I'm not disputing that logic as I simply don't know you or your circumstances, but the fact is that you have faith that your logic will hold. You have to have faith, because it is impossible for you to know
As for your dismissal of all faith...well, each to their own I suppose. I only wish everyone in the whole world could know everything there was to know, and be well-adjusted enough to know that whatever the future may hold, there is no question that they will be able to deal with it.
As I say, we're pretty much at cross purposes here. The only difference being that you seem to view anything short of absolute knowledge as a weakness, and so refuse to admit to anything less than that in yourself. Doubtless you'll reply along the lines of how I'm just using semantics, but there y'go.
By the way, the porntrooper picture is now fated to plague me in my nightmares...
I'm trying to think of a way to say "nice helmet" without it being a double entendre. You'll just have to take my word it's not!
I know.
Page: