Introduction:A chemistry student at the University of Washington has ended a centuries-long reign of terror by major religions that have been threatening believers with perpetual agony in eternal hellfire if they question “God’s word†– as stipulated by ministers, priests, popes and scholars poring over passages not “written by God†(who did not even leave any notes) but penned by other men with similarly controlling agendas.

Of course, the impossibility of a disembodied soul (or spirit) feeling corporeal sensations such as cold, rain, heat or fire has made the concept of “roasting in hell†like a chicken basted on a rotisserie a nonstarter from the beginning.Despite this insurmountable contradiction, the notion of an eteral fiery pit filled with pitchfork-loads of freaked out souls was imposed by exasperated church leaders who finally resorted to saying “to hell with everyone†tempted toward the strong human propensity to enjoy sex and other pleasures of the flesh.Now, thanks to a student’s answer to a bonus question on a recent mid-term university exam, threatening anyone with hell is now just a laughing matter.

HELL EXPLAINED BY CHEMISTRY STUDENT AT WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY (2009)

Bonus Question in a test: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?

Most of the students wrote proofs using Boyle’s Law, which states that gas cools when it expands, and heats when it is compressed. One student, however, wrote the following:First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving.

I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let’s look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially.

Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle’s Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, “It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,†and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct……leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting “Oh my God.â€

THIS STUDENT RECEIVED AN A+

LOL I laughed so much when I read this. Absolutely brilliant!

Taken from this thread.

 

Bless you Eden ...I get so bogged down in dogma that
coming up for a much needed laugh is a taunt relief ..
sharing this one ...and oh so because I am attached to
many "conventional" christian's .Some times those
neurons and ganglia have to be kick started by not
addressing the issues "with the gravity of hell" .

 

This is too funny! ROFL

 

I don’t know where I was when this was posted, but I just read it and fell out of my chair, doubled over in laughter. . . . . . Had to pause from uncontrollable laughter, again. I was really looking for the subject, “Science” for the following information to post. So, here it is from the book I am reading:

Most young people learned no more than the orthodoxy of science. They acquired “the established doctrine, the dead letter.” Some, at university, went on to study the beginnings of method. They practiced experimental proof in routine research. They discovered science’s “uncertainties and its eternally provisional nature.” That began to bring it to life.

Which was not yet to become a scientist. To become a scientist, Polanyi thought, required “a full initiation.” Such an initiation came from “close personal association with the intimate views and practice of a distinguished master.” The practice of science was not itself a science; it was an art, to be passed from master to apprentice as the art of painting is passed or as the skills and traditions of the law or of medicine are passed. You could not learn the law from books and classes alone. You could not learn medicine. No more could you learn science, because nothing in science ever quite fits; no experiment is ever final proof; everything is simplified and approximate.

The American theoretical physicist Richard Feynman once spoke about his science with similar candor to a lecture hall crowded with undergraduates at the California Institute of Technology “What do we mean by ‘understanding’ something?” Feynman asked innocently His amused sense of human limitation informs his answer:

We can imagine that this complicated array of moving things which constitutes “the world” is something like a great chess game being played by the gods, and we are observers of the game. We do not know what the rules of the game are; all we are allowed to do is to watch the playing. Of course, if we watch long enough, we may eventually catch on to a few of the rules. The rules of the game are what we mean by fundamental physics. Even if we know every rule, however what we really can explain in terms of those rules is very limited, because almost all situations are so enormously complicated that we cannot follow the plays of the game using the rules, much less tell what is going to happen next. We must, therefore, limit ourselves to the more basic question of the rules of the game. If we know the rules, we consider that we “understand” the world.

Learning the feel of proof; learning judgment; learning which hunches to play; learning which stunning calculations to rework, which experimental results not to trust: these skills admitted you to the spectators’ benches at the chess game of the gods, and acquiring them required sitting first at the
feet of a master.

Polanyi found one other necessary requirement for full initiation into science: belief. If science has become the orthodoxy of the West, individuals are nevertheless still free to take it or leave it, in whole or in part; believers in astrology, Marxism and virgin birth abound. But “no one can become a scientist unless he presumes that the scientific doctrine and method are fundamentally sound and that their ultimate premises can be unquestioningly accepted.”

Becoming a scientist is necessarily an act of profound commitment to the scientific system and the scientific world view “Any account of science which does not explicitly describe it as something we believe in is essentially incomplete and a false pretense. It amounts to a claim that science is essentially different from and superior to all human beliefs that are not scientific statements—and this is untrue.” Belief is the oath of allegiance that scientists swear.

(Michael Polanyi, Fellowship of the Royal Society (11 March 1891 - 22 February 1976), who made important theoretical contributions to physical chemistry, economics, and philosophy.)

(Quoted from “The Making Of The Atomic Bomb” by Richard Rhodes, 1986, pp 32-33)

I like those last two sentences. So, we can conclude from those statements, that Science is a religion. “They discovered science’s “uncertainties and its eternally provisional nature.”
(2 Co 1:18-19)