Prophecy for the end of the world in 2012

[Spock]

Well, I'm getting a better sense of opinon now. There aren't any "chicken littles" out there but on the other hand while 62% don't believe the end is coming that same percentage does not address whether they knew about the prophesies...my wording is a fault to a degree but so far only 16% think we are approaching the end as predicted by ancient prophesy.
So this stays open until the announced end. Thanks everyone who has participated.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I neither believe in nor reject the imminence of the end of the world. That's no opinion.

Now that sounds far more non-commital that what you said your opinon really was a few pages back ...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

You mean this:

Originally Posted by Myself

Also, I posit no theory as to when the world will end or not end.

The only non-non-commital thing I said was that it is silly to say that the world will end now or then, or soon or in a long time, or never. We simply have no real evidence. But that has naught to do with the actual question itself; only the utility of theorising about it.

*DOUBLE NEGATIVE ALERT*

[trolls' bane]

Well, I'm going to pack up. To the microwave oven with Earth! I'm going to Mars and claim some future lakefront property (right on the edge of Vallis Marineris!).
Wait, I see a chance to make some profit here...

[hectorberlioz]

Hmm...this brings up the issue that Gwai and myself pretty much believe in the end of the material world as we know it when "the world ends". That includes the material universe.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Huh? We believe in the end of the material world as we know it, when the world ends?

[trolls' bane]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Huh? We believe in the end of the material world as we know it, when the world ends?

Are you asking me or telling me? If you're asking me, the answer is CERTAINLY NOT!

I beleive every bit of it. I'm predicting the year 5,000,000,000 or so. At which time, the sun will have expanded into being a red giant, and Earth will be engulfed and later become part of the fuel of the sun, which would quickly be fused into helium nucleii and eventually be blown away into space.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by trolls' bane

Are you asking me or telling me? If you're asking me, the answer is CERTAINLY NOT!

I beleive every bit of it. I'm predicting the year 5,000,000,000 or so. At which time, the sun will have expanded into being a red giant, and Earth will be engulfed and later become part of the fuel of the sun, which would quickly be fused into helium nucleii and eventually be blown away into space.

I am inquiring in regards to the obscure choice of words of our esteemed colleague Hector.

[trolls' bane]

Oh, oops.

My prediction still stands.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I am inquiring in regards to the obscure choice of words of our esteemed colleague Hector.

AS WE KNOW IT...because of course, our physical bodies are not crap, as some have suggested. As we know it, because we will know directly things more divine...(assuming you and I end up in the same place )

[Gwaimir Windgem]

We all know where you Constantinople Schismatics end up...

But I rather found your overall sentence structure to be confusing. Primarily "the end of the material world, when the world ends". Assuming this is not merely repetition, I can't figger out what it means.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

We all know where you Constantinople Schismatics end up...

But I rather found your overall sentence structure to be confusing. Primarily "the end of the material world, when the world ends". Assuming this is not merely repetition, I can't figger out what it means.

Well "when the world ends" within quotation marks was just ironic recapping on the slim idea of JUST Earth's end...


...Roman zionist...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Romanist, yes. Roman Zionist, no.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Romanist, yes. Roman Zionist, no.

Well where the heck do you get "schismatics"...for all you know, it was you guys who "schismatised" with us...trying to squash our bread and all...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Michael was excommunicated first. Therefore, etc., QED.

[hectorberlioz]

Oh sure, you guys "excommunicated" us all right ...we excommunicated ourselves from you, thank you very much.

And btw, the bishop of Rome at the time of the "first incident" 1054, did NOT tell Cardinal Humbert he could tramp over and give us bull, literally

BTW, Great pic...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

we excommunicated ourselves from you

So you ADMIT the Schism was on your part!

[trolls' bane]

All this doomsday talk has made me homesick. I'm listening to Orson Welles's War of the Worlds, the same broadcast that caused mass panic on Halloween, 1938.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

So you ADMIT the Schism was on your part!

I admit that we had to distance ourselves from you latin heathens...
We weren't looking for a fight, but then we weren't going to bow either ...btw, what really hurt were the later people:


In 1190 Theodore Balsamon, Patriarch of Antioch and a great authority on Canon Law, looked at matters very differently:

"For many years [he does not say how many] the western Church has been divided in spiritual communion from the other four Patriarchates and has become alien to the Orthodox…. So no Latin should be given communion unless he first declares that he will abstain from the doctrines and customs that separate him from us, and that he will be subject to the Canons of the Church, in union with the Orthodox (Quoted in Runciman, The Eastern Schism, p. 139)."




Here is the reasoning you denied...

"My dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy amongst the five sister Patriarchates; and we recognize her right to the most honorable seat at an Ecumenical Council. But she has separated herself from us by her own deeds, when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office... How shall we accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us and even without our knowledge? If the Roman Pontiff, seated on the lofty throne of his glory, wishes to thunder at us and, so to speak, hurl his mandates at us from on high, and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule us and our Churches, not by taking counsel with us but at his own arbitrary pleasure, what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We should be the slaves, not the sons, of such a Church, and the Roman See would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves (Quoted in S. Runciman, The Eastern Schism, p. 116)."

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Oh, you don't want to get into QUOTES, now, lad.