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.

I guess I won't understand your position. How you tell it the only thing that set her off was them not being married. They weren't doing anything that would of inherently created conflict. Have to ask.... what does she care if they are married or not? It's their life not hers. Say I'm against inter-racial marriage and an inter-racial couple is in my family in that situation. Am I right in telling them they can't sleep together because I disapprove of their relationship? Far as I see it people's relationships are their own business, even if it's under your roof. Long as they aren't being disgusting why judge them?

Ya, that's fine. Don't invite them to stay in your house then. If you do invite them to stay in your house then you're accepting them in regardless. Telling someone it's okay to come and stay in your house and then making demands requiring them to kick their loved one out isn't right. I wouldn't have a problem with someone saying I couldn't stay in their house if I was going to be shacked up with an unmarried lover, I just wouldn't come.

I don't see this as an issue with disrespect towards someone's beliefs but rather an issue with violating a person's personal boundaries. If you believe people should not drink that's all well and good but it doesn't require those around you to respect your beliefs. If you have rules within your own home of what you don't want to occur and someone disrespects those rules then they've violated your personal space. My parents and oldest sister are practicing Mormons and they don't drink alcohol or like others drinking it but I've never really considered it rude to drink moderately around them. I like alcohol (in moderation) and feel free to enjoy it so long as it doesn't pose any safety risk to others (drinking and driving). The sharing a room thing, my opinion get over it. Long as they aren't making a spectacle of it I don't think you should forcibly separate people who don't share your views on it. If you invited them over don't expect them to change their lives to respect your beliefs, they don't believe the same thing as you do. If I were in that situation I would of opted for a hotel room. I wouldn't kick my girlfriend out of the room because someone wasn't comfortable with us sleeping in the same bed not being married.

Well, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by conservative. Politically I'm a libertarian conservative. Religiously/philosophically I'm a freethinker with a tendency towards agnosticism and skepticism. What I think about the experiment is that if it's legitimate it's a good piece of evidence towards the feasibility of evolutionary change in a population over many generations. I think Schlafly is understandably skeptical but doesn't have the authority or training to make demands to satisfy his skepticism. There is a peer-review process for scientific discourse and the study should make it's way through that process, wasted time submitting large quantities of raw data to people with no training to do anything meaningful is a pointless exercise. What I think about Ben Stein is probably not appropriate to iterate on this board. Suffice it to say he's a parasite with little or nothing to add to the scientific process and should be ignored.

Technically yes, I was raised/baptized in the LDS church and as far as their records are concerned I'm a member. Ive had fairly recent limited contact with the church (home teachers come by occasionally). I don't adhere to any christian belief system. Thanks to MarginOfError for the helpful response. The wording in Jacob is problematic as it doesn't mention covenant breaking but simply says they took many wives. If someone could point me to specific verses/chapters within the scriptures (bible or otherwise) on the topic of plural marriage would be appreciated.

Recently become interested in plural marriage is it's taught doctrinally within the LDS church. There seems to be some confusing inconsistencies within the scriptures as to the topic. Start with the Book of Mormon, Book of Jacob Chapter 2: 24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. 25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. 26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. 27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; 28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. 29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. 30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. Now this passage clearly paints plural marriage as an abomination before God. I know that people point to verse 30 as a justification where god says he will occasionally call upon his people to "bring up seed". Let's contrast Jacob 2 with D&C 132: 1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines— 2 Behold, and lo, I am the Lord thy God, and will answer thee as touching this matter. 3 Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those who have this law revealed unto them must obey the same. 4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory. 5 For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world. 6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God. This passage stands to justify the practice of plural marriage as a new and everlasting covenant and states that no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into the glory of God. Even if we assume this covenant is only taken under special circumstances (which seems inconsistent) we are left with the problem of David and Solomon. The book of Jacob condemns the plural wives of David and Solomon while D&C 132 justifies the plural wives of David and Solomon. This is a pretty confusing inconsistency, are David and Solomon condemned or justified for plural marriage?

I'm unconvinced of the idea of the death penalty is a deterant. The difference between life imprisonment and death isn't that complelling as a deterant. I'd wager there are many who'd prefer death to life imprisonment. Those who wouldn't likely don't draw enough distinction that they'd commit the crime with the risk of life imprisonment but wouldn't with the risk of death. Until I see some more or less unambiguous evidence that the death penalty has deterant value I hold that it most likely doesn't. Is the economic drain worth the added feeling of justice a few families would feel (not all families would even seek the death penalty and those who do would generally be happy seeing the person locked away) by seeing their agressor put to death vs. rotting in a prison cell? I don't feel it is.

There is very little that can be definitively proven for a species with perception as limited as ours. As Descartes says, "Cogito, ergo sum" shows definitively that I exist in some form, though I can't be definitively sure in what form I exist. For all intents and purposes I can be assured that my senses are generally correct. If I witness the same response to the same stimuli without fail then I can be reasonably assured of a causal link between the two. This (along with the scientific method) is the foundation of modern science. Beyond this fundamental ideal we can't hold to anything more substantial then speculation and faith. Both speculation and faith can be strengthened in their own way but neither can be proven until they become part of our observable reality. Science deals with speculation (inference based on evidence) while religion deals with faith. We can never know with assurance that either are totally correct, you just have to decide what you believe and what you think for yourself.

I oppose the death penalty for a few reasons. First and foremost I disagree with the moral implications but I think there is a strong practical case against the death penalty. Inconclusive/suspect deterant impact: There's very little evidence that the death penalty serves as a deterant to capital offenses. There are 2 principal reasons why murder occurs. The first is the crime of passion, where there is generally little to no thought process. It's unlikely that punishment enters into the reasoning process (if you can call it that). Then you have premeditated crimes. Generally the amount of planning that goes into the crime leaves the murderer feeling they won't get caught. I've yet to see any studies which observe a reasonable decrease in capital offenses due to the death penalty. If anyone has seen one I'd be interested in seeing it. Economic costs: Due to a lengthy appeals process in capital cases set up to minimize the frivolous usage of the penalty there's a significant cost associated with death penalty cases. Estimates range from 2-5 million dollars per case. The cost increases as well when extradition battles ensue (many countries where there is no death penalty are less willing to extradite a criminal who would face the death penalty). The death penalty process generally takes years and often takes decades, with atleast 1 case exceeding 30 years. The lengthy process also raises questions in my mind as to the benefit to the families involved. Most families in murder cases want justice and ultimately what degree of closure they can get. Most follow the fates of the killers closely and a long drawn out process can be unsound, dragging justice out and forcing the families to relive the pain with each new appellant decision. False convictions: There have been a number of convictions on death row overturned as new evidence came to light. This is more of a historic point at this stage as advances in DNA testing have made the burden of proof in capital cases more difficult but it's still a danger inherit to the system. The first 3 are sufficient in my eyes to rationally oppose the death penalty. I have my doubts as to the human rights aspect. I'm uncomfortable in supporting state sanctioned killing. I know I'm in a minority on this point but I also see opposition to the death penalty growing as a trend.

I've studied the scientific debate between Young Earth Creationists (the belief in a literal translation of the Genesis creation story) and Evolutionists extensively. After having examined nearly every claim and counter-argument I've determined that as of yet there is no credible evidence to support the young Earth view outside of the bible. I remain open to evidence but until I see it I think it makes more sense to translate Genesis creation symbolically. This actually makes some sense as there was a common polytheistic view at the time in which different aspects of Nature were viewed to be the realm of different Gods. The Bible seems to me to refute this claim through Genesis and state that all of creation is the work of the one true God. Evidence for Evolution is not incontrovertible but it's hard to dismiss easily.