[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by the_exile [/i]
[B]As far as I'm concerned, science answers those questions far more thoroughly than faith. [/B][/QUOTE]
Do you believe that there's anything that can't be satisfactorily explained solely through scientific means? Or does every possible question possess a hard, scientific answer, as long as one is willing and able to look for it?
It is my opinion... that science should never be expected to explain [i]"life, the universe, and everything"[/i]. Merely most aspects of life and universe.
Science *has* explained multiple facets of how human life (and Earth life in general) functions. Progress is being made in fields currently poorly charted.
Science *has* explained multiple aspects of how the universe functions. Unfortunately, due to our limited energy reserves for peeking into the nanoscopic... and equally limited sensors for peeking out towards earlier times (or perhaps even earlier times before and outside our universe)... we should not expect instant gratification in understanding the universe.
Understanding doesn't come free. Learning is a difficult process.
As for "everything"... implying infinity, this concept will always contain some unexplained property... outside a given person's experimental reach. Science can explain yesterday's "everything", but never today's.
From my viewpoint, scientific method not offering instant understanding of everything... is irrelevant with regard to which spiritual beliefs one holds (or doesn't).
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by sleepy_shadow [/i]
[B]In response to Morden279:
It is my opinion... that science should never be expected to explain [i]"life, the universe, and everything"[/i]. Merely most aspects of life and universe. [/B][/QUOTE]
Oh, I agree, but that's [i]exactly[/i] what early modernists thought they could do in the 19th century. The industrial revolution was a period of tremendous progress and innovation, and in the mindset of the time, there was [b]nothing[/b] that these people thought they could not achieve.
As a pragmatist who believes in the primacy of human agency and the collective conscience of society, I tend not to involve myself in theological speculation. Only what exists in the here and now.
Regards,
Morden
ShadowDancerWhen I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie."London, UK
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i]
[B]Do you believe that there's anything that can't be satisfactorily explained solely through scientific means? Or does every possible question possess a hard, scientific answer, as long as one is willing and able to look for it? [/B][/QUOTE]
in answer: yes, i believe that every possible question posses a scientfic answer that can be answered once we attain a sufficiently advanced understanding of the background science.
whenever i get into this sort of argument, im often struck by the impression that people think that as a species we are pretty clever, and that if we cant get an answer to a question within a few decades, then the must be no answer.
in actual fact, yes were doing ok for ourselves in terms of knowledge, say 10 on the scale of knowlege. but the scale goes up to 1 000 000 000+ we are essentially ants at the base of a space elevator trying to figure out where it goes
What does science have to do with awe and wonder?
I can tell you of the many times a scientific discovery has incited awe and wonder in me, of how many scientists in interviews have told of the feeling of being the first to solve a problem or observe a phenomenon. I know I've had those warm and fuzzy feelings myself when characterizing some products of my research.
And then there is the pleasure of understanding and learning, the feeling of accomplishment when you achieve understanding of some new (for you, or if you're lucky brand new) scientific principle.
The practicing of science is not cold. I'll grant you that the facts are cold and hard, but their discovery, their understanding and their interpretation is not.
And even if you disagree with their conclusions some scientists say that they have measured beauty, at least where it concerns the human face (do a web search for the Marquardt beauty grid or see the website [url]http://www.beautyanalysis.com/[/url] )
I do not agree that Faith [i]explains[/i] the unexplainable, I think that Faith [i]provides answers[/i] about the unexplainable, but given that when it comes to Faith you have to believe the answers by definition I don't consider them true explanations. I consider them even less of an explanation when different religious faiths give you different answers for the same unexplainable.
[quote]Now, depending on how philosophical you want to get, the entire idea of "science" is based around the false premise that your senses and your reason can be believed (not to mention peer-reviewed journals). Anyone who's heard someone who wasn't there, or felt a phantom pain, or made a logical-yet-wrong deduction will tell you exactly how false that is.[/quote] Nope, science actually tells you that your senses and pure reason can't be trusted, and only through experiments that give repeatable results that are reasonable can you arrive at truth. Ideally the first skeptic should be the scientists himself, if you find results that are too good to be true (for example) you check and double check the experiment and repeat it to make sure your results are not wishful thinking. There is usually a further layer there: convincing the collaborators and/or supervisor (Ph.D. advisor or the boss at a research institute) that even if your results might seem too good to be true they are true. Peer-review publication is a further mechanism for ensuring that the results are to be considered true: if others in the field consider that your results and your procedures are believable and trust-worthy (as well as innovative enough to deserve dissemination) they get published.
[quote]Technically, from a sociological standpoint, science failed in its task to explain life, the universe, and everything during the so-called "modern era". (The 19th and 20th Centuries.)
The failure of science explains in part why so many people are turning to hardline religious sects, and fundementalist beliefs such as creationism in order to guide and explain their lives.[/quote] This to me is more of a failure to really understand science. True that such a view prevailed in the 19th. century, but I don't think that science is supposed to explain everything and replace religion.
My personal view, coming from much reflection to reconcile my Faith with my rationalist scientist intellect, is that there are some things that science can never explain. For example: the existence or not of the afterworld is a matter of Faith and Science is unable to give a definitive answer. In this I consider that according to most religions we have free will by which God allows us to reject his revelation, this includes rejecting the belief in the afterlife. Now consider the possibility of discovering an irrefutable scientific proof of the afterlife, this denies us the free will of denying an afterworld. By this I don't mean that science should not study the problem, quite the opposite, if anyone, anywhere came out saying they have proof of the afterlife the methods of science should be applied to evaluate the claim.
The existence of God, by the same token, is also outside of what Science can prove, and you have to accept it by Faith.
But other than those questions that truly pertain to Faith and the supernatural world I think that Science can answer every possible question we can ever pose about the natural world.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i]
[B]Do you believe that there's anything that can't be satisfactorily explained solely through scientific means? Or does every possible question possess a hard, scientific answer, as long as one is willing and able to look for it? [/B][/QUOTE]I'd essentially agree with ShadowDancer. I believe that [i]everything[/i] can and will be explained by science (barring the premature extinction of our species).
I don't believe that knowing the scientific explanation for the formation of a rainbow, or the setting of the sun, or why fools fall in love removes any intrinsic value from these things; nor do I believe that our appreciation for these things would be in any way different were we to come to understand the human mind in all its complexity.
I choose to believe that there is no value or purpose to existence aside from basic biological imperatives and that which we create for it. I consider knowledge and writing my [i]raisons d'être[/i], and I understand that some people have chosen to believe that there is an all-knowing and all-powerful Father watching over them, and that it is their purpose to follow what they believe to be his teachings.
There have been times in the past--the not-too-recent past--where I have wondered if perhaps they were right, but it is not within my capacity to postulate this higher being's existence on any genuine level.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Capt.Montoya [/i]
[B]I do not agree that Faith [i]explains[/i] the unexplainable, I think that Faith [i]provides answers[/i] about the unexplainable, but given that when it comes to Faith you have to believe the answers by definition I don't consider them true explanations. I consider them even less of an explanation when different religious faiths give you different answers for the same unexplainable.[/b][/quote]
[quote][i]Originally posted by Capt.Montoya [/i]
[b]Nope, science actually tells you that your senses and pure reason can't be trusted, and only through experiments that give repeatable results that are reasonable can you arrive at truth. [/B][/QUOTE]
ShadowDancerWhen I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie."London, UK
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Morden279 [/i]
[B]Technically, from a sociological standpoint, science failed in its task to explain life, the universe, and everything during the so-called "modern era". (The 19th and 20th Centuries.)
The failure of science explains in part why so many people are turning to hardline religious sects, and fundementalist beliefs such as creationism in order to guide and explain their lives.
Regards,
Morden [/B][/QUOTE]
I dont think science has failed at all! It is just the short attention span that the general population has; if it cant be solved in a matter of a few years then it doesnt have an answer and the scientists must therefore be wrong. Science is always advancing, but we're not going to get the answer to every problem within a matter of a few years.
Science may have been [I]unable[/I] to answer the questions of life the universe and everything in the 'modern era' [I]so far[/I] but that doesnt mean it will always be unable to do so.
In Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, it took Deep Thought a million years to come up with its answer. I think that it will take a comparable length of time to come up with our own answers
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ShadowDancer [/i]
[B]I dont think science has failed at all! It is just the short attention span that the general population has; if it cant be solved in a matter of a few years then it doesnt have an answer and the scientists must therefore be wrong. Science is always advancing, but we're not going to get the answer to every problem within a matter of a few years. [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm not talking about the failure of science in deterministic terms, only that a great many people [b]perceive[/b] that it failed, not that it actually *has* failed.
I'm a fence-sitter when it comes to this issue. ;)
Regards,
Morden
ShadowDancerWhen I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie."London, UK
lol, fair enough.
its the preception of failure that bugs me tho; if people got their heads out of the sand and looked about, we've actually done pretty well in the space of 200 years compared to the previous 2000 (and if it werent for the meddling of religion in science, we might actually be at the point where we could answer those questions; and certainly alot further on than we are now!)
People fear what they don't understand. That famous image of the mouse with a human ear that had been grown on its back shocked and frightened a lot of people, as well as portraying what science could do. The progress of science and technology, just as with Newton's law, can have a negative as well as a positive reaction on society.
Regards,
Morden
ShadowDancerWhen I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie."London, UK
maybe, but i dont think humanity is going to come under attack from an army of giant mice who've got eyes in the backs of their heads anytime soon!
if they maybe taught a decent amount of science and scientific ethics at school, then people wouldnt become so hysterical about it! think of all the good that could come from the public being a little less panicy about some science. eg. nanotechnology: im just waiting for some luddites to get hold of that one and start a panic over nanoviruses that can eat people:rolleyes: you can do that quite easily with chemical weapons at the moment without involving nanomachines
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ShadowDancer [/i]
[B]maybe, but i dont think humanity is going to come under attack from an army of giant mice who've got eyes in the backs of their heads anytime soon!
if they maybe taught a decent amount of science and scientific ethics at school, then people wouldnt become so hysterical about it! think of all the good that could come from the public being a little less panicy about some science. eg. nanotechnology: im just waiting for some luddites to get hold of that one and start a panic over nanoviruses that can eat people:rolleyes: you can do that quite easily with chemical weapons at the moment without involving nanomachines [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, it only happens in my dreams. Can't sleep, mice'll eat me... Can't sleep, mice'll eat me... :eek:
I'm all for the expansion of technology, but within the boundaries of human reason. (I object to science being held back on religious grounds if the consequences of said develpments would be non-harmful and advantageous to society and the human race.) However, like almost everyone, I feel that science can go too far. That's wear reason comes in.
I'd rather have mice with big Human Ears, than Adolf Hitler with his cold calculation of a final solution. The problem is we can't gaurantee the good outcome...
Science took a big leap in WWII, but at what cost?
Not just the lives of millions, but the ideology that life can be reduced to a possesion of property, and a formula within a facist state.
As with anything, you can have good or evil come from a new discovery.
Religion, Faith are no different.
Faith should be about believing in a greater power, and seeking to make the human, ecological, and spiritual state better because of it, not as a weapon to dominate.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]Science took a big leap in WWII, but at what cost? [/B][/QUOTE]
The same goes for war as a whole; past and present.
The American Civil War gave us the Gatling Gun, which in turn, inspired Hiram Maxim to conceive his own, more efficient machine gun. WW1 gave us the tank, and poison gas as a method of killing on a mass scale. Destructive and constructive technology as part of scientific development go hand in hand.
Regards,
Morden
ShadowDancerWhen I say, "Why aye, gadgie," in my heart I say, "Och aye, laddie."London, UK
war is the ultimate driving force behind any imperative. and strictly speaking, scientific knowlege is itself not constructive or destructive, its only how it is employed. take atom power for example: constructively its a power source, destructively its....well...destructive (not exactly sciences finest moment either)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by the_exile [/i]
[B][URL=http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1469&item=5570877748]Will the madness never end?[/URL] [/B][/QUOTE]
I find it interesting also how today there was a solar eclipse here in the USA.
So, if this is accurate, we should see an election of a pope that gets vetoed or missed due to the wind of a drizzly day (smoke from chimney of Sistine chapel), and someone else elected who is betrayed, and the previous one takes his place?
Very interesting...
Satisfies the church schism and the two remaining Popes stuff. Tie breaker scenario almost...
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JackN [/i]
[B]So, if this is accurate, we should see an election of a pope that gets vetoed or missed due to the wind of a drizzly day (smoke from chimney of Sistine chapel), and someone else elected who is betrayed, and the previous one takes his place?[/B][/QUOTE]
You know, that would help explain why John Paul II requested that, from now on, bells are rung in addition to white smoke being released to announce the election of a Pope. I mean, he might've doubted it would happen, but just to be sure... or better still, to make sure other people who didn't doubt it were sure.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i]
[B]You know, that would help explain why John Paul II requested that, from now on, bells are rung in addition to white smoke being released to announce the election of a Pope. I mean, he might've doubted it would happen, but just to be sure... or better still, to make sure other people who didn't doubt it were sure. [/B][/QUOTE]
No, the reason he had the bells rung was that there was much confusion when he was elected Pope. Folks outside weren't sure if a Pope had been selected or not, until he was announced to the world.
Comments
[B]As far as I'm concerned, science answers those questions far more thoroughly than faith. [/B][/QUOTE]
Do you believe that there's anything that can't be satisfactorily explained solely through scientific means? Or does every possible question possess a hard, scientific answer, as long as one is willing and able to look for it?
It is my opinion... that science should never be expected to explain [i]"life, the universe, and everything"[/i]. Merely most aspects of life and universe.
Science *has* explained multiple facets of how human life (and Earth life in general) functions. Progress is being made in fields currently poorly charted.
Science *has* explained multiple aspects of how the universe functions. Unfortunately, due to our limited energy reserves for peeking into the nanoscopic... and equally limited sensors for peeking out towards earlier times (or perhaps even earlier times before and outside our universe)... we should not expect instant gratification in understanding the universe.
Understanding doesn't come free. Learning is a difficult process.
As for "everything"... implying infinity, this concept will always contain some unexplained property... outside a given person's experimental reach. Science can explain yesterday's "everything", but never today's.
From my viewpoint, scientific method not offering instant understanding of everything... is irrelevant with regard to which spiritual beliefs one holds (or doesn't).
[B]In response to Morden279:
It is my opinion... that science should never be expected to explain [i]"life, the universe, and everything"[/i]. Merely most aspects of life and universe. [/B][/QUOTE]
Oh, I agree, but that's [i]exactly[/i] what early modernists thought they could do in the 19th century. The industrial revolution was a period of tremendous progress and innovation, and in the mindset of the time, there was [b]nothing[/b] that these people thought they could not achieve.
As a pragmatist who believes in the primacy of human agency and the collective conscience of society, I tend not to involve myself in theological speculation. Only what exists in the here and now.
Regards,
Morden
[B]Do you believe that there's anything that can't be satisfactorily explained solely through scientific means? Or does every possible question possess a hard, scientific answer, as long as one is willing and able to look for it? [/B][/QUOTE]
in answer: yes, i believe that every possible question posses a scientfic answer that can be answered once we attain a sufficiently advanced understanding of the background science.
whenever i get into this sort of argument, im often struck by the impression that people think that as a species we are pretty clever, and that if we cant get an answer to a question within a few decades, then the must be no answer.
in actual fact, yes were doing ok for ourselves in terms of knowledge, say 10 on the scale of knowlege. but the scale goes up to 1 000 000 000+ we are essentially ants at the base of a space elevator trying to figure out where it goes
I can tell you of the many times a scientific discovery has incited awe and wonder in me, of how many scientists in interviews have told of the feeling of being the first to solve a problem or observe a phenomenon. I know I've had those warm and fuzzy feelings myself when characterizing some products of my research.
And then there is the pleasure of understanding and learning, the feeling of accomplishment when you achieve understanding of some new (for you, or if you're lucky brand new) scientific principle.
The practicing of science is not cold. I'll grant you that the facts are cold and hard, but their discovery, their understanding and their interpretation is not.
And even if you disagree with their conclusions some scientists say that they have measured beauty, at least where it concerns the human face (do a web search for the Marquardt beauty grid or see the website [url]http://www.beautyanalysis.com/[/url] )
I do not agree that Faith [i]explains[/i] the unexplainable, I think that Faith [i]provides answers[/i] about the unexplainable, but given that when it comes to Faith you have to believe the answers by definition I don't consider them true explanations. I consider them even less of an explanation when different religious faiths give you different answers for the same unexplainable.
[quote]Now, depending on how philosophical you want to get, the entire idea of "science" is based around the false premise that your senses and your reason can be believed (not to mention peer-reviewed journals). Anyone who's heard someone who wasn't there, or felt a phantom pain, or made a logical-yet-wrong deduction will tell you exactly how false that is.[/quote] Nope, science actually tells you that your senses and pure reason can't be trusted, and only through experiments that give repeatable results that are reasonable can you arrive at truth. Ideally the first skeptic should be the scientists himself, if you find results that are too good to be true (for example) you check and double check the experiment and repeat it to make sure your results are not wishful thinking. There is usually a further layer there: convincing the collaborators and/or supervisor (Ph.D. advisor or the boss at a research institute) that even if your results might seem too good to be true they are true. Peer-review publication is a further mechanism for ensuring that the results are to be considered true: if others in the field consider that your results and your procedures are believable and trust-worthy (as well as innovative enough to deserve dissemination) they get published.
[quote]Technically, from a sociological standpoint, science failed in its task to explain life, the universe, and everything during the so-called "modern era". (The 19th and 20th Centuries.)
The failure of science explains in part why so many people are turning to hardline religious sects, and fundementalist beliefs such as creationism in order to guide and explain their lives.[/quote] This to me is more of a failure to really understand science. True that such a view prevailed in the 19th. century, but I don't think that science is supposed to explain everything and replace religion.
My personal view, coming from much reflection to reconcile my Faith with my rationalist scientist intellect, is that there are some things that science can never explain. For example: the existence or not of the afterworld is a matter of Faith and Science is unable to give a definitive answer. In this I consider that according to most religions we have free will by which God allows us to reject his revelation, this includes rejecting the belief in the afterlife. Now consider the possibility of discovering an irrefutable scientific proof of the afterlife, this denies us the free will of denying an afterworld. By this I don't mean that science should not study the problem, quite the opposite, if anyone, anywhere came out saying they have proof of the afterlife the methods of science should be applied to evaluate the claim.
The existence of God, by the same token, is also outside of what Science can prove, and you have to accept it by Faith.
But other than those questions that truly pertain to Faith and the supernatural world I think that Science can answer every possible question we can ever pose about the natural world.
[B]Do you believe that there's anything that can't be satisfactorily explained solely through scientific means? Or does every possible question possess a hard, scientific answer, as long as one is willing and able to look for it? [/B][/QUOTE]I'd essentially agree with ShadowDancer. I believe that [i]everything[/i] can and will be explained by science (barring the premature extinction of our species).
I don't believe that knowing the scientific explanation for the formation of a rainbow, or the setting of the sun, or why fools fall in love removes any intrinsic value from these things; nor do I believe that our appreciation for these things would be in any way different were we to come to understand the human mind in all its complexity.
I choose to believe that there is no value or purpose to existence aside from basic biological imperatives and that which we create for it. I consider knowledge and writing my [i]raisons d'être[/i], and I understand that some people have chosen to believe that there is an all-knowing and all-powerful Father watching over them, and that it is their purpose to follow what they believe to be his teachings.
There have been times in the past--the not-too-recent past--where I have wondered if perhaps they were right, but it is not within my capacity to postulate this higher being's existence on any genuine level.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Capt.Montoya [/i]
[B]I do not agree that Faith [i]explains[/i] the unexplainable, I think that Faith [i]provides answers[/i] about the unexplainable, but given that when it comes to Faith you have to believe the answers by definition I don't consider them true explanations. I consider them even less of an explanation when different religious faiths give you different answers for the same unexplainable.[/b][/quote]
[quote][i]Originally posted by Capt.Montoya [/i]
[b]Nope, science actually tells you that your senses and pure reason can't be trusted, and only through experiments that give repeatable results that are reasonable can you arrive at truth. [/B][/QUOTE]
[B]Technically, from a sociological standpoint, science failed in its task to explain life, the universe, and everything during the so-called "modern era". (The 19th and 20th Centuries.)
The failure of science explains in part why so many people are turning to hardline religious sects, and fundementalist beliefs such as creationism in order to guide and explain their lives.
Regards,
Morden [/B][/QUOTE]
I dont think science has failed at all! It is just the short attention span that the general population has; if it cant be solved in a matter of a few years then it doesnt have an answer and the scientists must therefore be wrong. Science is always advancing, but we're not going to get the answer to every problem within a matter of a few years.
Science may have been [I]unable[/I] to answer the questions of life the universe and everything in the 'modern era' [I]so far[/I] but that doesnt mean it will always be unable to do so.
In Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, it took Deep Thought a million years to come up with its answer. I think that it will take a comparable length of time to come up with our own answers
[B]I dont think science has failed at all! It is just the short attention span that the general population has; if it cant be solved in a matter of a few years then it doesnt have an answer and the scientists must therefore be wrong. Science is always advancing, but we're not going to get the answer to every problem within a matter of a few years. [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm not talking about the failure of science in deterministic terms, only that a great many people [b]perceive[/b] that it failed, not that it actually *has* failed.
I'm a fence-sitter when it comes to this issue. ;)
Regards,
Morden
its the preception of failure that bugs me tho; if people got their heads out of the sand and looked about, we've actually done pretty well in the space of 200 years compared to the previous 2000 (and if it werent for the meddling of religion in science, we might actually be at the point where we could answer those questions; and certainly alot further on than we are now!)
Regards,
Morden
if they maybe taught a decent amount of science and scientific ethics at school, then people wouldnt become so hysterical about it! think of all the good that could come from the public being a little less panicy about some science. eg. nanotechnology: im just waiting for some luddites to get hold of that one and start a panic over nanoviruses that can eat people:rolleyes: you can do that quite easily with chemical weapons at the moment without involving nanomachines
[B]maybe, but i dont think humanity is going to come under attack from an army of giant mice who've got eyes in the backs of their heads anytime soon!
if they maybe taught a decent amount of science and scientific ethics at school, then people wouldnt become so hysterical about it! think of all the good that could come from the public being a little less panicy about some science. eg. nanotechnology: im just waiting for some luddites to get hold of that one and start a panic over nanoviruses that can eat people:rolleyes: you can do that quite easily with chemical weapons at the moment without involving nanomachines [/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah, it only happens in my dreams. Can't sleep, mice'll eat me... Can't sleep, mice'll eat me... :eek:
I'm all for the expansion of technology, but within the boundaries of human reason. (I object to science being held back on religious grounds if the consequences of said develpments would be non-harmful and advantageous to society and the human race.) However, like almost everyone, I feel that science can go too far. That's wear reason comes in.
Regards,
Morden
Science took a big leap in WWII, but at what cost?
Not just the lives of millions, but the ideology that life can be reduced to a possesion of property, and a formula within a facist state.
As with anything, you can have good or evil come from a new discovery.
Religion, Faith are no different.
Faith should be about believing in a greater power, and seeking to make the human, ecological, and spiritual state better because of it, not as a weapon to dominate.
[B]Science took a big leap in WWII, but at what cost? [/B][/QUOTE]
The same goes for war as a whole; past and present.
The American Civil War gave us the Gatling Gun, which in turn, inspired Hiram Maxim to conceive his own, more efficient machine gun. WW1 gave us the tank, and poison gas as a method of killing on a mass scale. Destructive and constructive technology as part of scientific development go hand in hand.
Regards,
Morden
[B][URL=http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=1469&item=5570877748]Will the madness never end?[/URL] [/B][/QUOTE]
$31 for a tortilla chip?
I'll pass...
:rolleyes:
[B]Well I found out where that fotelling comes from.
first Irish Saint fortolled it.
[url]http://apokalypso.com/Ch1_Fall-of-Papacy.htm[/url]
Peter the Pope is it. [/B][/QUOTE]
Interesting reading...
I find it interesting also how today there was a solar eclipse here in the USA.
So, if this is accurate, we should see an election of a pope that gets vetoed or missed due to the wind of a drizzly day (smoke from chimney of Sistine chapel), and someone else elected who is betrayed, and the previous one takes his place?
Very interesting...
Satisfies the church schism and the two remaining Popes stuff. Tie breaker scenario almost...
[B]So, if this is accurate, we should see an election of a pope that gets vetoed or missed due to the wind of a drizzly day (smoke from chimney of Sistine chapel), and someone else elected who is betrayed, and the previous one takes his place?[/B][/QUOTE]
You know, that would help explain why John Paul II requested that, from now on, bells are rung in addition to white smoke being released to announce the election of a Pope. I mean, he might've doubted it would happen, but just to be sure... or better still, to make sure other people who didn't doubt it were sure.
[B]You know, that would help explain why John Paul II requested that, from now on, bells are rung in addition to white smoke being released to announce the election of a Pope. I mean, he might've doubted it would happen, but just to be sure... or better still, to make sure other people who didn't doubt it were sure. [/B][/QUOTE]
No, the reason he had the bells rung was that there was much confusion when he was elected Pope. Folks outside weren't sure if a Pope had been selected or not, until he was announced to the world.
We shall see I guess...