Evidence for God from Science

Does all this mean that Mitt Romney cannot be President and that I should closely examine the parallels of Jesus and Osiris?

To ridicule the Book of Mormon seems to me to be laughable. What could be more improbable than a God creating from nothing, telling people to gaze upon a graven image in order to survive snake bites after telling them not to make images, flooding the entire world, destroying cities, having a son by a virgin who is killed and is raised from the dead.The mind boggles.

hfd wrote: To ridicule the Book of Mormon seems to me to be laughable. What could be more improbable than a God creating from nothing, telling people to gaze upon a graven image in order to survive snake bites after telling them not to make images, flooding the entire world, destroying cities, having a son by a virgin who is killed and is raised from the dead. The mind boggles.

Archeology backs up the Bible — it refutes Mormonism's claims.

Well, we are here on this planet suspended in space, whose crust is floating on top of molten rock, revolving about the sun, which is also suspended midst nothingness within one single galaxy, which is also suspended amongst many-many other galaxies that make of the universe. All this supposed to be caused by an accidental big bang by non-existent gases which could not exist in nothingness but had to come from someplace. Where did the gases come from or the atoms? Science leads back to God — like it or not — it does.

God said — “let there be light and there was light…” Genesis chapter One

Become a Christian and find out yourself the empirical data you crave and seek about Jesus being raised from the dead. Do you even know why Christ was raised? Why he died?

hfd wrote: Does all this mean that Mitt Romney cannot be President and that I should closely examine the parallels of Jesus and Osiris?

What matter's is Mitt Romney's current political record — not his religion! He is a politician first and foremost and does not demonstrate real leadership skills. All current candidates and even including President Bush are first and foremost politicians and lack true leadership skills. This looks like a terrible election as there isn't anybody to vote for worth a lick of salt — in both parties.

Should Mitt Romney be elected solely by playing the religious discrimination card and or examining his record and political platforms? You decide …

Next, your claim of 'closely examining the parallels of Jesus and Osiris' is very predictable of you: I think we may have met on another forum before but again maybe not...

Go ahead and spout off your evidence but please keep it civil here…
-
-
-

hfd wrote:To ridicule the Book of Mormon seems to me to be laughable. What could be more improbable than a God creating from nothing, telling people to gaze upon a graven image in order to survive snake bites after telling them not to make images, flooding the entire world, destroying cities, having a son by a virgin who is killed and is raised from the dead.The mind boggles.

Is living with a prejudicial bias a good thing or a bad thing?

Also, the command against making "carved images" was a command against making idols. God did not command Moses to make an idol for the people to worship but a symbol to which they could look in faith and be healed. Later, the people made this symbol into an idol. But this does not make the symbol wrong. After all, people have worshiped the Bible. This does not mean that the Bible was intended by God as an idol.

Further, not all "images" are idols. Religious art contains images but is not thereby idolatrous. God also instructed Moses to make cherubim (angels) for the ark, but they were not idols. There is a difference between a God-appointed representation of symbol (e.g., the bread and wine in the Lord's Supper) and a man-made idol..

Many Mormon's try to debunk Spalding trying to say that his story doesn't take place in the Americas... Lets look at the map of the New York and Ohio area and the Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Meso-America again...

"The Book of Mormon requirement for the Narrow Neck of Land/Narrow Pass is that it divided the Land Southward from the Land Northward:

'And now, it was only the distance of a day and a half's journey for a Nephite, on the line Bountiful and the land Desolation, from the east to the west sea; and thus the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward.' (Alma 22:32.)"

1. At its narrowest point between the Gulf of Mexico on the north and the Pacific Ocean on the south, the Isthmus of Tehuantepec is 125 miles wide. The Book of Mormon verse quoted above clearly states that it was "a day and a half's journey" for a "Nephite" to travel "from the east to the west sea." Obviously, no "Nephite" or any other human could travel 125 miles in a "day and a half" in the era proposed in the BOM, unless he possessed a means of travel unknown to modern science. Also some mountains are involved here too making the travel even longer...

2. The BOM text calls for an "east sea" and a "west sea," whereby the "narrow neck of land" would necessarily run east-west (as the BOM states, from the "land northward" and the "Land southward.")

Also there are no seas here at Isthmus of Tehuantepec... Only oceans and gulfs...

3. The BOM states that the land of Zarahemla was nearly surrounded by water. At Isthmus there isn't... But in the New York and Ohio area there is... Mormons propose that the "Land of Zarahemla" lay in the southern and narrowest point of the Isthmus (in present-day Chiapas), and the "land of Nephi" was 200 miles or so to the east (in present-day Guatemala.)

New York and Ohio area. Only 25 - 30 miles wide at it's narrowest point.



Isthmus of Tehuantepec. 125 miles wide at it's narrowest point. Almost 4 times longer than the previous map.

You have to give credit to the Mormons for being able to change their book whenever it suits them. The last change was a mere word change in an attempt to throw off scientists for pointing out that DNA testing had refuted the history claims made in the Book of Mormon.

http://www.mormoninfo.org/news-info/fil ... ook-mormon
http://www.mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.dn ... 004917.pdf
http://www.lhvm.org/dnavs.html

ageofknowledge wrote:You have to give credit to the Mormons for being able to change their book whenever it suits them.

Yes, including their revelations... Many people are not aware that Mormons would not even let blacks into their priesthood, that is until 1978, when the LDS Presidency had a revelation and changed their verdict...

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/themes/prohibition.html
http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_blac ... thood.html

Maybe Obiwan can answer some of these Spalding questions too.. I'd like to know how Spalding came up with the BoM before Joseph Smith..