[Tari]

Hell, even if the afterlife was a hoax I don't see why we should fear death.

no catholic should say Hell does not exist. we were talking in RE the pther day about these three lil portuguese girls who Mary spoke to. it was just before the second world war and about three yrs b4 John Paul 2nd was popenized (i think thats the word). she told them that the second world war would happen if these things didnt occur . . . . .cant remember much but it was interesting . . . .anyhoo . . . .. and she came to them three times. she gave the youngest girl a vision of JP2 being shot three times before falling to the ground and dying and showed them an image of hell. these girls were about 6,9,10 i think and from that moment on they were so afraid (actually i dont think afraid is the word but anyway) that they dedicated their lives to God. and then Mary said that two of the girls would die before they reached 15 and the two eldest died within three yrs after the last vision and the youngest became a nun.

but the weird thing is that all these 'prophecies' from Mary were fulfilled and Russia spread communism in WW2 and JP2 was instated as pope and then the third child died. and JP2 was the pope that made the girls saints and he died the day of their feast day or something like that so really no catholic should not agree that hell does not exist.

~ Tari

[Gary Wassner]

Excuse me - where exactly is hell?

[Tari]

Excuse me - where exactly is hell?

good question. the girl i mentioned above the youngest one who became a nun she wrote a book . . . well her journal was published i'll get the name if it if you want but she wrote everyhting down about hell and Mary and stuff like that.

as for where is hell? like i said qood question for all we know we could be in it now or it could be in our minds or just another paraplane. where do u think it is?

~ Tari

PS i dont believe in hell personally but i thought the fact about the three girls was interesting i mean RE lessons hav to be good for something right?

[Tari]

Soz Gary. i is goin to bed. tired and skool 2moro. **shudders**

~ Tari

[Gary Wassner]

Sure, metaphorically we can all understand it. Hell is a state of mind.

But honestly, where is this place? Fundamentalists don't believe in metaphors. Why do we take these ideas seriously? In my fantasy world, a certain breed of trees are sentient. But I don't live my life worshipping them. They are metaphors. I think most people recognize the difference. Why don't they when it comes to scripture?

[Hereford Eye]

How would you describe an institution that purports to describe
(1) when life began
(2) when it ends
(3) when human life began
(4) when it will end
(5) how human life is similar to and differs from other life
(6) interrelationship of humans to other life on the planet
(7) what makes people tick
(8) what makes people in groups tick
(9) what makes people normal and what to do when they're not normal
(10) whether people are alone in the universe or not
(11) what causes consciousness, rational thinking, ideation
(12) why there is order in seeming chaos and vice versa
(13) the nature of human belief systems and how these paradigms are changed

These questions are the reason I fail to understand Scott and GW's arguments. In my meager library are scientific texts addressing each of the above topics. That's one book case. In the book case right next to it are the religious texts from all the world's religions - not just the monotheistic ones we seem to be dealing with in this thread - and they all purport to answer these questions. Sometimes the terminology is very similar as in exaplantions of the origin of everything; sometimes it differs as in sinners and deviants from the social norm. But, both science and religion address the issues.
Each side, as demonstrated here in this thread, is absolutely certain "knowledge" - good hard fact - is on their side. I suspect that is a characteristic of belief systems, the undeniability of its central "facts".

For an example in blind faith in science, when light crossing the vacuum seemed to be a problem, science invented the fact of ether. It took Einstein to show we didn't need ether, so it went away quietly. Now science needs something to support all its grand equations concerning the big bang, expansion of the universe, and several other phenomenon. Presto, we have a thing no one has seen, no one can describe, but all are certain it must exist because the equations demand it: dark matter. The most magic rune of all must certainly be "=".

[Gary Wassner]

But isn't it interesting HE that when we no longer could support the concept of ether, it did go away? You just clarified the difference.

[Hereford Eye]

No. I didn't. I have as much sympathy for the disappearance of ether as a proof of the rationality of sicence as I do for the elimination of Saint Patrick from the ranks of the canonized as justification for the rationality of the Catholic Church.
Thomas Kuhn fairly well demonstrated the blind reasoning involved in science in The Structure of Scientific Revolution. I believe he explained the difficulty involved is that "everyone knows the truth." When you know the truth, you are not easily convinced you may be wrong.
Of course, Gordon Allport covered the same ground from a different slant in his 1979 The Nature of Prejudice.

[Gary Wassner]

Do you really think though that you are making the same kind of claim when you say 'If I push this button the light will go on' and 'If I pray hard enough and do good deed I will go to heaven'?

[Hereford Eye]

Is it not in the same class of problem as "1 + 1 = ?" where the answer depends upon the base system you are using?
Belief systems come several to the customer. Folk who accept technology without question - those who believe the light will come on when the switch is pushed - constitute one system. Was it not the esteemable Mr. Clarke, scientist par excellence, who observed sufficiently advanced technology will appear to be magic to the unitiated. How many folk do you suppose push that light switch with precisely the same frame of mind as the person who ponders a good deed?
Operating from your desk in the Catskills :) a POV seems utterly obvious and unassailable. Operating from Rwanda, another human being doesn't see it so. Opearting from a temple in Tibet, another human being doesn't see it so. Operating from a hogan in Northeastern Arizona, another human being doesn't see it so. Which human being has truth on their side?
Isn't the function of a belief system to get one through the day, the week, the hour, the year, the life. Viable belief systems modify themselves over time with new input and failed experiments, i.e., daily life. If so, they all have truth on their side and competitive comparisons are beside the point.

This just occurred to me, something about which science has little to say. Does love between human beings exist? Let's distinguish here between love and procreation. I'm talking the love that has kept me sharing life with the same woman for 37 years. Is that real or is it a figment of my imagination?
Where did it come from and why? What's its purpose if there are no children?

If love exists, if it is a fact of life, hard knowledge, yet it cannot be proved scientifically, does that constitute blind faith?