The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Hmmmm. I hate being a slow typer. However I fully intend answering all of the points you raise, but do you have an email address where we can continue this privately?
Little Hobbo wrote:
> Hmmmm. I hate being a slow typer. However I fully intend answering
> all of the points you raise, but do you have an email address where
> we can continue this privately?
I do, but not one I'm willing to post on the net!! Give me a wee while to get one set up and I'll post the addy here once I've done so.
> Hmmmm. I hate being a slow typer. However I fully intend answering
> all of the points you raise, but do you have an email address where
> we can continue this privately?
I do, but not one I'm willing to post on the net!! Give me a wee while to get one set up and I'll post the addy here once I've done so.
Errm. I could just post mine on here if that would be easier.
*readies himself to add Hobbo onto numerous spam lists*
Ah!
With such inbred clowns around maybe your idea was best Light. :)
With such inbred clowns around maybe your idea was best Light. :)
Little Hobbo wrote:
> Ah!
> With such inbred clowns around maybe your idea was best Light. :)
Heh. I'll sort a hotmail account out tomorrow.
> Ah!
> With such inbred clowns around maybe your idea was best Light. :)
Heh. I'll sort a hotmail account out tomorrow.
Some quite funny replies here given the title of the topic.
Undoubtedly many Christians would find criticisms of their faith 'illogical' also.
Does belief enrich most people's lives ?
Does belief make people do bad things (more so than other equivalent things) ?
Yes, and no.
Undoubtedly many Christians would find criticisms of their faith 'illogical' also.
Does belief enrich most people's lives ?
Does belief make people do bad things (more so than other equivalent things) ?
Yes, and no.
Light wrote:
> 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.
Indeed we have. Only wish I had more time to continue it. You raised a few good points, but I am still not convinced.
> 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.
>
Except everything Witnesses do is based on committees, and based teachings in the bible. Besides, to claim that C. T. Russell is the founder overlooks some things, many of the teachings were refined after his death due to a more in depth study and better understanding.
As for thoroughly discredited, I looked at your link regarding an actual fraud conviction. I can't find anything more on it other than that site. He did after all make the $300,000 from selling his chain of 5 shops to pay for his preaching work. He sold them before he got married. Nowadays you would get a pre-nup.
It is the same site that mentions the belief of 1874 as the year when Christ and the apostles returned to earth. Except that teaching was from Barbour, and after Russell and Barbour parted company in late '78 / early '79. He then revised it to 1914 after further study. Now he was wrong on that account as has been seen, but since then it has been seen that it wasn't a second coming on earth at that point but in Heaven and I'm now going off topic.
My point there was that the sources that discredit Russell have no real basis, and are mainly down to either complete and total ignorance or are by excommunicated witnesses who have a grudge.
For the record, Judge Rutherford, or "Judge" Rutherford as he was referred to on some sites was a lawyer, then public prosecutor for Boonville, Missouri. On occasion he served as a special judge in the Eighth Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri.
> 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.
Stop a second. That is WRONG. Jehovahs Witnesses do not and will not cover up abuse, it has happened at a local level by individuals, working on their own "initiative". When protocol is followed the police are contacted and so is the JW legal department in the HQ, AKA Bethel.
> 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.
Indeed we have. Only wish I had more time to continue it. You raised a few good points, but I am still not convinced.
> 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.
>
Except everything Witnesses do is based on committees, and based teachings in the bible. Besides, to claim that C. T. Russell is the founder overlooks some things, many of the teachings were refined after his death due to a more in depth study and better understanding.
As for thoroughly discredited, I looked at your link regarding an actual fraud conviction. I can't find anything more on it other than that site. He did after all make the $300,000 from selling his chain of 5 shops to pay for his preaching work. He sold them before he got married. Nowadays you would get a pre-nup.
It is the same site that mentions the belief of 1874 as the year when Christ and the apostles returned to earth. Except that teaching was from Barbour, and after Russell and Barbour parted company in late '78 / early '79. He then revised it to 1914 after further study. Now he was wrong on that account as has been seen, but since then it has been seen that it wasn't a second coming on earth at that point but in Heaven and I'm now going off topic.
My point there was that the sources that discredit Russell have no real basis, and are mainly down to either complete and total ignorance or are by excommunicated witnesses who have a grudge.
For the record, Judge Rutherford, or "Judge" Rutherford as he was referred to on some sites was a lawyer, then public prosecutor for Boonville, Missouri. On occasion he served as a special judge in the Eighth Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri.
> 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.
Stop a second. That is WRONG. Jehovahs Witnesses do not and will not cover up abuse, it has happened at a local level by individuals, working on their own "initiative". When protocol is followed the police are contacted and so is the JW legal department in the HQ, AKA Bethel.
Belldandy wrote:
> Some quite funny replies here given the title of the topic.
>
> Undoubtedly many Christians would find criticisms of their faith
> 'illogical' also.
>
> Does belief enrich most people's lives ?
>
> Does belief make people do bad things (more so than other equivalent
> things) ?
>
> Yes, and no.
Yes I thought as much myself. Light's apparently anti religion tirade seems rather intolerant to me. Fact is with nearly every religion, if it is followed as it is set out in the various holy books, be it the Bible or the Koran etc then people would get on a whole lot better.
> Some quite funny replies here given the title of the topic.
>
> Undoubtedly many Christians would find criticisms of their faith
> 'illogical' also.
>
> Does belief enrich most people's lives ?
>
> Does belief make people do bad things (more so than other equivalent
> things) ?
>
> Yes, and no.
Yes I thought as much myself. Light's apparently anti religion tirade seems rather intolerant to me. Fact is with nearly every religion, if it is followed as it is set out in the various holy books, be it the Bible or the Koran etc then people would get on a whole lot better.
Notorious Biggles wrote:
2 words; miracle wheat.
>
> It is the same site that mentions the belief of 1874 as the year when
> Christ and the apostles returned to earth. Except that teaching was
> from Barbour, and after Russell and Barbour parted company in late
> '78 / early '79. He then revised it to 1914 after further study. Now
> he was wrong on that account as has been seen, but since then it has
> been seen that it wasn't a second coming on earth at that point but
> in Heaven and I'm now going off topic.
Erm...and how do you know it was a second coming in heaven? Can that be proved?
>
> My point there was that the sources that discredit Russell have no
> real basis, and are mainly down to either complete and total
> ignorance or are by excommunicated witnesses who have a grudge.
No real basis apart from legal records?
>
> For the record, Judge Rutherford, or "Judge" Rutherford as
> he was referred to on some sites was a lawyer, then public prosecutor
> for Boonville, Missouri. On occasion he served as a special judge in
> the Eighth Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri.
>
>
> Stop a second. That is WRONG. Jehovahs Witnesses do not and will not
> cover up abuse, it has happened at a local level by individuals,
> working on their own "initiative". When protocol is
> followed the police are contacted and so is the JW legal department
> in the HQ, AKA Bethel.
So how come the head of the JW church in the US point blank refused to answer questions about how the church deal with abuse, and how the emphasis is on dealing with it within the church? How come in every child abuse trial involving JW they have been evasive and obstructive?
2 words; miracle wheat.
>
> It is the same site that mentions the belief of 1874 as the year when
> Christ and the apostles returned to earth. Except that teaching was
> from Barbour, and after Russell and Barbour parted company in late
> '78 / early '79. He then revised it to 1914 after further study. Now
> he was wrong on that account as has been seen, but since then it has
> been seen that it wasn't a second coming on earth at that point but
> in Heaven and I'm now going off topic.
Erm...and how do you know it was a second coming in heaven? Can that be proved?
>
> My point there was that the sources that discredit Russell have no
> real basis, and are mainly down to either complete and total
> ignorance or are by excommunicated witnesses who have a grudge.
No real basis apart from legal records?
>
> For the record, Judge Rutherford, or "Judge" Rutherford as
> he was referred to on some sites was a lawyer, then public prosecutor
> for Boonville, Missouri. On occasion he served as a special judge in
> the Eighth Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri.
>
>
> Stop a second. That is WRONG. Jehovahs Witnesses do not and will not
> cover up abuse, it has happened at a local level by individuals,
> working on their own "initiative". When protocol is
> followed the police are contacted and so is the JW legal department
> in the HQ, AKA Bethel.
So how come the head of the JW church in the US point blank refused to answer questions about how the church deal with abuse, and how the emphasis is on dealing with it within the church? How come in every child abuse trial involving JW they have been evasive and obstructive?
Page: