2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Zanza]

I have not enough insight into Methodists or Salafists to answer that.

ISIS seems to be a rather secular terrorist-mercenary army bent on conquest. Not sure if they even adhere an extreme version of Sunni Islam (Salafism I guess?) or if they are just brutal out of a more secular ideology, similar to e.g. the Nazis.

[Berkut]

I am going to go ahead and disagree with you there. Certainly there are many religions far more crazy than Mormonism but there are plenty less crazy. Maybe in your world hearing somebody is joining the Methodist church is just as insane as joining a ISIS-affiliated Salafist group but I do think there are religions that demand more craziness from its adherents than others.

Yes.

Mormons believe in:

-Jesus visited the Americas
-no coffee
-blacks couldn't join till the 70s
-people can become Gods themselves
-Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from gold plates (that no one ever saw) using magic stones
-and of course, magic underpants

You don't really want to get into comparative crazy religious beliefs.

Mormons sound crazy only because the crazy is more recent.

[Maximus]

How are Jaron's kids all so pale? 

kids?

[Maximus]

I've never actually met a Mormon. At least, one that I know about.

That's surprising.  I've met loads of them.  Maybe it's more an Alberta thing (in particular southern Alberta has a lot of mormons).

Yea, my uncle married a Mormon.

On the other hand, I had never (knowingly) met a Jewish person before moving to the US.

[The Minsky Moment]

Same question: Joining the Methodists or ISIS affiliated Salafist group. Equally crazy or not?

Not.
But for reasons different from the plausibility of theological claims.
I don't agree with the Methodist view that an omnipotent divine being chose to be born on Earth 2000 years ago as an obscure Palestinian Jewish tinker.  That seems pretty implausible.  But I appreciate the fact that Methodists don't respond to my skepticism by murdering me and are content to express their religious commitments by things like running soup kitchens and building clean water supplies in Africa.

[Eddie Teach]

How are Jaron's kids all so pale? 

kids?

[Malthus]

How are Jaron's kids all so pale? 

kids?

[mongers]

You are silly, Syt. Those are FLDS. They hardly represent the modern sect.

There's an extreme prejudice against Mormons around here due to Spellus's venom about them, but they really are nice people.  I mean, I don't agree with anything they say and their religion is crazy, but they are kind, well-behaved, friendly, and clean people for sure.

This, one of the people who shared our house at university was a guy who was a British member of the mormons and that exactly describes him, good guy and number of times he ever brought up his religion or attempted to proselytise, zero. 

[Malthus]

You don't really want to get into comparative crazy religious beliefs.

Mormons sound crazy only because the crazy is more recent.

I agree that they religions tend to be equally nuts in their claims, but I do think that categorizing them based on how recent they are makes a certain amount of sense.

The (serious) reasoning is as follows: most religions have, at their founding, some sort of miracle, revelation or teachings that makes no sense taken literally. However, over time, said miracles, teachings or revelations tend to get encapsulated, as it were, in a shell of interpretations made by more or less sensible people who, while members of the religion, are sane enough otherwise. This tends to reconcile the religious insanity to the practical realities of running a community in the real world.

The exception are those branches of whatever religion that insist on discarding the interperative "shell" and insisting on a fundamentalist, literal interpretation based on the original miracle or revelation taken literally.

Of course, over time, the interperative "shell" can itself become fossilized at some point - the leaders of such a religion no longer bother to "adapt" to the existing modern world, but get stuck at some previous stage of adaptation (a most notable example of this is Hassidic Jews, who are "adapted" to 18th century Poland!).

A very young religion hasn't "adapted" yet and so its followers are capable of any sort of lunacy. Mormonism is in fact old enough to have "adapted", for example, by discarding many of the beliefs that made them obnoxious to the larger society (well, except for the fundamentalist sects).   

[mongers]

Same question: Joining the Methodists or ISIS affiliated Salafist group. Equally crazy or not?

Not.
But for reasons different from the plausibility of theological claims.
I don't agree with the Methodist view that an omnipotent divine being chose to be born on Earth 2000 years ago as an obscure Palestinian Jewish tinker.  That seems pretty implausible.  But I appreciate the fact that Methodists don't respond to my skepticism by murdering me and are content to express their religious commitments by things like running soup kitchens and building clean water supplies in Africa.

This chimes with my view of how you should 'judge' a religion, judge it on it's externalities, how it impacts the wider society and influence it has on making the individual believers positive contributors to their families and society.

They can believe whatever they want and shouldn't face personal or social sanctions, unless the way the religion is carried out in practice actively harms individual believers, families and damages the wider society.

[alfred russel]

I agree that they religions tend to be equally nuts in their claims, but I do think that categorizing them based on how recent they are makes a certain amount of sense.

The (serious) reasoning is as follows: most religions have, at their founding, some sort of miracle, revelation or teachings that makes no sense taken literally. However, over time, said miracles, teachings or revelations tend to get encapsulated, as it were, in a shell of interpretations made by more or less sensible people who, while members of the religion, are sane enough otherwise. This tends to reconcile the religious insanity to the practical realities of running a community in the real world.

The exception are those branches of whatever religion that insist on discarding the interperative "shell" and insisting on a fundamentalist, literal interpretation based on the original miracle or revelation taken literally.

Of course, over time, the interperative "shell" can itself become fossilized at some point - the leaders of such a religion no longer bother to "adapt" to the existing modern world, but get stuck at some previous stage of adaptation (a most notable example of this is Hassidic Jews, who are "adapted" to 18th century Poland!).

A very young religion hasn't "adapted" yet and so its followers are capable of any sort of lunacy. Mormonism is in fact old enough to have "adapted", for example, by discarding many of the beliefs that made them obnoxious to the larger society (well, except for the fundamentalist sects).   

Maybe (probably) the historical Jesus and Mohammed were no more than older versions of Joe Smith. But the main source of the former two is the religions themselves--did Jesus really turn water into wine during the wedding in Cana? There really isn't any context other than the Biblical story itself. Joseph Smith lived during a very well documented period not so long ago. Most of the Mormon claims are challengeable in ways older religions are not.

[Jaron]

There is certainly crazy things in any religion. The actual religious practices of Mormons though are not very radical. They are as they are. I maintain though that the mythological origins of a religion are not important. What is important is the role religion plays in shaping one's ethical conduct - in that light, I find Mormons to be a good natured and kind people.

[11B4V]

Shut up

Santa's better, he brings presents. 

[Eddie Teach]

Santa never brought me anything. 

[The Brain]

Hail Santa!