The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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 may actually have already posted this, so apologies in advance if I have...
Well, I suppose it was inevitable really; after months of ranting in a sustained manner, I simply had to turn my attention to religion sooner or later. After all, anyone who has had the misfortune to be trapped in the same room as me whenever the subject has turned to religion and faith will know of my rather strong views on the matter (or at least they will do if they've ever managed to decipher my slurred and incoherent speech and not been put off by the stench of wine emanating from my festering gob...)
I confess that I've been looking for an excuse to talk about this 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 flat 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, total misery) of the Witnesses. I was very welcoming of them, which quite naturally scared the hell 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 as that I daresay I would have been somewhat annoyed...
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 are 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.
Well, I suppose it was inevitable really; after months of ranting in a sustained manner, I simply had to turn my attention to religion sooner or later. After all, anyone who has had the misfortune to be trapped in the same room as me whenever the subject has turned to religion and faith will know of my rather strong views on the matter (or at least they will do if they've ever managed to decipher my slurred and incoherent speech and not been put off by the stench of wine emanating from my festering gob...)
I confess that I've been looking for an excuse to talk about this 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 flat 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, total misery) of the Witnesses. I was very welcoming of them, which quite naturally scared the hell 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 as that I daresay I would have been somewhat annoyed...
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 are 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:
>
> Eh! Not sure what ancient propaganda manual you picked that up from.
> Actually there is no second tier, or whatever you might call it.
> Most of those living have an earthly hope for a paradise earth.
> These ones would be looked after by the few ultra-faithful who made
> it to heaven.
> Hope that's cleared things up. :)
Mm, I was paraphrasing but I appreciate the clarification. So it's paradise on earth (2nd tier) and paradise in heaven (1st tier). And all of the places in heaven are filled, correct?
>
> BTW. We're not as miserable as you make out. Just put yourself in
> their shoes though. Using spare mornings to brave the weather and go
> knocking on the door of a total stranger, to explain something they
> are convinced will benefit you. Then getting blasted off the
> doorstep by an individual like yourself does not help the confidence
> either. Some places admittedly have rather serious witnesses, but
> for unpaid labour performing such an onerous task, you can't really
> complain.
Oh, I never blast 'em off the doorstep; I invite them in. However, once the argument strays from dogmatic belief and onto questioning of those beliefs, they tend to leave.
>
> You need to take a holiday where I live. We have a few total
> nutcases who ensure that there is never a dull moment. In fact we
> are not really all that different from you.
>
> I am a Uni student in my fourth year, and engage in normal daily
> activities just like you. I post nonsense on here during the day in
> between lectures, play football on the weekend and go to the cinema
> or go out for a drink in the evenings. Then I go out once or twice
> on the weekend to spread the 'good news'. That doesn't make me
> miserable does it?
True enough, it doesn't. It doesn't however stop your religion being a bastion of illogical humourlessness (not bothering with things based on Pagan festivals?! The whole of christianity, it's symbols, it's laws, was lifted wholesale from Pagan religions), and THAT is what I rail against. I'll never slate an individual just cos of their religion (to be cliched, one of my best friends is a JW), but I'll attack an individuals religion without any hesitation. Organised religion is an unnecessary evil in my opinion.
>
> Eh! Not sure what ancient propaganda manual you picked that up from.
> Actually there is no second tier, or whatever you might call it.
> Most of those living have an earthly hope for a paradise earth.
> These ones would be looked after by the few ultra-faithful who made
> it to heaven.
> Hope that's cleared things up. :)
Mm, I was paraphrasing but I appreciate the clarification. So it's paradise on earth (2nd tier) and paradise in heaven (1st tier). And all of the places in heaven are filled, correct?
>
> BTW. We're not as miserable as you make out. Just put yourself in
> their shoes though. Using spare mornings to brave the weather and go
> knocking on the door of a total stranger, to explain something they
> are convinced will benefit you. Then getting blasted off the
> doorstep by an individual like yourself does not help the confidence
> either. Some places admittedly have rather serious witnesses, but
> for unpaid labour performing such an onerous task, you can't really
> complain.
Oh, I never blast 'em off the doorstep; I invite them in. However, once the argument strays from dogmatic belief and onto questioning of those beliefs, they tend to leave.
>
> You need to take a holiday where I live. We have a few total
> nutcases who ensure that there is never a dull moment. In fact we
> are not really all that different from you.
>
> I am a Uni student in my fourth year, and engage in normal daily
> activities just like you. I post nonsense on here during the day in
> between lectures, play football on the weekend and go to the cinema
> or go out for a drink in the evenings. Then I go out once or twice
> on the weekend to spread the 'good news'. That doesn't make me
> miserable does it?
True enough, it doesn't. It doesn't however stop your religion being a bastion of illogical humourlessness (not bothering with things based on Pagan festivals?! The whole of christianity, it's symbols, it's laws, was lifted wholesale from Pagan religions), and THAT is what I rail against. I'll never slate an individual just cos of their religion (to be cliched, one of my best friends is a JW), but I'll attack an individuals religion without any hesitation. Organised religion is an unnecessary evil in my opinion.
I don't really have anything overly constructive to add to this discussion, but...
Personally, I have absolutely no time for religion. In my recent family tree, I have Jewish, Church of England, Greek Orthodox and Catholic... and probably some others I've forgotten or am not aware of.
I do, however, believe in little green men/UFO's, and find it much easier to believe that we are either distant relatives of these "aliens", or some grand experiment they started millenia ago, and are popping back every so often to keep an eye on, and occasionally taking samples.
Start talking religion to me (in person), and one of two things will happen: (a) a long and interesting discussion will ensue, in which I will go some way to convincing you why religion is rubbish and quite possibly based on the ramblings of a madman, or (b) I will just switch off. It all depends what mood I'm in.
Anyway, the only truly relevant point I have to make is that I used to work with a guy who was a Mormon (the others were mostly morons! :-) and he was THE most genuine and likeable guy I ever had the pleasure of working with. He knew I wasn't interested in religion but wasn't bothered, and never tried to force his beliefs on anyone.
He was quite a bit older than me, but very young minded, and was also a heck of a lot of fun. We did occasionally discuss religion, and it was always very interesting and refreshing to hear religious views and opinions from a completely different viewpoint to what I had always been taught in my CofE and Catholic schools.
"Coolness" isn't something usually associated with religious types, but he was definitely one cool guy. It's a shame that we lost contact after he left the company.
Light - do these people you know also wear the little 'LDS' pin badges?
Personally, I have absolutely no time for religion. In my recent family tree, I have Jewish, Church of England, Greek Orthodox and Catholic... and probably some others I've forgotten or am not aware of.
I do, however, believe in little green men/UFO's, and find it much easier to believe that we are either distant relatives of these "aliens", or some grand experiment they started millenia ago, and are popping back every so often to keep an eye on, and occasionally taking samples.
Start talking religion to me (in person), and one of two things will happen: (a) a long and interesting discussion will ensue, in which I will go some way to convincing you why religion is rubbish and quite possibly based on the ramblings of a madman, or (b) I will just switch off. It all depends what mood I'm in.
Anyway, the only truly relevant point I have to make is that I used to work with a guy who was a Mormon (the others were mostly morons! :-) and he was THE most genuine and likeable guy I ever had the pleasure of working with. He knew I wasn't interested in religion but wasn't bothered, and never tried to force his beliefs on anyone.
He was quite a bit older than me, but very young minded, and was also a heck of a lot of fun. We did occasionally discuss religion, and it was always very interesting and refreshing to hear religious views and opinions from a completely different viewpoint to what I had always been taught in my CofE and Catholic schools.
"Coolness" isn't something usually associated with religious types, but he was definitely one cool guy. It's a shame that we lost contact after he left the company.
Light - do these people you know also wear the little 'LDS' pin badges?
WòókieeMøn§†€® wrote:
>
> Light - do these people you know also wear the little 'LDS' pin
> badges?
Hmm...I don't believe so, or if they did then they've never caught my attention.
It is always nice to meet someone of a particular religion whom one can relate to. Sorta confirms my belief that religion is evil, but people are not necessarily so.
>
> Light - do these people you know also wear the little 'LDS' pin
> badges?
Hmm...I don't believe so, or if they did then they've never caught my attention.
It is always nice to meet someone of a particular religion whom one can relate to. Sorta confirms my belief that religion is evil, but people are not necessarily so.
I'd love to have th time to fully enter this debate but hey - I'll add my little bit and dissapear again.
You quite rightly point out the infallabilities of religion - the problem being that two many people who claim to be religious are using religion for there own 'political' gain. The Catholic Church has been a classic example of this over the centuries.
There is an inherent difference between your basic Christian who has been 'born again' and wants to live a Christian lifestyle and many of the leaders of the Church who while outwardly give all the signs of being holy and gracious are no better than the Pharasees of the New Testament.
An example if the recent ordination of the gay Bishop. Whatever my views are on that subject are irrelevant - but the issue here that has been overlooked by the media is the fallout of this action. If you are a Christian and you feel that you have any kind of 'calling' the first thing that you are supposed to do before actioning that calling is to test it by talking and praying with other people. As a Christian you should not undertake any action that would or could cause pain, suffering etc to others and you should use discernment before acting.
This event is causing enormous rifts between members of the Anglican Church and could be clearly forseen. The post should not have been accepted and the non acceptance would have shown an enormous amount of humility - but he would then have been chastised by his supporters and followers and he has taken the path of pleasing them and fulfilling his own personal goals rather than doing what was best for the sake of the whole Anglican Church. Personal Political gain wins over the good of 'religion'.
On a smaller level these things are going on in Churches up and down the country all the time. The Church I go to have a huge bank balance while I recently went and helped a neighboring Church who need to raise 50,000 for a new roof with a 24 hour sponsored music session. We could give it to them - or even better donate money to homeless or other needy people - but no - we might need the money for something in the future ??? Again this shows that certain members of the PCC are no better than the Pharisees that they talk about and discuss how wrong they were at bible study. Needless to say I have upset a few people recently with some of my comments about our actions - so where does that put me ? Maybe I need to use more discernment so I don't start pushing my own political agenda - after all none of us are perfect.
I hope it makes sense - need to get the girls ready for school now. tt.
You quite rightly point out the infallabilities of religion - the problem being that two many people who claim to be religious are using religion for there own 'political' gain. The Catholic Church has been a classic example of this over the centuries.
There is an inherent difference between your basic Christian who has been 'born again' and wants to live a Christian lifestyle and many of the leaders of the Church who while outwardly give all the signs of being holy and gracious are no better than the Pharasees of the New Testament.
An example if the recent ordination of the gay Bishop. Whatever my views are on that subject are irrelevant - but the issue here that has been overlooked by the media is the fallout of this action. If you are a Christian and you feel that you have any kind of 'calling' the first thing that you are supposed to do before actioning that calling is to test it by talking and praying with other people. As a Christian you should not undertake any action that would or could cause pain, suffering etc to others and you should use discernment before acting.
This event is causing enormous rifts between members of the Anglican Church and could be clearly forseen. The post should not have been accepted and the non acceptance would have shown an enormous amount of humility - but he would then have been chastised by his supporters and followers and he has taken the path of pleasing them and fulfilling his own personal goals rather than doing what was best for the sake of the whole Anglican Church. Personal Political gain wins over the good of 'religion'.
On a smaller level these things are going on in Churches up and down the country all the time. The Church I go to have a huge bank balance while I recently went and helped a neighboring Church who need to raise 50,000 for a new roof with a 24 hour sponsored music session. We could give it to them - or even better donate money to homeless or other needy people - but no - we might need the money for something in the future ??? Again this shows that certain members of the PCC are no better than the Pharisees that they talk about and discuss how wrong they were at bible study. Needless to say I have upset a few people recently with some of my comments about our actions - so where does that put me ? Maybe I need to use more discernment so I don't start pushing my own political agenda - after all none of us are perfect.
I hope it makes sense - need to get the girls ready for school now. tt.
Light, your real world name wouldn't be Steve by any chance would it?
Little Hobbo wrote:
> Light, your real world name wouldn't be Steve by any chance would it?
Close; it's Stuart. Why do you ask?
> Light, your real world name wouldn't be Steve by any chance would it?
Close; it's Stuart. Why do you ask?
Flanders wrote:
> I'd love to have th time to fully enter this debate but hey - I'll add
> my little bit and dissapear again.
V
V
V
V
> I hope it makes sense - need to get the girls ready for school now.
> tt.
--
Churchy for Pope! Churchy for Pope!
Pope Dad Churchy The 1st.
An intelligent religious person in charge for once instead of a doddery old septagenerian who doesn't even realise what day it is, let alone the intricacies of religious dogmatic principles.
> I'd love to have th time to fully enter this debate but hey - I'll add
> my little bit and dissapear again.
V
V
V
V
> I hope it makes sense - need to get the girls ready for school now.
> tt.
--
Churchy for Pope! Churchy for Pope!
Pope Dad Churchy The 1st.
An intelligent religious person in charge for once instead of a doddery old septagenerian who doesn't even realise what day it is, let alone the intricacies of religious dogmatic principles.
Light wrote:
> Little Hobbo wrote:
> Light, your real world name wouldn't be Steve by any chance would
> it?
>
> Close; it's Stuart. Why do you ask?
Ah, you just sounded precisely like one of my best friends in London. He wants to start some new movement in something or other, and has millions of wonderful theories about all life springing from Mars and various other loony concepts that he is totally convinced about. Lovely chap, just not entirely logical.
I thought you might be him for a moment back there.
BTW. Congratulations on the being the first person I have seen on the forums to use 'in lieu of'.
> Little Hobbo wrote:
> Light, your real world name wouldn't be Steve by any chance would
> it?
>
> Close; it's Stuart. Why do you ask?
Ah, you just sounded precisely like one of my best friends in London. He wants to start some new movement in something or other, and has millions of wonderful theories about all life springing from Mars and various other loony concepts that he is totally convinced about. Lovely chap, just not entirely logical.
I thought you might be him for a moment back there.
BTW. Congratulations on the being the first person I have seen on the forums to use 'in lieu of'.
Light wrote:
> Little Hobbo wrote:
> True enough, it doesn't. It doesn't however stop your religion being
> a bastion of illogical humourlessness (not bothering with things
> based on Pagan festivals?! The whole of christianity, it's symbols,
> it's laws, was lifted wholesale from Pagan religions), and THAT is
> what I rail against.
A bastion of illogical humourlessness?
OK, first of all I would point you away from the word illogical, because things make perfect sense to me, and 6 million others.
As to humourlessness, I can't exactly deny that you could indeed get some stiff old gent knocking on your door, but the very nature of our calling makes waving ballons or prancing about like ninnys rather innappropriate. As you might find with this friend of yours, we are all normal human beings, albeit with strong beliefs in what we believe is the best way forward, but you cannot deny that a discussion of something as revered as the bible calls for dignity.
That's why you don't see newsreaders announcing the murder of children while whooping and cartwheeling around the studio. Discussing a grave situation necessitates a sensibly serious attitude.
You also mention not bothering with things based on pagan festivals such as Christmas. That is true, and if you wanted I could give you reasons on precisely why we don't. But that doesn't stop us enjoying the Christmas break and atmosphere, but it would simply be hypocritical to celebrate something we feel so strongly about.
And as I mentioned, that's not to say we don't enjoy ourselves, Christams time is a nice period for us, and we take that opportunity to do whatever we want to. Whether going for walks, watching TV, meeting with friends or family, we don't actually miss out on much.
> Little Hobbo wrote:
> True enough, it doesn't. It doesn't however stop your religion being
> a bastion of illogical humourlessness (not bothering with things
> based on Pagan festivals?! The whole of christianity, it's symbols,
> it's laws, was lifted wholesale from Pagan religions), and THAT is
> what I rail against.
A bastion of illogical humourlessness?
OK, first of all I would point you away from the word illogical, because things make perfect sense to me, and 6 million others.
As to humourlessness, I can't exactly deny that you could indeed get some stiff old gent knocking on your door, but the very nature of our calling makes waving ballons or prancing about like ninnys rather innappropriate. As you might find with this friend of yours, we are all normal human beings, albeit with strong beliefs in what we believe is the best way forward, but you cannot deny that a discussion of something as revered as the bible calls for dignity.
That's why you don't see newsreaders announcing the murder of children while whooping and cartwheeling around the studio. Discussing a grave situation necessitates a sensibly serious attitude.
You also mention not bothering with things based on pagan festivals such as Christmas. That is true, and if you wanted I could give you reasons on precisely why we don't. But that doesn't stop us enjoying the Christmas break and atmosphere, but it would simply be hypocritical to celebrate something we feel so strongly about.
And as I mentioned, that's not to say we don't enjoy ourselves, Christams time is a nice period for us, and we take that opportunity to do whatever we want to. Whether going for walks, watching TV, meeting with friends or family, we don't actually miss out on much.
Little Hobbo wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Little Hobbo wrote:
>
> A bastion of illogical humourlessness?
> OK, first of all I would point you away from the word illogical,
> because things make perfect sense to me, and 6 million others.
Illogical - I'm referring to Christianity as represented by the Church (any church) organisation. I've had this discussion with Notorious Biggles in another thread and I can repost it here if you like? But the gist of it is that ALL Christianity is illogical as it places power in the hands of other men and refers to a father figure to whom there is no right of appeal (except, of course, through that religions priesthood or equivalent thereof) for it's authority.
Also, the Bible itself is packed full of contradictions and stories that I would say are clearly allegorical. Yet many sects and branches of Christianity state that the Bible is literally true, whilst blinding themselves to the contradictions, or suddenly becoming rather more flexible in their interpretation when the Bible makes a point that is entirely incompatable with modern living (my old favourite of Deuteronomy and the warning that menstruating women should be kept apart from society and shunned springs to mind). I object to the main movers and shakers in any one branch of Christianity using a book that amounts to little more than a compilation of Judaism's greatest hits in the Old Testament, and a selection of non-contemporaneous stories about Jesus' life in the New (whilst excluding any and all Gospels that record Jesus as saying that no-one actually needed a church to worship and love God) to justify the views and opinions of whomever is at the top of the heap in that church.
As to the 6 million others...well, don't take offense at this, but almost half of Germany believed in Fascism at one point. Doesn't make them right. We can now see just how illogical fascism is.
> As to humourlessness, I can't exactly deny that you could indeed get
> some stiff old gent knocking on your door, but the very nature of our
> calling makes waving ballons or prancing about like ninnys rather
> innappropriate. As you might find with this friend of yours, we are
> all normal human beings, albeit with strong beliefs in what we
> believe is the best way forward, but you cannot deny that a
> discussion of something as revered as the bible calls for dignity.
Yes, as individuals I have absolutely no doubt that some JW's are people with a good sense of humour. But as an organisation, JW have a Puritanical streak. The emphasis seems to be of the FEAR of God. Their is none of the sheer joy of living present in them as an organisation. JW's seem to be more about "This is FORBIDDEN" than "This is encouraged". Whichever way I look at it, the organisation is about a few people telling a lot of people how to live their lives with no basis beyond the prophecies and teachings of a man who is thoroughly discredited outside of JW circles.
>
> That's why you don't see newsreaders announcing the murder of
> children while whooping and cartwheeling around the studio.
> Discussing a grave situation necessitates a sensibly serious
> attitude.
That's right, you don't. As an organisation the BBC has to be sober and balanced. But some of the individuals who read the news will, I'm sure, be the life and soul of the party. Look, I'm commenting on the organisation as a whole, not on individuals!
>
> You also mention not bothering with things based on pagan festivals
> such as Christmas. That is true, and if you wanted I could give you
> reasons on precisely why we don't. But that doesn't stop us enjoying
> the Christmas break and atmosphere, but it would simply be
> hypocritical to celebrate something we feel so strongly about.
But the Xmas break and the attendant atmosphere is as a result of that pagan festival (Saturnalia I think but I may well be wrong). So if JW's as a whole are opposed to pagan celebrations, then why are you taking part in the Xmas break?
For the sake of clarity I think I would like some of the reasons on why you don't celebrate festivals with pagan origins. I don't want to end up debating with you when I'm not in possession of all the facts.
>
> And as I mentioned, that's not to say we don't enjoy ourselves,
> Christams time is a nice period for us, and we take that opportunity
> to do whatever we want to. Whether going for walks, watching TV,
> meeting with friends or family, we don't actually miss out on much.
Fair enough. But equally, I personally have known JW's who go to the extreme of banning their children from watching Xmas TV and punishing them if there was any hint of festivities. As I say, these are individuals and I try not to judge the whole organisation based on those one or two. But the organisation as a whole certainly wasn't disapproving of how these parents treated their kids over Xmas.
And that's to say nothing of the JW organisation's appalling track record on concealing child abuse by Jehovah's Witnesses, but that is a topic for another thread, and in any case JW are by no means alone in their guilt for that charge.
> Light wrote:
> Little Hobbo wrote:
>
> A bastion of illogical humourlessness?
> OK, first of all I would point you away from the word illogical,
> because things make perfect sense to me, and 6 million others.
Illogical - I'm referring to Christianity as represented by the Church (any church) organisation. I've had this discussion with Notorious Biggles in another thread and I can repost it here if you like? But the gist of it is that ALL Christianity is illogical as it places power in the hands of other men and refers to a father figure to whom there is no right of appeal (except, of course, through that religions priesthood or equivalent thereof) for it's authority.
Also, the Bible itself is packed full of contradictions and stories that I would say are clearly allegorical. Yet many sects and branches of Christianity state that the Bible is literally true, whilst blinding themselves to the contradictions, or suddenly becoming rather more flexible in their interpretation when the Bible makes a point that is entirely incompatable with modern living (my old favourite of Deuteronomy and the warning that menstruating women should be kept apart from society and shunned springs to mind). I object to the main movers and shakers in any one branch of Christianity using a book that amounts to little more than a compilation of Judaism's greatest hits in the Old Testament, and a selection of non-contemporaneous stories about Jesus' life in the New (whilst excluding any and all Gospels that record Jesus as saying that no-one actually needed a church to worship and love God) to justify the views and opinions of whomever is at the top of the heap in that church.
As to the 6 million others...well, don't take offense at this, but almost half of Germany believed in Fascism at one point. Doesn't make them right. We can now see just how illogical fascism is.
> As to humourlessness, I can't exactly deny that you could indeed get
> some stiff old gent knocking on your door, but the very nature of our
> calling makes waving ballons or prancing about like ninnys rather
> innappropriate. As you might find with this friend of yours, we are
> all normal human beings, albeit with strong beliefs in what we
> believe is the best way forward, but you cannot deny that a
> discussion of something as revered as the bible calls for dignity.
Yes, as individuals I have absolutely no doubt that some JW's are people with a good sense of humour. But as an organisation, JW have a Puritanical streak. The emphasis seems to be of the FEAR of God. Their is none of the sheer joy of living present in them as an organisation. JW's seem to be more about "This is FORBIDDEN" than "This is encouraged". Whichever way I look at it, the organisation is about a few people telling a lot of people how to live their lives with no basis beyond the prophecies and teachings of a man who is thoroughly discredited outside of JW circles.
>
> That's why you don't see newsreaders announcing the murder of
> children while whooping and cartwheeling around the studio.
> Discussing a grave situation necessitates a sensibly serious
> attitude.
That's right, you don't. As an organisation the BBC has to be sober and balanced. But some of the individuals who read the news will, I'm sure, be the life and soul of the party. Look, I'm commenting on the organisation as a whole, not on individuals!
>
> You also mention not bothering with things based on pagan festivals
> such as Christmas. That is true, and if you wanted I could give you
> reasons on precisely why we don't. But that doesn't stop us enjoying
> the Christmas break and atmosphere, but it would simply be
> hypocritical to celebrate something we feel so strongly about.
But the Xmas break and the attendant atmosphere is as a result of that pagan festival (Saturnalia I think but I may well be wrong). So if JW's as a whole are opposed to pagan celebrations, then why are you taking part in the Xmas break?
For the sake of clarity I think I would like some of the reasons on why you don't celebrate festivals with pagan origins. I don't want to end up debating with you when I'm not in possession of all the facts.
>
> And as I mentioned, that's not to say we don't enjoy ourselves,
> Christams time is a nice period for us, and we take that opportunity
> to do whatever we want to. Whether going for walks, watching TV,
> meeting with friends or family, we don't actually miss out on much.
Fair enough. But equally, I personally have known JW's who go to the extreme of banning their children from watching Xmas TV and punishing them if there was any hint of festivities. As I say, these are individuals and I try not to judge the whole organisation based on those one or two. But the organisation as a whole certainly wasn't disapproving of how these parents treated their kids over Xmas.
And that's to say nothing of the JW organisation's appalling track record on concealing child abuse by Jehovah's Witnesses, but that is a topic for another thread, and in any case JW are by no means alone in their guilt for that charge.
Page: