Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: koriwhore ( )
Date: March 11, 2018 04:25PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: StillAnon ( )
Date: March 11, 2018 08:03PM

That show is hilarious. If only adults could be as honest as Sheldon. We'd all be better off. But, it would probably eliminate religion (we'd really be better off).

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: March 11, 2018 08:08PM

I for one am grateful that religionists think that getting something for nothing is possible. Without hopeful suckers, where would religions, and other '-ologies' find easy money?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Exposing Dawkins ( )
Date: March 12, 2018 08:36PM

I'd imagine the title character would disagree with you about biOLOGY, geOLOGY, cosmOLOGY etc. ;)

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: donbagley ( )
Date: March 12, 2018 05:17AM

It's hilarious.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Richard Foxe ( )
Date: March 12, 2018 07:21AM

Colbert, a strong Catholic who covers a lot of science on his show and sees no contradiction between science and religion, mentioned that it's becoming common to label fringe and unsupported theories as pseudo-science or junk science. But when are people going to make the same distinction regarding religion? The crazies, fanatics, bigots, or those ignorant of the depths of their own traditions--call it out: pseudo-religion or junk religion.

Maybe it's because nowadays practically anything can pass as a 'religion'-- there are no agreed upon heresies. (Of course in the past, archaic 'science' would not be called science today.)

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Richard Foxe ( )
Date: March 12, 2018 08:02AM

This is not to say that religion equates with mainstream. Indeed, a lot of "mainstream"--religion, politics, business, what have you--is accommodated to practitioners' egos, with all their cultural impositions, self-serving practices, and social-serving roles. People generally haven't come to an accepted "scientific method" for inner, psychological, non-material inquiries (though maybe Buddhism has).

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Human ( )
Date: March 12, 2018 02:55PM

Exactly. It’s fascinating.

Richard Foxe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> People
> generally haven't come to an accepted "scientific
> method" for inner, psychological, non-material
> inquiries (though maybe Buddhism has).

Been considering Robert Wright’s Why Buddhism Is true, lately...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Henry Bemis ( )
Date: March 13, 2018 08:59PM

"People generally haven't come to an accepted "scientific method" for inner, psychological, non-material inquiries (though maybe Buddhism has)."

COMMENT: Exactly. Because such things cannot be properly addressed by the scientific method. That includes Eastern religious efforts to "scieneticize" (Wow, what a great word!) religious experience. That is why humanism (including consciousness, the moral sense, and freewill) transcends science; and also why *theoretical* psychology is essentially bogus. (For Human) :)

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ificouldhietokolob ( )
Date: March 12, 2018 09:00AM

As if the "depths" of christian "traditions" are any less crazy, fanatical, bigoted, and ignorant than other religions...

Right.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Richard Foxe ( )
Date: March 12, 2018 09:09AM

I'm curious to know what you think those depths are. Might they include meditation, centering prayer, selfless service, ego transcendence?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ificouldhietokolob ( )
Date: March 12, 2018 10:31AM

Richard Foxe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm curious to know what you think those depths
> are. Might they include meditation, centering
> prayer, selfless service, ego transcendence?

They might include those. But I don't cherry-pick.
They also include book burnings, holy wars, burnings-at-the-stake, endorsement of human slavery, and all the other warts and crazy, fanatical, bigoted, ignorant actions that the ones you talked about don't seem to have curbed.

I also don't see how claiming a spirit-god-thing for which there is no evidence turning itself into its own son by magically impregnating a virgin, then sacrificing itself to itself, to "save" only those who believe the story, is any less "crazy" than Xenu and his volcanoes. And I'd wager that the folks who truly believe scientology don't think it's at all crazy, just like folks who truly believe christianity don't think it's at all crazy. To me, there's *no* difference, and all "depth of tradition" means is that the craziness has been around longer.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Richard Foxe ( )
Date: March 12, 2018 02:45PM

Here's an interesting contrast: people are born into a religion but none are "born" into science. With the exception of Mengele and others, science is led by the best in the field; this cannot be said of religion...without being accused of cherry-picking.

Look at the U.S. and all its citizens, past and present--are they all equal exemplars of "Americans," just because they're born there? Perhaps sociologically, but not ideologically. The "depths" of a tradition means its perennial values, exemplified by its epitomes, not its misfits. Should "American ideals" have curbed all the horrific occurrences, cruelties, criminal acts of those who were twisted or just ignorant? The "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

I think religion is different: those born into it (and profess themselves to be practitioners) should be called upon to know and follow the best in their traditions--Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Taoism, Buddhism and all--or they cannot truly call themselves followers of these.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ificouldhietokolob ( )
Date: March 12, 2018 03:06PM

Richard Foxe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Look at the U.S. and all its citizens, past and
> present--are they all equal exemplars of
> "Americans," just because they're born there?

Well, actually, yes -- I think they are.
Otherwise I'm engaging in a "no True Scotsman" fallacy.
As you pointed out.
No cherry picking, we take the bad with the good -- and we can ask why the "ideals" DON'T work on everyone...but not just discard the "bad" ones because they're "bad."

> The "depths" of a tradition mean its perennial values,
> exemplified by its epitomes, not its misfits.

Yeah, but the thing is, what you NOW consider "misfits" were the "epitomes" of their time. The bishops/popes who ordered inquisitions were held up as the epitome of religious leaders by their followers. The protestant founders that burned heretics at the stake, the same.

So, yeah, I still think you're cherry-picking.

> ...or they cannot
> truly call themselves followers of these.

Then nobody is "truly" a follower.
After all, isn't it an axiom in christianity, for example, that "all have sinned," and none are perfect?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Richard Foxe ( )
Date: March 12, 2018 09:27PM

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:

> After all, isn't it an axiom in christianity, for
> example, that "all have sinned," and none are
> perfect?

That is not in the teachings of Jesus, at least as recorded. The whole Sacrificial Lamb trope, referencing the Jewish practice of the time, could not have been the "Good News" of the gospel while he was alive. Rather, that News was about the "Kingdom of God" and that all are 'Sons of the Most High.' I.e., we are not what we appear to be (bodies) or what we take ourselves to be (egos) but are something so much greater--not after death but right now. I think this is a common core of teachings based on the experienced reality of Enlightenment of the founder and the latent reality of everyone.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: ificouldhietokolob ( )
Date: March 13, 2018 11:45AM

An interesting position. One that I personally find more "enlightened" than "orthodox christianity's" take on the subject.

Speaking of that...

https://carm.org/have-all-people-sinned-or-not

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Exposing Dawkins ( )
Date: March 12, 2018 08:34PM

There are several Youtube videos of The Big Bang Theory on Youtube without the laughter track... it puts a very different spin on it.

Personally I think it is a just one of a large number of formulaic trashy sitcoms with cliché characters... but people lap up some prolefeed. I can imagine "Young Sheldon" is the same. "Frasier" is about the only one of these I can put up with.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: exminion ( )
Date: March 12, 2018 09:03PM

Thank you, Exposing Dawkins, for having the guts to say something bad about "Young Sheldon."

My few remaining Mormon friends all rave about "Big Bang Theory" and "Young Sheldon," and say that they are their very favorite TV shows. I don't know if it has anything to do with their being Mormons, or not.

I have tried to appreciate these shows, but I can't even sit all the way through even one show. I usually like comedies of all kinds.

I always especially liked Frasier, though.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Exposing Dawkins ( )
Date: March 13, 2018 10:17AM

Some people argue that the character reinforces stereotypes about autism/Aspergers etc.

Most big US sitcoms aren't actually very funny. There are some exceptions of course. I wish tbey'd lose the laughter tracks too, because they're just horrible.

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 ********   *******   ********        **  **    ** 
 **        **     **  **              **  **   **  
 **               **  **              **  **  **   
 ******     *******   ******          **  *****    
 **               **  **        **    **  **  **   
 **        **     **  **        **    **  **   **  
 ********   *******   ********   ******   **    **