azazel420

People who don't understand science and it's limitations might. Science is basically about model building. We devise a reasonable model to explain the current evidence with the idea that the model is most likely flawed and will require revision. Then we devise more in depth tests to revise the model in the right direction, over time we get closer to a comprehensive model. That's how science grows and has been it's strength. If we ever thought we had scientific truth then science would cease.

There are certainly outspoken critics of religion within the scientific community. Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan come to mind. This doesn't mean that learning science will make it harder to build faith. Faith is exactly that, it's faith. It's not based on scientific predictions or evidence. They can harmoniously co-exist but they cannot build upon one another. Good science is an (as far as is humanly possible) objective measure of the universe around us. You observe and document and build conclusions consistent with the body of observation. Once a single piece of verifiable evidence contradicts the conclusion then one is forced to revise the conclusion to be consistent with the current body of observation. Religion is a different beast. With religion the conclusion is implicit and unchanging. Jesus died on the cross for you or Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon with divine inspiration. The conclusions are inseperable from the body of evidence, you either accept the conclusion or you don't. There is no scientific approach to faith, faith is an antithesis of science. That doesn't mean that can't harmoniously coexist but scientific discovery doesn't build religious conviction, you have to have the religious conviction on it's own merits to build it.

My morality comes from myself and comprises 3 rules. Respect others. Be honest. Do what you want. If you follow those 3 rules always then IMO you will be a good person.

Perhaps but I have to say of this particular source I'm decidedly dubious. Oral traditions documented by a lone historian with a distinct Christian influence during a time period where Spanish influence would of played a major role in his works. From Wikipedia: "A Mestizo born between 1568 and 1580, Alva Cortés Ixtlilxóchitl was a direct descendant of Ixtlilxóchitl I and Ixtlilxóchitl II, tlatoque (rulers) of Texcoco. He was also the great-great-grandson of Cuitláhuac, the next-to-last Aztec ruler of Tenochtitlan and victor of la Noche Triste. He was a distinguished student at the Imperial College of Santa Cruz de Tlatelolco, where he was educated in both Nahuatl and Spanish. He lived in San Juan Teotihuacán from 1600 to 1604. In 1612 he was governor of Texcoco, and in 1613 governor of Tlalmanalco. In spite of his illustrious birth, good education and obvious ability, he lived most of his life in dire poverty. Most of his works were written to relieve his wants." "His works contain very important data for the history of Mexico, but except for Historia chichimeca, they are written without order or method, the chronology is very faulty, and there is much repetition." Encarta states: "Fernando de Alva Cortés Ixtlilxochitl (1568?-1648), Mexican historian, and lineal descendant of the Native South American chief Ixtlilxochitl II of Texcoco. He was commissioned by the Spanish viceroy of Mexico to write histories of the Native American peoples of Mexico." Corroborating sources from his contemporaries or predecessors would add some weight to his accounts, It's still far from scientific evidence but would be more convincing. The Spanish influence is a very important point, this was a period in time where the Spanish Inquisition was still very much alive. To be clear, I'm not trying to be overly critical, I'm not saying the guy was a liar. It's important to note the historical context out of which such sources arise. There's a difference in my mind between an account of oral tradition that's displayed in an unbiased manner and then has Christian stories layered on top and a source which begins with a Christian spin from the start. It's fairly clear that Ixtlilxochitl displayed his stories from a Christian perspective, meaning it's very easy to conclude that he may of made key adaptations within the stories to conform to his preconceived notions. One key fact of human nature is that when you view something through a cultural microscope that's colored by one belief everything tends to conform to that belief a little easier.

According to the biblical calendar I've come to recognize, the writer dates this event to about 700 AD. Far as I know my Book of Mormon dates at this time the Nephites were dead several hundred years over. As far as I understood your time-line he places the death of Jesus after this, someone correct me if I'm wrong but this seems to be an untrustworthy source.

While it's a nice story and there are certainly parallels to the Christian story, it's significantly different enough and dates don't exactly line up with him as a Jesus figure. History: (Incan Myth) - Viracocha was the son of the ancient gods Bochica and Chia who abdicated their roles in order for him to become ruler of the Incan gods and to allow the Incans to prosper. From 1100 BC to at least 1500 AD, he ruled a pantheon of gods who had worshippers over half of South America. The Incan gods, however, lost much of their power when the Spanish Conquistadors invaded the land bringing Christianity with them and black slaves with their African Gods. Some of the Incans may have fled as far north as Costa Verde in Central America where they spread worship of Viracocha to the Kamekeri Indians. Source: Viracocha (Incan God) He's about 1100 years to early to be Jesus. All in all there are a handful of similarities (maybe half a dozen) and at least as many differences. Looking at deities from nearly any pantheon you are bound to find more then a few similarities between some.

I don't have faith that the miracles in The Bible were performed. I just have reason to believe that the historical context behind those stories was real, The Bible deals with real events that can be independently verified, with a religious spin that requires faith. With the Book of Mormon I don't see that the historical context is largely supported by real findings. I also don't see the argument of an isolated society. There were many tribes depicted in the Book of Mormon and the earlier church position stated that the Book of Mormon tribes were the principal ancestry of the Pre-Columbian Native American population. That view was reversed when genetic testing and profiling became a possibility and it was determined that the predominant genetic links were much closer to Siberian and Mongoloid tribes. If it were simply an unproven postulate but a plausible scientific explanation then a lot of evidence wouldn't be needed but it seems to me the reigning scientific knowledge of today in the field doesn't simply not support the Book of Mormon but much of it flies in it's face. That doesn't mean it's not true but it means the need for plausible evidence, in my mind, is greater for the Book of Mormon then The Bible.

Where might I find it? Google wasn't forthcoming for me.

Yes, I'm not asking for "proof" as that's a pretty substantial burden to prove that any specific group of people lived or did anything through archaeological evidence. Preferably I'd like to see something plausible that stems from scientific study, preferably independently of the church but at least something that's independently verifiable.

I don't think there are many intelligent people who doubt the historical context of the Bible existed. Perhaps there are disagreements into how far it goes and there are certainly people who doubt the religious connections of the Bible. To me, accepting the historical context of something is important to even beginning to accept the greater picture. With the bible that's fairly easy to do for the most part (though I think some passages must be viewed allegorically IE the Genesis account must be to rationalize it with current evidence and there are others).

On Quetzalcoatl, this site has some interesting information: Queztalcoatl and Jesus -- No Resemblance!

When I was growing up the phrase "meat is murder" was a common one. For quite some time I was practicing vegetarian, not vegan though I did try to limit dairy. To this day I'm not a big meat eater but I do eat some. Of course I have boundaries, certainly I wouldn't want people strolling around naked or sacrificing animals in my back yard (you have a weak understanding of satanism by the way, LaVey categorically condemned ritual sacrifice of life or blood). If they were satanists I wouldn't mind one bit them bringing and reading the satanic bible or the satanic witch in my house, though I disagree with much of what it says. I can certainly understand one not allowing tobacco smoking or the drinking of alcohol in their house (though I'd avoid the second one as I do enjoy alcohol consumption). That which doesn't have any immediate and negative impact on me or others I don't really concern myself with. Again it's a point of view that you probably can't appreciate and likewise I have difficulty appreciating yours. My spiritual (not religious) roots were founded in and around pagan traditions and Thelema where do what thou wilt ("Harm done, do what thou wilt" within Wicca or in Thelema "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law") is an important precept.

Question that's been on my mind for some time. According to the Book of Mormon, Christ visited America and established his church on the continent. He had direct contact with at least some Native Americans and many no doubt would of heard of him indirectly. His church on the American continents lasted for several generations and was at least somewhat widespread. Seems to me like such an event would spark some enthusiasm, as far as general human tendencies go, some record of this would have to have existed outside of the Book of Mormon. What evidence or record of this event or other Book of Mormon events can we find outside of the Book of Mormon itself? Are there any other records anywhere or artifacts outside of what's given by the church to support the view that Christianity was ever part of American culture prior to European exploration/colonization?

Just depends on how you look at it. On one hand, if someone asks you not to do whatever in their home it's good to respect it. On the other hand when you hold beliefs that aren't universal it's not always right to expect a person to share in your beliefs in your home. If I'm Jewish I'd certainly want to eat kosher but I wouldn't demand visitors also show a strict observance to my dietary restriction. If I were vegetarian I wouldn't ask that my friends don't eat meat in my house. I might feel strongly in that conviction but recognize that other's don't and if a friend is staying with me I don't feel it's right to push my belief on them. Of course if they know of my conviction and wish to respect it by not eating meat in my house then it's fine and shows a respect that I would appreciate. I'm not saying you or your mom are wrong, there's always another way to look at something but I just don't agree with that approach personally. It's a matter of perspective that I don't think we could ever share even if we argued back and forth to eternity. You are right that the inter-racial thing is extreme. I just don't think that I could enforce a rule dictating involved couples forcibly separate. To me, it's rude. It's like saying your relationship isn't good enough for my house. I think it stems from a fundamental difference in opinion on relationships. To you, premarital relationships of that type are not natural and waiting for marriage to sleep together is natural. To me it's not the case, premarital relationships are totally natural to me and I couldn't deny one intimate contact to a loved one.

Internet is both a blessing and a curse. You gotta be real careful how you come across online because it's real easy to get the wrong impression via written word. On the other hand I've found some really fulfilling relationship via the internet. One thing seems a bit strange to me though. How did she get your parents number? Seems an odd bit of info to give to someone online.