• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

End of the World

InChrist

Free4ever
According to the linked article below, the subject of Apocalypse is becoming more of a mainstream idea and concern. What do you think? Is the end of the world something you are concerned or fearful about? Do you think about it at all? If so, what are your main concerns;
nuclear war, disease, climate change, AI, a combination of these or something else?


“Political communications scholars Christopher Wlezien and Stuart Sorokademonstrate in their research that the media are likely to reflect public opinioneven more than they direct it or alter it. While their study focused largely on Americans’ views of important policy decisions, their findings, they argue, apply beyond those domains.

If they are correct, we can use discussions of the apocalypse in the media over the past few decades as a barometer of prevailing public concerns.

Following this logic, we collected all articles mentioning the words “apocalypse” or “apocalyptic” from The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post between Jan. 1, 1980, and Dec. 31, 2023. After filtering out articles centered on religion and entertainment, there were 9,380 articles that mentioned one or more of four prominent apocalyptic concerns: nuclear war, disease, climate change, and AI.”

 

Heyo

Veteran Member
The main thing about media coverage is sensationalism. Extreme news sell extremely good. Thus, there is a spiral to go to more extreme headlines, and sometimes unprofessional exaggerations in the articles. Often it is not what the experts have said, what is then reported. In Germany, we have a saying that nothing gets eaten as hot as its cooked.
All four topics are very serious, but none of it is likely to wipe out humanity. Some are likely to destroy civilization, though. We know of local climate changes having destroyed the Maya civilization. The Black Death disrupted the political system (feudalism) and eventually lead to the renaissance one hundred years later.
We had industrialization turn our world upside down, and AI is promising to do that again, only at a bigger scale. And wars, nuclear or not, had always been the main disruptors.
I don't fear any of the scenarios. They will be very inconvenient, but none will end humanity.
Christians have prophesized Armageddon for 2000 years real soon now, but nothing has happened. They are the OG of doom saying, and they have made all others in that trade unbelievable. They cried "wolf" a few times too often.
 

Tomef

Active Member
According to the linked article below, the subject of Apocalypse is becoming more of a mainstream idea and concern. What do you think? Is the end of the world something you are concerned or fearful about? Do you think about it at all? If so, what are your main concerns;
nuclear war, disease, climate change, AI, a combination of these or something else?


“Political communications scholars Christopher Wlezien and Stuart Sorokademonstrate in their research that the media are likely to reflect public opinioneven more than they direct it or alter it. While their study focused largely on Americans’ views of important policy decisions, their findings, they argue, apply beyond those domains.

If they are correct, we can use discussions of the apocalypse in the media over the past few decades as a barometer of prevailing public concerns.

Following this logic, we collected all articles mentioning the words “apocalypse” or “apocalyptic” from The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post between Jan. 1, 1980, and Dec. 31, 2023. After filtering out articles centered on religion and entertainment, there were 9,380 articles that mentioned one or more of four prominent apocalyptic concerns: nuclear war, disease, climate change, and AI.”

I don’t think it’s anything new. In NT times there was a sense that the end of the world was imminent, same during the plague years in Europe, during the Cold War, and I’m sure there are many more examples that could be used. The end of things is kind of a human obsession, maybe to do with our own mortality.
 
Last edited:

Soandso

ᛋᛏᚨᚾᛞ ᛋᚢᚱᛖ
The imminent end of humanity has long played on the fears of our species and every culture going back as far as written language can record tells this tale. We've had setbacks, but we haven't come close to being wiped out just yet. As an example, look at this video and see how the population has continued to grow exponentially even through seemingly apocalyptic events of the past such as the black plague

 

Banach-Tarski Paradox

Active Member
According to the linked article below, the subject of Apocalypse is becoming more of a mainstream idea and concern. What do you think? Is the end of the world something you are concerned or fearful about? Do you think about it at all? If so, what are your main concerns;
nuclear war, disease, climate change, AI, a combination of these or something else?


“Political communications scholars Christopher Wlezien and Stuart Sorokademonstrate in their research that the media are likely to reflect public opinioneven more than they direct it or alter it. While their study focused largely on Americans’ views of important policy decisions, their findings, they argue, apply beyond those domains.

If they are correct, we can use discussions of the apocalypse in the media over the past few decades as a barometer of prevailing public concerns.

Following this logic, we collected all articles mentioning the words “apocalypse” or “apocalyptic” from The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post between Jan. 1, 1980, and Dec. 31, 2023. After filtering out articles centered on religion and entertainment, there were 9,380 articles that mentioned one or more of four prominent apocalyptic concerns: nuclear war, disease, climate change, and AI.”


There are longstanding and ongoing threats to Cultural Survival.

How we deal with those threats defines our moralities and our cosmoviciones (worldviews).


Maroons In The Americas: Heroic Pasts, Ambiguous Presents, Uncertain Futures


By Richard Price

Maroons -- descendants of escaped slaves -- still form distinct peoples (sometimes, "states within a state") in several parts of the western hemisphere. Their situations as minorities within nation-states varies but is everywhere severely threatened -- by multinational logging and mining operations and by other assaults on their territories and cultural identities. This special issue brings together international specialists writing about the situation of Maroons in Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, French Guiana, Jamaica, and Suriname -- their legal battles, their collective demands, their political and economic struggles, and their hopes for the future.

The English word "Maroon" derives from the Spanish cimarrón -- itself based on an Arawakan (Taino) Indian root. Cimarrón originally referred to domestic cattle that had taken to the hills in Hispaniola, and soon after, to American Indian slaves who had escaped from the Spaniards on that Caribbean island. By the end of the 1530s, the word was being used primarily to refer to Afro-American runaways and already had strong connotations of "fierceness" -- of being "wild" and "unbroken."

Historically, communities formed by Maroons dotted the fringes of plantation America from Brazil to Florida, from Texas to Peru. Usually called palenques in the Spanish colonies and mocambos or quilombos in Brazil, they ranged from tiny bands that survived less than a year to powerful states encompassing thousands of members and enduring for generations or even centuries.

Planters generally tolerated petit marronage -- truancy with temporary goals such as visiting a friend or lover on a neighboring plantation. But in most slave-holding colonies, long-term, recidivist Maroons were subjected to the most brutal punishments -- amputation of a leg, castration, suspension from a meathook through the ribs, slow roasting to death -- with such punishments actually written into law. Marronage on a grand scale, with individual fugitives banding together to create communities, struck directly at the foundations of the plantation system, presenting military and economic threats that often taxed the colonists to their limits. Maroon communities, hidden near the fringes of the plantations or deep in the forest, periodically raided plantations for firearms, tools, and women, often permitting families formed during slavery to be reunited in freedom.

In many cases, the beleaguered colonists were eventually forced to sue their former slaves for peace. In Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Hispaniola, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Peru, Suriname, and Venezuela, for example, the whites reluctantly offered treaties granting Maroon communities their freedom, recognizing their territorial integrity, and making some provision for meeting their economic needs, in return for an end to hostilities toward the plantations and an agreement to return future runaways. Of course, many Maroon societies were crushed by massive force of arms, and even when treaties were proposed, they were sometimes refused or quickly violated. Nevertheless, new Maroon communities seemed to appear almost as rapidly as the old ones were exterminated, and they remained, from a colonial perspective, the "chronic plague" and "gangrene" of many plantation societies right up to final emancipation.

The initial Maroons in any New World colony hailed from a Wide range of societies in West and central Africa -- at the outset, they shared no major aspects of culture, including language. Their collective task, once off in the forests or mountains or swamplands, was nothing less than to create new communities and institutions, largely via a process of inter-African cultural syncretism. Those scholars, mainly anthropologists, who have examined contemporary Maroon life most closely seem to agree that such societies are often uncannily "African" in feeling but at the same time largely devoid of directly transplanted systems. However African in character, no Maroon social, political, religious, or aesthetic system can be reliably traced to a specific African ethnic provenience; they reveal rather their syncretistic composition, forged in the early meeting of people of diverse African, European, and Amerindian origins in the dynamic setting of the New World. With a rare freedom to extrapolate ideas from a variety of African societies and adapt them to changing circumstance, Maroon groups included (and continue to include today) what are in many respects at once the most meaningfully African and the most truly "alive" and culturally dynamic of all Afro-American cultures.

During the past several decades, anthropological fieldwork has underlined the strength of historical consciousness among the descendants of these rebel slaves and the dynamism and originality of their cultural institutions. Meanwhile, historical scholarship on Maroons has flourished as new research has done much to dispel the myth of the docile slave. Marronage represented a major form of slave resistance, whether accomplished by lone individuals, by small groups, or in great collective rebellions. Throughout the Americas, Maroon communities stood out as a heroic challenge to white authority -- as the living proof of the existence of a slave consciousness that refused to be limited by the whites' conception or manipulation of it. It is no accident that throughout the Caribbean today, the historical Maroon -- often mythologized into a larger-than-life figure -- has become a touchstone of identity for the region's writers, artists, and intellectuals; the ultimate symbol of resistance and the fight for freedom.

This issue of the CSQ is designed to bring the history and current situation of Maroons to a broader public and to enlist solidarity and support for their ongoing efforts to secure a future as proud and independent peoples within often indifferent or hostile nation-states.

References & further reading

Agorsah, E.K., Ed. (1994). Maroon Heritage: Archaeological, Ethnographic and Historical Perspectives. Kingston, Jamaica: Canoe Press.
Duharte Jiménez, R. (1992). Rebeldía esclava en el Caribe. Xalapa, Mexico: Gobierno del Estado de Veracruz.
Heuman, G., Ed. (1982). Out of the House of Bondage: Runaways, Resistance and Marronage in Africa and the New World. London: Frank Cass.
Price, R., Ed. (1996). Maroon Societies: Rebel Slave Communities in the Americas (3rd edition). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Reis, J.J. & Gomes, F. dos Santos, Eds. (1996). Liberdade por um fio: Historia dos quilombos no Brasil. S...o Paulo: Companhia das Letras.
 

Pete in Panama

Well-Known Member
According to the linked article below, the subject of Apocalypse is becoming more of a mainstream idea and concern. What do you think? Is the end of the world something you are concerned or fearful about? Do you think about it at all? If so, what are your main concerns;
nuclear war, disease, climate change, AI, a combination of these or something else?


“Political communications scholars Christopher Wlezien and Stuart Sorokademonstrate in their research that the media are likely to reflect public opinioneven more than they direct it or alter it. While their study focused largely on Americans’ views of important policy decisions, their findings, they argue, apply beyond those domains.

If they are correct, we can use discussions of the apocalypse in the media over the past few decades as a barometer of prevailing public concerns.

Following this logic, we collected all articles mentioning the words “apocalypse” or “apocalyptic” from The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post between Jan. 1, 1980, and Dec. 31, 2023. After filtering out articles centered on religion and entertainment, there were 9,380 articles that mentioned one or more of four prominent apocalyptic concerns: nuclear war, disease, climate change, and AI.”

Am I wrong to understand that your take on the "end of the world" is that it's something that happens all the time in many forms?
 

InChrist

Free4ever
The main thing about media coverage is sensationalism. Extreme news sell extremely good. Thus, there is a spiral to go to more extreme headlines, and sometimes unprofessional exaggerations in the articles. Often it is not what the experts have said, what is then reported. In Germany, we have a saying that nothing gets eaten as hot as its cooked.
All four topics are very serious, but none of it is likely to wipe out humanity. Some are likely to destroy civilization, though. We know of local climate changes having destroyed the Maya civilization. The Black Death disrupted the political system (feudalism) and eventually lead to the renaissance one hundred years later.
We had industrialization turn our world upside down, and AI is promising to do that again, only at a bigger scale. And wars, nuclear or not, had always been the main disruptors.
I don't fear any of the scenarios. They will be very inconvenient, but none will end humanity.
Christians have prophesized Armageddon for 2000 years real soon now, but nothing has happened. They are the OG of doom saying, and they have made all others in that trade unbelievable. They cried "wolf" a few times too often.
Thanks for your thoughts.
 

InChrist

Free4ever
I don’t think it’s anything new. In NT times there was a sense that the end of the world was imminent, same during the plague years in Europe, during the Cold War, and I’m sure there are many more examples that could be used. The end of things is kind of a human obsession, maybe to do with our own mortality.
Appreciate your perspective.
 

Pete in Panama

Well-Known Member
I don’t think so, but not quite sure what you mean.
Meriam Webster's Dictionary has 14 different definitions of "world", and that means that the phrase "end of the world" can have a number of possible meanings. You suggested "nuclear war, disease, climate change, AI, a combination of these or something else?" That suggests we could have an "end of the world" darn near every day.

So are you asking for someone else's input or do you have an idea of your own?
 

InChrist

Free4ever
Meriam Webster's Dictionary has 14 different definitions of "world", and that means that the phrase "end of the world" can have a number of possible meanings. You suggested "nuclear war, disease, climate change, AI, a combination of these or something else?" That suggests we could have an "end of the world" darn near every day.

So are you asking for someone else's input or do you have an idea of your own?
I realize it appears the end of the world could be near every day, as you said. So do you have further thoughts or feelings about it? I am asking for the input and thoughts from others.
My idea: I don’t think the world will end due to the nuclear war, disease, climate change, AI. I don’t think the world will end anytime soon, although things may dramatically change soon.
 

Pete in Panama

Well-Known Member
I realize it appears the end of the world could be near every day, as you said. So do you have further thoughts or feelings about it? I am asking for the input and thoughts from others.
My idea: I don’t think the world will end due to the nuclear war, disease, climate change, AI. I don’t think the world will end anytime soon, although things may dramatically change soon.
If we say the world is our planet, then we can see that the earth's going around the sun and will continue to do so for billions of years. If we say that the world is humanity then we can tell the world that this is what we've decided. That world changes and the way the world worked has already ended. We're in a new world now --this is what we can see when we look around us.

Can you follow me and do we agree on this?
 

Banach-Tarski Paradox

Active Member
If we say the world is our planet, then we can see that the earth's going around the sun and will continue to do so for billions of years. If we say that the world is humanity then we can tell the world that this is what we've decided. That world changes and the way the world worked has already ended. We're in a new world now --this is what we can see when we look around us.

Can you follow me and do we agree on this?

La Cancion Del Final Del Mundo (Live)​

 

InChrist

Free4ever
If we say the world is our planet, then we can see that the earth's going around the sun and will continue to do so for billions of years. If we say that the world is humanity then we can tell the world that this is what we've decided. That world changes and the way the world worked has already ended. We're in a new world now --this is what we can see when we look around us.

Can you follow me and do we agree on this?
I follow what you’re saying. I don’t know that I completely agree, though. Are you saying the planet will continue on indefinitely?
I do agree the humanly directed world system changes. Mostly, it appears that technology plays the major part in changing things. So do you or don’t you think humans will get to the point of destroying the planet, as well as human and animal life?
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Is the end of the world something you are concerned or fearful about?

If such an event, unforseen, should happen then there is nothing anyone can do about it.
If it is a foreseen event such as the sun going red giant or Andromeda galaxy colliding with our own galaxy then humanity will be long gone anyway.

So no, if it happens, it happens.
 

Pete in Panama

Well-Known Member
I follow what you’re saying. I don’t know that I completely agree, though. Are you saying the planet will continue on indefinitely?
My prediction is that folks will most probably see the sun have a new dawn tomorrow & probably the next day. We can also see that in about 4-1/2 billion years the sun's size will expand past the present orbit of Mars but the planets may have already left because the sun's gravity's will be getting weaker. For me the details are not a significant issue.
I do agree the humanly directed world system changes. Mostly, it appears that technology plays the major part in changing things. So do you or don’t you think humans will get to the point of destroying the planet, as well as human and animal life?
In "only" a billion years the sun's going to heat up enough to boil away the earth's oceans. That will do a number on plant/animal life. That's unless we move the earth farther out. Once again a lot can happen in a billion years so once again it's not a significant issue for us now. Over the next century I personally doubt that we'll either be able to or even want to end plant/animal life on our planet. My take is that the safe money is that we'll have more important challenges to deal w/ --the nature of which I can't even imagine yet.
 

Banach-Tarski Paradox

Active Member
I follow what you’re saying. I don’t know that I completely agree, though. Are you saying the planet will continue on indefinitely?
I do agree the humanly directed world system changes. Mostly, it appears that technology plays the major part in changing things. So do you or don’t you think humans will get to the point of destroying the planet, as well as human and animal life?

Science and technology, like most things in life, is a double edged sword.

It’s just part of humanity’s struggle for omnipotence.

And in the emerging context of that ongoing struggle that we find ourselves in, we all choose ourselves.

That’s how culture is constructed.

Eminemium (Choose Yourself) | A Capella Science​

 
Top