Where will we be in 1000 more years?

[MooseIBe]

Assuming the Lawd hasn't come and taken all the righteous away, where do you think humanity will be in 1000 years? How will things have changed, and will they have changed for the better? Will the change between the year 2000 and the year 3000 be as momentous as the change between 1000 and 2000?

What about ten thousand years from now? What about a MILLION years from now??

[Dingfod]

I think that after a nuclear war, running out of oil, and several dozen flu and plague pandemics there will be lot fewer of humans, most hiding in caves and in deep woods, scared of everyone and everything else.

See my title.

[MooseIBe]

I dunno.. I mean, haven't people been anticipating some of those things for centuries (and some have even happened) and yet we continue to grow and thrive?

[Veritas]

I wouldn't say grow and thrive, I'd say deteriorate physically and morally, along with the rape of the planet and abuse of all species.

So, if the Good Lawd hasn't come to take us away by then, human kind will be just about extinct, and the Good Lawd's green Earth will be all the better for it.

[Dingfod]

Of course, my prognosis of our future is quite bleak, everything could turn out to be all rosy and shiney. I could be wrong, but I have my doubts. Nobody is really prepared for any of the things I mentioned, nuclear war, running out of fossil fuels, or disease pandemics. Plus, I firmly believe the advances of the last 200 years or so were primarily driven by the abundance of fossil fuels. When those dwindle, either something will replace it or something will have to give. Right now I cannot imagine what's going to replace it.

[MooseIBe]

Well there are things that can replace it aren't there? :). As far as I know.

As to pandemics, I recall asking Tara on ii whether she thought that there could ever really be a 'Stand' type pandemic and she said she didn't think so. If she's reading this thread I'd be interested to hear her comment further :). Surely pandemics can't get any worse than the ones human beings have already had .. and survived?

The nuclear war thing is more difficult. I don't believe though that we currently have the capacity to destroy the entire earth with bombs. We could certainly do a fair old amount of damage though I guess.

[Dingfod]

Well there are things that can replace it aren't there? :). As far as I know.If not nuclear power, I remain unconvinced there is really a viable alternative that can support an advanced 6+ billion population.

As to pandemics, I recall asking Tara on ii whether she thought that there could ever really be a 'Stand' type pandemic and she said she didn't think so. If she's reading this thread I'd be interested to hear her comment further :). Surely pandemics can't get any worse than the ones human beings have already had .. and survived?Did I say a 'Stand' type pandemic? No, just one that kills 20-25% would be sufficient to significantly decrease our population by a billion or two.

The nuclear war thing is more difficult. I don't believe though that we currently have the capacity to destroy the entire earth with bombs. We could certainly do a fair old amount of damage though I guess.Just one little exchange between nuclear powers could kill a half billion people or more.

[Shake]

Many years ago, I read this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0399127216/internetinfidels) by Frank Herbert (of Dune fame) about a global pandemic. Good story.

That and a film like Outbreak give you an idea of how easily something like that could spread. Such outbreaks would perhaps give the third world nations a much more difficult time.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Assuming the Lawd hasn't come and taken all the righteous away, where do you think humanity will be in 1000 years? How will things have changed, and will they have changed for the better? Will the change between the year 2000 and the year 3000 be as momentous as the change between 1000 and 2000?

What about ten thousand years from now? What about a MILLION years from now??


Our civilisation will span a sphere about 1000 lightyears in diameter of this galaxy. Humans, like we are, will be rare or totally extinct. We'll be genetically enginnered, cyborged, up-loaded into hyper powerful computers etc.

It's fiction, but reality based fiction, so the time line of Orion's Arm (www.orionsarm.com) should give you an idea of what many smart geeks think it'll be like, technology wise. The political stuff in the timeline? Sociological gravy; it's fiction after all.

A million, hard to say. Anything that is possible would have long ago been done by this time. So there'd be nothing new in the technology front.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Right now I cannot imagine what's going to replace it.

Argument from Incredulity, a logical fallacy.

Google Quantum Dot photovoltaic research.

Google Gorlov helical turbine, can be used in rivers, tidal regions, ocean currents etc. without the need for harmful dams.

Google autogyro jet stream wind turbines.

Synthetic petrol (http://www.discover.com/issues/jul-04/features/anything-into-oil) Yes, davidm, just in case you read this, it's on the level, or in other words, for real.

[JoeP]

Here, of course. And the Smiliedome New Arrivals thread will have become the longest running communication in the history of the known ideosphere.

[Dingfod]

Right now I cannot imagine what's going to replace it.

Argument from Incredulity, a logical fallacy.Hey, it's just my pessimistic vision. Fuck your fairy tales.

Google Quantum Dot photovoltaic research.What are they made of, leaves and sticks? Nothing's free.

Google Gorlov helical turbine, can be used in rivers, tidal regions, ocean currents etc. without the need for harmful dams. I bet these aren't made of leaves and sticks either. They're relatively complex and expensive (approaching nuclear power), but if they're going to be built at all they better get busy right now while we still have the ability to do so. I'd put my money on not.

Google autogyro jet stream wind turbines.Far-fetched and expensive, again, nothing's free... and we're fucking broke.

Synthetic petrol (http://www.discover.com/issues/jul-04/features/anything-into-oil) Yes, davidm, just in case you read this, it's on the level, or in other words, for real.The plant may be efficient, but like ethanol, what about the transportation and plant construction energy costs? Without alternative energy tax subsidies, not currently viable.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Hey, it's just my pessimistic vision. Fuck your fairy tales.

What are they made of, leaves and sticks? Nothing's free.

I bet these aren't made of leaves and sticks either. They're relatively complex and expensive (approaching nuclear power), but if they're going to be built at all they better get busy right now while we still have the ability to do so. I'd put my money on not.

Far-fetched and expensive, again, nothing's free... and we're fucking broke.

The plant may be efficient, but like ethanol, what about the transportation and plant construction energy costs? Without alternative energy tax subsidies, not currently viable.

So? Lots of people have the pessimistic vision that God will end the world, doesn't mean it's true.
Fairy tales? :mock:

So? Leaves and sticks take energy to form as well.

Again, so?

Autogyro "helicopters", electric generators and metal cables are hardly far-fetched technologies. Hey, you know what's really far fetched? That kilograms of a heavy metal can power a machine that can run 30 years without refueling. Now that's fantasy! :rolleyes: Or even sillier, an entire city can be powered by rods of heavy metal decaying!

Really? Yet the sun keeps raining down radiation, the plants keep growing and storing potential energy in chemical form that we can easily use and we know all about running machines without oil as fuel.

What about the transportation costs of natural oil? Those tanker ship burn a lot. What about the clean-up costs when they leak into the ocean? What about the cost of the plants that convert natural oil into gas, diesel, waxes etc.? Those take a lot of energy. What about the cost of looking for new oil reserves? Drilling? Making oil rigs out in the ocean? Repairing storm damage to the rigs? Keeping ice bergs from hitting them? None of this stuff comes cheap, yet we mannage it to get oil for $70 a barrel. $15 a barrel for synthetic oil, made on site, is....,amazing.

[Ymir's blood]

In 1000 years, the earth will be dominated by religious fantatics who still await the arrival of the Gnar'Nakthrog, which in English means 'thread killing sumbitch.' A schism has developed between those who say Gnar'Nakthrog was a divine sandwich and those who maintain he was just a man.

[MooseIBe]

I will definitely be one of the divine sandwich brigade..

Re the claim that one exchange between nuclear powers could wipe out half a billion people .. I wonder. Firstly I wonder how likely it would be that anyone would be prepared to do it (though I do concede that it's a possibility) and secondly I wonder whether the half billion figure is accurate. I mean, even if you wiped out the whole of Europe and everyone in it, that's not half a billion people..

[Veritas]

A schism will break out between those who say sandwich and sammich. There will also be a small breakaway sect who say samwitch.

[MooseIBe]

I predict that the breakaway sect will join with the sandwich people and commit genocide on the sammichs in the name of the Holy God Mutardus..

[cappuccino]

and they'll be spending an exorbinate ;) amount of time in communion with divine mustard

[Crumb]

I will definitely be one of the divine sandwich brigade..
:wriggle:
and they'll be spending an exorbinate ;) amount of time in communion with divine mustard
Hmm...who's mustard and when do I get to commune with her? :scratch:

[MonCapitan2002]

We will be extinct and out planet will be an irradiated world with thousands upon thousands of smoking craters brought on by devastating wars. I think we will wipe ourselves out pretty much by 2250. We will be nothing more than an irradiated planet full of ruins for some alien race to quizzically study.

[MonCapitan2002]

I happen to think Warren's outlook of the future is hopelessly optimistic. I don't think our civilisation will survive this century, let alone the next ten. Hopefully, some of our ancestors were abducted by aliens and their decendants currently thriving on some far off planet.

[cappuccino]

I happen to think Warren's outlook of the future is hopelessly optimistic. I don't think our civilisation will survive this century, let alone the next ten. Hopefully, some of our ancestors were abducted by aliens and their decendants currently thriving on some far off planet.

And I think your outlook is hopelessly pessimistic but then that's just you. Personally I think we have a good chance of surviving the next century and the next millennia. True, I'm optimistic but at least I'm cautiously optimisitc.

[Satan]

The human species is entirely too virulent an infestation to be completely exterminated. I have faith that you'll still be around, a few more centuries hence.

[Ymir's blood]

Quit trying to derail this thread with the non sandwich talk.

[Dingfod]

Quit trying to derail this thread with the non sandwich talk.That's sammich, heretic!

[MooseIBe]

I agree with Demo .. and the Dark Lord there ;). I certainly think we have more ahead of us than another cpl hundred years, in any case! Wiping out the entire race would take quite some doing.

[MonCapitan2002]

I happen to think Warren's outlook of the future is hopelessly optimistic. I don't think our civilisation will survive this century, let alone the next ten. Hopefully, some of our ancestors were abducted by aliens and their decendants currently thriving on some far off planet.

And I think your outlook is hopelessly pessimistic but then that's just you. Personally I think we have a good chance of surviving the next century and the next millennia. True, I'm optimistic but at least I'm cautiously optimisitc.
I'd call that a hopelessly optimistic outlook. I think the moment Bush made the choices he made after 9/11, he set forth a chain of events that will inevitably lead to World War III and our eventual annihilation. If there is one thing the human race excells at it is killing. We have turned into a sick demented art, and our penchant for bloodlust and warfare will be our undoing.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

I'd call that a hopelessly optimistic outlook. I think the moment Bush made the choices he made after 9/11, he set forth a chain of events that will inevitably lead to World War III and our eventual annihilation. If there is one thing the human race excells at it is killing. We have turned into [sic] a sick demented art, and our penchant for bloodlust and warfare will be our undoing.

Right.... This assumes the other people of Earth are morons, are willing to use nuclear weapons and in a no brains manner(i.e. destroying ourselves completely) and that WWIII would even be fought with weapons we know the dire consequences of. Nope, if WWIII ever even happens it will likely only be chemical explosives, kinetic rounds, energy beam weapons, cyber warfare and the like. Radioactive fallout BAD! We know it's bad. At the most I can see limited uses of "bunker buster" tactical nukes. I'm totally not for those, and so are UN laws, however.

[Trojan]

When you look back at what life was like 1000 years ago it's almost impossible to even imagine what changes are in store for us 1000 years from now! I do think our numbers will be far lower than they are now. We will have moved into space somewhat but a Dark Age is in the time frame somewhere, that'll really slow us down. A borderless socialist system will keep resources in check and we will no longer be divided racially as we all are brown to some extent. We have some real surprises on the menu no doubt, but humanity will still be a significant presence on a very different Earth.

[MooseIBe]

I dunno.. I see no reason why we won't just go on advancing technologically and improving ourselves. Why not ? :)

[Johnny Pneumatic]

I dunno.. I see no reason why we won't just go on advancing technologically and improving ourselves. Why not ? :)

Because pessimists don't like to look at the past and see how humans have managed to survive. Humans are one, if not the most, successful creatures to have ever lived. We're not the greatest in number, but what other creature can you name that's of it's own intelligence created technology landed on another world, built machines that can fly, "run" and "swim" at far greater speed than any creature that's ever lived? There is none, in Earth's history. There's virtually no place on Earth(the land you smart asses) that humans haven't lived for thousands of years. Those places we haven't, we do now.

[Dingfod]

I recently read an article that state the rate of major technological innovations has slowed tremendously over the last 100 years. Those lucky 19th century inventors like Tesla and Edison picked all the low hanging fruit long ago. I'm still waiting for a flying car... they promised us flying cars by the year 2000... I want my flying car, dammit.

[JoeP]

:haha: Warren doesn't have a flying car!

[Dingfod]

Am I the only one?

[Trojan]

I dunno.. I see no reason why we won't just go on advancing technologically and improving ourselves. Why not ? :)

Because pessimists don't like to look at the past and see how humans have managed to survive. Humans are one, if not the most, successful creatures to have ever lived. We're not the greatest in number, but what other creature can you name that's of it's own intelligence created technology landed on another world, built machines that can fly, "run" and "swim" at far greater speed than any creature that's ever lived? There is none, in Earth's history. There's virtually no place on Earth(the land you smart asses) that humans haven't lived for thousands of years. Those places we haven't, we do now.
Until we even out the wealth and health of all humanity we won't excel much. The diseases and problems of the world's poorest will affect us directly unless we balance things out. Socialism would keep a check on resources, elimination of religion would be a leap forward as well. Pessimism has nothing to do with forecasts that aren't lollipop bright. We are as vulnerable as our poorest nation. We have a very, very long way to go. Sure the US and developed countries are spending billions to check out Mars rocks, etc. for the military. Meanwhile everything looks as it did 1000 years ago in many places around the globe.

[MooseIBe]

Well, name one place that looks exactly as it did 1000 years ago? Even in so called 'developing' countries I do not believe that is true, though I entirely agree that we have a long way to go before those countries enjoy the same standards of living as we do. I don't think there are many places left on earth where life is exactly as it was at the turn of the last century though. Even the Masai have wrist watches and mobile phones, or they did on a documentary I saw recently.

[Trojan]

Well, name one place that looks exactly as it did 1000 years ago? Even in so called 'developing' countries I do not believe that is true, though I entirely agree that we have a long way to go before those countries enjoy the same standards of living as we do. I don't think there are many places left on earth where life is exactly as it was at the turn of the last century though. Even the Masai have wrist watches and mobile phones, or they did on a documentary I saw recently.
In large swaths of Brazil people live much as they did 1000 years ago. Central Africa, Papua New Guinea and areas of Indonesia show little or no clue that the year is 2005 and not 1005. Areas of North Africa, Arctic Russia and regions of Central Asia are very primitive, not unlike the conditions of 1005. I guess my point is the US and the developed world would be shocked at the way we'd have to live 1000 years ago, a citizen of Irian Jaya, Indonesia wouldn't be.

[Dingfod]

Not too much looks like it did 1000 years ago in the modernized world. There do seem to be villages in Iraq and many other places in the world that look much like they probably did 2000 years ago or more. But, even in what we now call the modernized world, things were a lot the same in 1500 as they were in 500 or even 500 BC. In most of the years of human history most of the world was pretty much the same until relatively recent times, thousands and thousand of years went by without much change. Things have changed more in the last 100 years than all that went on before then. Why assume that trend will continue when history tells us different? Why would this modern world, we've built up mostly in the last couple hundred years that was and is primarily driven by the availability of cheap fossil fuels, continue to advance as rapidly when those fuels run short? I guess what I'm saying is, why the optimism?

[Trojan]

Not too much looks like it did 1000 years ago in the modernized world. There do seem to be villages in Iraq and many other places in the world that look much like they probably did 2000 years ago or more. But, even in what we now call the modernized world, things were a lot the same in 1500 as they were in 500 or even 500 BC. In most of the years of human history most of the world was pretty much the same until relatively recent times, thousands and thousand of years went by without much change. Things have changed more in the last 100 years than all that went on before then. Why assume that trend will continue when history tells us different? Why would this modern world, we've built up mostly in the last couple hundred years that was and is primarily driven by the availability of cheap fossil fuels, continue to advance as rapidly when those fuels run short? I guess what I'm saying is, why the optimism?
Couldn't agree more. And I'm not a gloomy doomy guy. The most developed nations just assume they are entitled to a future consistent with the last few decades; We get to keep consuming and consuming without limit. With the overwhelming majority of humans denied that fat luxury it is naive to think we will still be able to horde all the worlds' goods without eventual consequences.

[MooseIBe]

I understood that there would be replacements for fossil fuels. I could be wrong about that.. it's not something i know much about. But I don't anticipate the whole of Western civillisation collapsing when the oil runs out.

Of course, Jesus will be back by then, so it won't really matter..

[godfry n. glad]

Not too much looks like it did 1000 years ago in the modernized world. There do seem to be villages in Iraq and many other places in the world that look much like they probably did 2000 years ago or more. But, even in what we now call the modernized world, things were a lot the same in 1500 as they were in 500 or even 500 BC. In most of the years of human history most of the world was pretty much the same until relatively recent times, thousands and thousand of years went by without much change. Things have changed more in the last 100 years than all that went on before then. Why assume that trend will continue when history tells us different? Why would this modern world, we've built up mostly in the last couple hundred years that was and is primarily driven by the availability of cheap fossil fuels, continue to advance as rapidly when those fuels run short? I guess what I'm saying is, why the optimism?

I'd say I really don't have much optimism, myself.

I didn't have kids. I chose not to have kids.

I honestly think our species is headed toward a major dieback in population. I don't know when, but there are too many of us now, for the resources we all want. We face major collapse. Between pandemics, food shortages, and pestilences we'll have a failure of the necessary structures to support our highly urbanized and easy-power-dependent culture. Crowding in urban areas will be our undoing. Reliance upon a web of suppliers for one's daily needs will suffer as a horribly as a result. State-imposed order will break down under the pressures. I suspect that the human population will stabilize at some level under half of what it is now. The critical question is what the survivors of that die-off do...whether they will learn from it and what.

[cappuccino]

Not too much looks like it did 1000 years ago in the modernized world. There do seem to be villages in Iraq and many other places in the world that look much like they probably did 2000 years ago or more. But, even in what we now call the modernized world, things were a lot the same in 1500 as they were in 500 or even 500 BC. In most of the years of human history most of the world was pretty much the same until relatively recent times, thousands and thousand of years went by without much change. Things have changed more in the last 100 years than all that went on before then. Why assume that trend will continue when history tells us different? Why would this modern world, we've built up mostly in the last couple hundred years that was and is primarily driven by the availability of cheap fossil fuels, continue to advance as rapidly when those fuels run short? I guess what I'm saying is, why the optimism?

Yet why should we assume that the history will guide us in predicting the future? We can't make any assumptions that the progress will halt and we'll revert backward to something like it was a thousand years ago.

I'm interested in what it means for progress for everybody. What will be progress for say an isolated tribe in Amazon? Do we have the right to drag them into 21st century or what if they prefer to be left alone, they want things to say the same like it had been a millennia ago? We can't assume that everybody wants to live in the 21st century. The Third World countries will probably continue to develop and take advantage of advanced technology to bypass the environmental damaging route that the First World countries took centuries ago. I think that's the only solution for the developing countries, they can't afford to do the same way the US and Europe did, nor can we afford it due to the potential for environmental damage.

Even as new technology develops, the environmental footprint is being reduced as we become more aware and skilled at managing our resources. It's like those doomsay predictions of the 60s and 70s when everybody was predicting that the oil and food would have run out and that there would be a world-wide collapse. What they didn't anticipate was the improvement in internal combustion engines, reducing sources of pollution, improved crop hybrids and techniques which increased yields and reduced the environmental implact. I don't expect that to change any time soon. It's only a matter of time before we have technologies which make it much easier to raise sustainable crops, establish sanitation, medical infrastructure, and so on for the Third World countries, allowing them to piggy leap over hurdles.

I'm not really worried about some sort of castrophic collapse any time soon in the future. I'm more worried about the US's economy tanking.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

I recently read an article that state the rate of major technological innovations has slowed tremendously over the last 100 years. Those lucky 19th century inventors like Tesla and Edison picked all the low hanging fruit long ago. I'm still waiting for a flying car... they promised us flying cars by the year 2000... I want my flying car, dammit.


Yeah, I agree. TVs, CDs, DVD players, cellphones, personal computers, PDAs, the internet, jet engines, smart materials that change shape and can heal from damage(already exist in the labs), MRI, EEG and heart-lung machines, lasers, quantum dots, genetic engineering, artificial rubber and plastics, communication, weather and spy satelites, space telescopes and probes, robots, LED "bulbs", fluorescent lighting, drugs that treat all manner of things, Teflon and Gore-Tex, hook and loop tape etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. are nothing compared to a carbon wire inside of a blown glass bulb. :rolls:
Flying cars are being worked on (http://www.moller.com/skycar/) by the way.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Why would this modern world, we've built up mostly in the last couple hundred years that was and is primarily driven by the availability of cheap fossil fuels, continue to advance as rapidly when those fuels run short? I guess what I'm saying is, why the optimism?

Can you read? I gave links to how we can create renewable oil(takes care of our plastic and energy needs) from plants(Which as many children know, get their energy from the sun. You're not worried about it running out of fuel anytime soon are you? It will happen, but the oceans won't even be on Earth, the very Earth won't be here(Because the Red Giant sun will boil the rock away and blow it to the stars.), when that happens.
To keep expanding however we'll need to leave Earth, since the resources are finite. Asteroids, just a few of the billions in this solar system, hold trillions of dollars worth of iron, magnesium, nickle etc. metals. Comets have all the water we'll need for a long time as we keep growing. They also have organic compounds; plastic and plant nutrient potential ahoy! Titan, a moon of Saturn, has oceans of methane. Earth's moon has helium 3, a wonderful fuel for nuclear fusion reactors, titanium and many other metals. Jupiter has water in it's atmosphere. Europa has a huge water ocean. I really needn't go on. The rest of the universe? Probably more of the same, and far greater.

[Dingfod]

I recently read an article that state the rate of major technological innovations has slowed tremendously over the last 100 years. Those lucky 19th century inventors like Tesla and Edison picked all the low hanging fruit long ago. I'm still waiting for a flying car... they promised us flying cars by the year 2000... I want my flying car, dammit.


Yeah, I agree. TVs, CDs, DVD players, cellphones, personal computers, PDAs, the internet, jet engines, smart materials that change shape and can heal from damage(already exist in the labs), MRI, EEG and heart-lung machines, lasers, quantum dots, genetic engineering, artificial rubber and plastics, communication, weather and spy satelites, space telescopes and probes, robots, LED "bulbs", fluorescent lighting, drugs that treat all manner of things, Teflon and Gore-Tex, hook and loop tape etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. are nothing compared to a carbon wire inside of a blown glass bulb. :rolls:
Flying cars are being worked on (http://www.moller.com/skycar/) by the way.Actually, in the degree they changed people's lives, all those things you mentioned never changed them as much as the light bulb, telephones, automobiles, and refrigeration. Two come close: cellphones and internet. The rate of significant innovations has slowed considerably in recent decades, and it's not just my opinion: medical technologies innovation stagnation (http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/criticalpath/whitepaper.html) & declining trend in worldwide innovation. (http://accelerating.org/articles/huebnerinnovation.html)

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Actually, in the degree they changed people's lives, all those things you mentioned never changed them as much as the light bulb, telephones, automobiles, and refrigeration. Two come close: cellphones and internet. The rate of significant innovations has slowed considerably in recent decades, and it's not just my opinion: medical technologies innovation stagnation (http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/criticalpath/whitepaper.html) & declining trend in worldwide innovation. (http://accelerating.org/articles/huebnerinnovation.html)

Let me shoot down all the satellites and you'll see how much we need them. Without them can you imagine how we'd forecast hurricane landfall? Or GPS?

What would we do without plastics?

Commercial aircraft?

Personal computer? Or just digital computers in general?


I suppose nothing short of universal assembler nanobots, still probably decades or farther off, won't satisfy you?

[livius drusus]

Why are you so defensive about this shit, SkepJ? Everytime someone suggests the future may not be perfectly rosy, you jump them.

[Dingfod]

Why are you so defensive about this shit, SkepJ? Everytime someone suggests the future may not be perfectly rosy, you jump them.I don't mind. I know I'm being negative. Just trying to counter-balance the optimistic views of the future. Truth be told, I'm hopeful that some of what SkepticJ's put forth will indeed come to be.

But, I still want a flying car and I don't think Moller will be anything more than an investor sinkhole.

[Dingfod]

Let me shoot down all the satellites and you'll see how much we need them. Without them can you imagine how we'd forecast hurricane landfall? Or GPS?My life wouldn't be one hell of a lot different if there weren't any satellites.

What would we do without plastics?What did we do before there were plastics?

Commercial aircraft?This one I think we could do without more than just about any other advancement.

Personal computer? Or just digital computers in general?Of course, I only vaguely remember what I did before computers. You may not be old enough to remember that. Hell, I've had computers since before you were born. But, IMHO, I'm not absolutely sure my life has been all that improved by having them.

I suppose nothing short of universal assembler nanobots, still probably decades or farther off, won't satisfy you?Nothing short of an Orgasmatron will do.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Why are you so defensive about this shit, SkepJ? Everytime someone suggests the future may not be perfectly rosy, you jump them.

I'm defensive because it's doom and gloom pessimism. It'd be one thing if they had a solid foundation for their fear, in other words they could point to such and such data to back up their possition. What they have is like a fear that an asteroid the size of Mars is heading toward us; but they haven't seen anything in a telescope. When you call them on it, they move to alien death beams or some such. It's not really that different than the end of the world in religions. Ask a Fundi to prove the Four Horsemen of the Apocolipse will come and they can't point to anything beyond what a baseless book says.
Now I don't think everything is peachy, the loss of so much of the rainforests is a tragity. Will it kill us? No. What it will do is take potential knowledge away from us. Also, rainforests are ridiculously beautiful. I could go on with other things, but I won't. Perhaps you ask me what I think before you strawman me as thinking everything is A-OK?

[livius drusus]

Sigh... I never said anything at all about you think everything is A-OK. All I said is that you react with a vehemence I personally find outlandishly disproportionate every time somebody posits a negative vista of the future.

Your reply to me is only further evidence of this tendency of yours and yet another example of why I shouldn't bother engaging you on these issues.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

My life wouldn't be one hell of a lot different if there weren't any satellites.

What would we do without plastics?What did we do before there were plastics?

Commercial aircraft?This one I think we could do without more than just about any other advancement.

Of course, I only vaguely remember what I did before computers. You may not be old enough to remember that. Hell, I've had computers since before you were born. But, IMHO, I'm not absolutely sure my life has been all that improved by having them.

I suppose nothing short of universal assembler nanobots, still probably decades or farther off, won't satisfy you?Nothing short of an Orgasmatron will do.

So you don't watch live TV reporting? You don't watch the Weather Channel to see what the weather will probably be the next few days? You have nothing to do with economic activities? Well, you might not, but millions of people do.

We had materials that rot, weren't sterile for medical use, broke when dropped, bent etc., rusted, were very heavy, cost a lot more than plastic. If you think steel, burlap, cotton etc. are the be all end all, why don't you use nothing else?

Sure, taking a boat ride that takes days or weeks across stormy and icy oceans is great. I'm sure all those immigrants liked their ride.

Maybe not directly, but what other people do with them impacts your life greatly. An analogy would be the space program. I don't get to go to space, so it doesn't impact me that way. However, other people do go, learn things and the knowledge is used to create things that impact my life directly. Just because you don't sail on ships doesn't mean the spices and silk they bring back doesn't make your life better.

Try a vagina.

[Dingfod]

Try a vagina.That's easy for you to say.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Sigh... I never said anything at all about you think everything is A-OK. All I said is that you react with a vehemence I personally find outlandishly disproportionate every time somebody posits a negative vista of the future.

Your reply to me is only further evidence of this tendency of yours and yet another example of why I shouldn't bother engaging you on these issues.


They can posit all the negative futures they want, but when they're unfounded I can't help but to disagree. I get vehament when they repetet the same thing after I've shown them it's not a problem.

Then don't. Letting dumb stuff slide isn't in my nature. Sorry, but I won't change for you in this regard. I see it as a virtue, as do I skepticism, cynicism, freethinking etc.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

That's easy for you to say.

It's easy for me to say, but not to get.

[Dingfod]

That's easy for you to say.

It's easy for me to say, but not to get.You said it, I didn't. But, that's neither here nor there on this subject.

[Trojan]

All the niceties we 1st Worlder's enjoy have no practical use but to extend our lives and comfort us. If any average 1stWorld citizen were to be beamed back 1000 years not a one of us would survive long. Anyone know how to make a lightbulb? Explain and develop electricity? Build an engine? Can you find a way to stay healthy by demonstrating our great achievements in medicine? If so with what? Can any of us explain and build an aircraft to the inhabitants of that time? Of course I use and enjoy all modern conveniences but how does that make me more capable and intelligent when it comes to producing our modern technology to people 1000 years ago? In centuries past humans all had to work with raw materials, hunt, build and cook. The so called advancement of humanity is an illusion. How many humans today could go back and explain and produce anything at all? I love computers, DVD players, modern medicine, fast food, automobiles and air travel but it's all really crap. It has made us terribly vulnerable and soft.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

All the niceties we 1st Worlder's enjoy have no practical use but to extend our lives and comfort us. If any average 1stWorld citizen were to be beamed back 1000 years not a one of us would survive long. Anyone know how to make a lightbulb? Explain and develop electricity? Build an engine? Can you find a way to stay healthy by demonstrating our great achievements in medicine? If so with what? Can any of us explain and build an aircraft to the inhabitants of that time? Of course I use and enjoy all modern conveniences but how does that make me more capable and intelligent when it comes to producing our modern technology to people 1000 years ago? In centuries past humans all had to work with raw materials, hunt, build and cook. The so called advancement of humanity is an illusion. How many humans today could go back and explain and produce anything at all? I love computers, DVD players, modern medicine, fast food, automobiles and air travel but it's all really crap. It has made us terribly vulnerable and soft.


Beamed back alone, or with books? I admit I know little about farming, but I can learn if need be. Actually creating electricity with materials avalable a thousand years ago isn't hard, if you know what you're doing. Load stones, natural magnets, occur naturally. Copper ore has, you guessed it, copper. Copper can be beaten into wires. Gun powder isn't hard to make, if you know what to mix and in what amounts. Knowledge is power.
This is a pointless hypothetical question anyway, because we can't be beamed back.(Or if time travel backwards is possible, no one would be so stupid to go back not knowing.) The inverse question to this would hold true as well. How long would 1,000 C.E. people last in the modern world if they were suddenly beamed here? Not long methinks. They'll be in jail for doing something illegal, dead from something hitting them or they'll live like hobos eating McDumpster food.

[MonCapitan2002]

Not too much looks like it did 1000 years ago in the modernized world. There do seem to be villages in Iraq and many other places in the world that look much like they probably did 2000 years ago or more. But, even in what we now call the modernized world, things were a lot the same in 1500 as they were in 500 or even 500 BC. In most of the years of human history most of the world was pretty much the same until relatively recent times, thousands and thousand of years went by without much change. Things have changed more in the last 100 years than all that went on before then. Why assume that trend will continue when history tells us different? Why would this modern world, we've built up mostly in the last couple hundred years that was and is primarily driven by the availability of cheap fossil fuels, continue to advance as rapidly when those fuels run short? I guess what I'm saying is, why the optimism?
Couldn't agree more. And I'm not a gloomy doomy guy. The most developed nations just assume they are entitled to a future consistent with the last few decades; We get to keep consuming and consuming without limit. With the overwhelming majority of humans denied that fat luxury it is naive to think we will still be able to horde all the worlds' goods without eventual consequences.
And this is why I think we are doomed to extinction. By the time our leaders learn that our resources are limited, it will be too late to save ourselves. What resources are left will become so valuable, that it will justify all out war in order to obtain them. The only way for our consumption to decrease is to either voluntarily scale back our consumption (which will not happen) or through a massive die off due to catastrophic war. I think the former is an impossibility while the latter a certainty. Our end is coming. It isn't a matter of if it will happen, but when. My guess is that it will be either this century or next century. Either way, our civilisation will come to an end. All that will be left is a humanity that has been sent back to the hunterer-gatherer stage (if that). I think we have squandered our potential and I also think that the primal forces that shaped us and our worst demons will be our undoing in the end.

In fact, I bet anything that if there are any alien civilisations that have cropped up would also probably annihilate themselves. We are tied to the primal forces that created us. We are to prideful and too tribalised to ever be able to break free of our worst impulses. We are best at causing destruction. Humanity will do what it does best and destroy itself in the process. Hopefully we will send out "arks" before that happens. If we are lucky we might get a second chance on another world. I highly doubt that, though.

[MonCapitan2002]

Not too much looks like it did 1000 years ago in the modernized world. There do seem to be villages in Iraq and many other places in the world that look much like they probably did 2000 years ago or more. But, even in what we now call the modernized world, things were a lot the same in 1500 as they were in 500 or even 500 BC. In most of the years of human history most of the world was pretty much the same until relatively recent times, thousands and thousand of years went by without much change. Things have changed more in the last 100 years than all that went on before then. Why assume that trend will continue when history tells us different? Why would this modern world, we've built up mostly in the last couple hundred years that was and is primarily driven by the availability of cheap fossil fuels, continue to advance as rapidly when those fuels run short? I guess what I'm saying is, why the optimism?


I'd say I really don't have much optimism, myself.
I didn't have kids. I chose not to have kids.

I honestly think our species is headed toward a major dieback in population.
I don't know when, but there are too many of us now, for the resources we all want. We face major collapse. Between pandemics, food shortages, and pestilences we'll have a failure of the necessary structures to support our highly urbanized and easy-power-dependent culture. Crowding in urban areas will be our undoing. Reliance upon a web of suppliers for one's daily needs will suffer as a horribly as a result. State-imposed order will break down under the pressures. I suspect that the human population will stabilize at some level under half of what it is now. The critical question is what the survivors of that die-off do...whether they will learn from it and what.
They won't. If there is any constant in human history is that we never learn from our mistakes for long. Within generations we will go back to the same old bad behaviour that got us into trouble to begin with. We are an arrogant, ignorant prideful species. While I sorely wish we could make it, I don't think we will.

[Trojan]

All the niceties we 1st Worlder's enjoy have no practical use but to extend our lives and comfort us. If any average 1stWorld citizen were to be beamed back 1000 years not a one of us would survive long. Anyone know how to make a lightbulb? Explain and develop electricity? Build an engine? Can you find a way to stay healthy by demonstrating our great achievements in medicine? If so with what? Can any of us explain and build an aircraft to the inhabitants of that time? Of course I use and enjoy all modern conveniences but how does that make me more capable and intelligent when it comes to producing our modern technology to people 1000 years ago? In centuries past humans all had to work with raw materials, hunt, build and cook. The so called advancement of humanity is an illusion. How many humans today could go back and explain and produce anything at all? I love computers, DVD players, modern medicine, fast food, automobiles and air travel but it's all really crap. It has made us terribly vulnerable and soft.


Beamed back alone, or with books? I admit I know little about farming, but I can learn if need be. Actually creating electricity with materials avalable a thousand years ago isn't hard, if you know what you're doing. Load stones, natural magnets, occur naturally. Copper ore has, you guessed it, copper. Copper can be beaten into wires. Gun powder isn't hard to make, if you know what to mix and in what amounts. Knowledge is power.
This is a pointless hypothetical question anyway, because we can't be beamed back.(Or if time travel backwards is possible, no one would be so stupid to go back not knowing.) The inverse question to this would hold true as well. How long would 1,000 C.E. people last in the modern world if they were suddenly beamed here? Not long methinks. They'll be in jail for doing something illegal, dead from something hitting them or they'll live like hobos eating McDumpster food.
True, it is a hypothetical pointless question but my point was we are not, as a species, sooo much more advanced than humans 1000 years ago. I for one would not know how to create electricity. I wouldn't know what plants could be eaten or planted either. I see people struggle for days to make fire on TV reality shows! Hunt animals with a....spear I have to make for clothing and food? I don't think a vast majority of Western consumers could do what you can with the raw materials, no books or drawings either. If I wake up in 1005AD I'll look for you Skeptic! You'd be my only hope for survival!

[Dingfod]

Look me up, I'll the one wearing a fur coat and munching on a rack of ribs over a campfire near the cabin I built.

[Trojan]

Not too much looks like it did 1000 years ago in the modernized world. There do seem to be villages in Iraq and many other places in the world that look much like they probably did 2000 years ago or more. But, even in what we now call the modernized world, things were a lot the same in 1500 as they were in 500 or even 500 BC. In most of the years of human history most of the world was pretty much the same until relatively recent times, thousands and thousand of years went by without much change. Things have changed more in the last 100 years than all that went on before then. Why assume that trend will continue when history tells us different? Why would this modern world, we've built up mostly in the last couple hundred years that was and is primarily driven by the availability of cheap fossil fuels, continue to advance as rapidly when those fuels run short? I guess what I'm saying is, why the optimism?
Couldn't agree more. And I'm not a gloomy doomy guy. The most developed nations just assume they are entitled to a future consistent with the last few decades; We get to keep consuming and consuming without limit. With the overwhelming majority of humans denied that fat luxury it is naive to think we will still be able to horde all the worlds' goods without eventual consequences.
And this is why I think we are doomed to extinction. By the time our leaders learn that our resources are limited, it will be too late to save ourselves. What resources are left will become so valuable, that it will justify all out war in order to obtain them. The only way for our consumption to decrease is to either voluntarily scale back our consumption (which will not happen) or through a massive die off due to catastrophic war. I think the former is an impossibility while the latter a certainty. Our end is coming. It isn't a matter of if it will happen, but when. My guess is that it will be either this century or next century. Either way, our civilisation will come to an end. All that will be left is a humanity that has been sent back to the hunterer-gatherer stage (if that). I think we have squandered our potential and I also think that the primal forces that shaped us and our worst demons will be our undoing in the end.

In fact, I bet anything that if there are any alien civilisations that have cropped up would also probably annihilate themselves. We are tied to the primal forces that created us. We are to prideful and too tribalised to ever be able to break free of our worst impulses. We are best at causing destruction. Humanity will do what it does best and destroy itself in the process. Hopefully we will send out "arks" before that happens. If we are lucky we might get a second chance on another world. I highly doubt that, though.
Well said. Just a simple power outage causes chaos and riots and looting. A category 3 hurricane can bring us to Haitian living conditions overnight. We live in a fragile house of cards glued together and presented as our birthright. I don't think we'll ever be united enough to withstand anything strong enough to deny us a comfort or two. Millions would die just being without air conditioning and heat. We are too dependent and most of us do not have any real survival skolls. Maybe it's time to start teaching them to our young.

[Trojan]

Look me up, I'll the one wearing a fur coat and munching on a rack of ribs over a campfire near the cabin I built.
You'll likely find my dried out corpse clutching a useless cell phone. :sadcheer:

[TomJoe]

Copper ore has, you guessed it, copper. Copper can be beaten into wires.

I'd like to see you take copper ore and turn it into copper wire. In amounts enough that it would actually be useful to you.

[Crumb]

I'm with TomJoe. That would not be easy. Extracting copper from ore requires heat I believe. What I would focus on would be sources of energy. Coal should be not too hard to find and easy to utilize. With that I could design a simple two cylinder steam engine. That would have to be useful huh? I would still need metal though, but the coal would help for extracting iron, and maybe I could even manage to come up with steel. Coal and iron is all it takes, I think.

[Paul H.]

Artifical Intelligence will be doing... er, whatever it is that artificial intelliences do.

'Our' fate, will depend... on what 'it' does.

[MooseIBe]

All the niceties we 1st Worlder's enjoy have no practical use but to extend our lives and comfort us. If any average 1stWorld citizen were to be beamed back 1000 years not a one of us would survive long. Anyone know how to make a lightbulb? Explain and develop electricity? Build an engine? Can you find a way to stay healthy by demonstrating our great achievements in medicine? If so with what? Can any of us explain and build an aircraft to the inhabitants of that time? Of course I use and enjoy all modern conveniences but how does that make me more capable and intelligent when it comes to producing our modern technology to people 1000 years ago? In centuries past humans all had to work with raw materials, hunt, build and cook. The so called advancement of humanity is an illusion. How many humans today could go back and explain and produce anything at all? I love computers, DVD players, modern medicine, fast food, automobiles and air travel but it's all really crap. It has made us terribly vulnerable and soft.

I don't see any reason why we wouldn't survive in the eleventh century but of course then as now we'd be dependent on other people. Human beings are very adaptable though. I simply don't see the species dying out if all our 'mod cons' disappeared over night. People would die, yes .. perhaps a lot of people. But not enough to come even close to threatening extinction.

[Darren]

I'm with TomJoe. That would not be easy. Extracting copper from ore requires heat I believe. What I would focus on would be sources of energy. Coal should be not too hard to find and easy to utilize. With that I could design a simple two cylinder steam engine. That would have to be useful huh? I would still need metal though, but the coal would help for extracting iron, and maybe I could even manage to come up with steel. Coal and iron is all it takes, I think.

You would need food and shelter before you could even think about finding coal or doing anything else, and without support from other well-adapted humans you would spend all your time attempting to obtain the absolute hourly basics.
Even if you got around to looking for coal, what mode of transportation would you employ (simply for yourself to cover enough ground to begin looking for it)? If by some chance you found it, what tools and energy sources would you use to extract it?
Charcoal would be a much better bet than coal. You would still have all the same problems in finding and extracting iron ore, though.
The problem is that even the most basic human technology requires some social organization to support its development and employment. That's where a sudden collapse of modern civilization would manifest itself - at the ability to organize collective efforts at survival. The ultimate determining factor for survival would be the success (or failure) to develop adequate forms of social organization within a very short but critical period.

[Darren]

All the niceties we 1st Worlder's enjoy have no practical use but to extend our lives and comfort us. If any average 1stWorld citizen were to be beamed back 1000 years not a one of us would survive long. Anyone know how to make a lightbulb? Explain and develop electricity? Build an engine? Can you find a way to stay healthy by demonstrating our great achievements in medicine? If so with what? Can any of us explain and build an aircraft to the inhabitants of that time? Of course I use and enjoy all modern conveniences but how does that make me more capable and intelligent when it comes to producing our modern technology to people 1000 years ago? In centuries past humans all had to work with raw materials, hunt, build and cook. The so called advancement of humanity is an illusion. How many humans today could go back and explain and produce anything at all? I love computers, DVD players, modern medicine, fast food, automobiles and air travel but it's all really crap. It has made us terribly vulnerable and soft.


Beamed back alone, or with books? I admit I know little about farming, but I can learn if need be. Actually creating electricity with materials avalable a thousand years ago isn't hard, if you know what you're doing. Load stones, natural magnets, occur naturally. Copper ore has, you guessed it, copper. Copper can be beaten into wires. Gun powder isn't hard to make, if you know what to mix and in what amounts. Knowledge is power.


What would you use to protect your books from the elements? What would you use to protect yourself from the elements? What would you eat, wear etc. while learning about farming (not to mention while waiting for yor first harvest)?
Knowledge gives power only when appropriate to the circumstances. Yet even if your knowledge were appropriate, would it be workable without a society to support it? All the examples you give above assume functioning, relatively advanced (technologically speaking) societies - e.g. for procurement of basic necessities, transport networks, available information on local particularities etc.

[viscousmemories]

Letting dumb stuff slide isn't in my nature. Sorry, but I won't change for you in this regard. I see it as a virtue, as do I skepticism, cynicism, freethinking etc.
:roflmao:

davidm pointed out difficulties with every solution to the peak oil problem you proposed in the Peak Oil (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3499) thread here and the Peak Oil (http://www.galilean-library.org/academy/viewtopic.php?t=341) thread he started just for you (and your ScalyKumar sockpuppet) at the Galilean Library. But don't let your unshakable faith in a technological solution stop you from treating anyone who expresses skepticism about the future like a bumbling ignoramus. It's easy to be pompous when your claims concern a future nobody alive today is likely to be around to see.

[MooseIBe]

Skaly Kumar was Skeptic j?!

[MooseIBe]

The ultimate determining factor for survival would be the success (or failure) to develop adequate forms of social organization within a very short but critical period.

I think that's a good point and it's one I've thought about before when I've read various 'doom theory' novels like Day of the Triffids or The Stand. I think human beings are possibly rather more resilient as a race than some people might think but we would have to change quickly and smoothly to avoid massive loss of life if some catastrophe did strike us. Still, I am fairly sanguine about the chances of us still being around in 10,000 or even 100,000 years, and still being fairly technologically competent .. hopefully much more than we are now :). Of course, maybe I am wrong.. I am not a prophet ;).

[inyourhonor]

Artifical Intelligence will be doing... er, whatever it is that artificial intelliences do.

'Our' fate, will depend... on what 'it' does.

That's not fate. Fate doesn't have us on puppet strings. Our fate is defined by how we live now.

I want!:eeklaugh:
http://www.moller.com/skycar/m400/m400-flag.jpg
--when they make a model that looks less...gay.

In 1000 years, everyone on this board arguing about what will happen in 1000 years will be dead. Gone. Erased. Blotted from existence. To be honest, this is the most frightening concept than living in a barren wasteland, or waterworld, or some other post-apocolyptic landscape. I mean, that's almost a consolation.

Atleast then I'm living. I have a body. I have function. As long as you are alive, you always have some amount of control.

When I'm gone, what am I then? Do I return to some higher state? What does a higher state entail? Will I have any of the memories of my life before? I know it's stupid, and vain, but these thoughts and their only conceivable answers scare the hell out of me. :pessimist:

[cappuccino]

So freeze yourself and find out in a millennia :P

[inyourhonor]

So freeze yourself and find out in a millennia :P

eh...improbable, as the whole dethawing process is likely to turn my body like that of a frozen strawberry.

that and, what would be happening during the freezing process? because unless it's like a master-computer-simulated-Vanilla Sky experience, the effects are just like death. No consciousness, no existence. Or, say I am conscious, and I have to sit back and watch the entire millenia from the freezing container. I'm obsessive-compulsive. This would drive me insane.

[Carlos]

Are you prepared for 2012?

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Well said. Just a simple power outage causes chaos and riots and looting. A category 3 hurricane can bring us to Haitian living conditions overnight. We live in a fragile house of cards glued together and presented as our birthright. I don't think we'll ever be united enough to withstand anything strong enough to deny us a comfort or two. Millions would die just being without air conditioning and heat. We are too dependent and most of us do not have any real survival skolls. Maybe it's time to start teaching them to our young.


Wow, just when I thought I had seen your dumbest post, you go and do this one. Do you have any fucking idea of the power that's in a hurricane? I doubt you do, so read (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/D7.html)

Hiroshima was reduced to rubble by only a measly atomic bomb named Little Boy. Little Boy released 5.5×10^13 Joules of energy and was done. An average hurricane releases 1.50462963 × 10^12 Joules of energy in wind force every second. Katrina was hardly average, hit a poorly designed city(Built below sealevel) and New Orleans isn't a pile of rubble. Those pansy, poorly planning Japanese, they can't even build a city that's atomic bomb proof! What a house of cards their civilisation was.

[stranger]

We shal all find out soon enough :-
Re 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.

amd it seems no-one wants to be bothered to read about what its prophesied to be like :-

2Pe 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.


-righteousness... that would mean that people were loving to other people , right?

[Johnny Pneumatic]

We shal all find out soon enough :-
Re 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.

amd it seems no-one wants to be bothered to read about what its prophesied to be like :-

2Pe 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.


-righteousness... that would mean that people were loving to other people , right?


Really? Wasn't the world supposed to have ended, like 1,900-1850 or so years ago? Yes, I know an exact year wasn't given, but when it's 33 CE and somebody says "soon", unless they're a liar or deluded, that means less than a century. It *really means* less than a century when it says people won't "taste of death til they see Him coming in his Kindom", since people didn't live very long then(on average), and still don't, he should have been back *long* ago. That means, that if Rev. is true, we're living in the 8th Day; The New Beginning. I see death and suffering, can't be the 8th Day. We had the 6th Day a number of years back; damn what a crappy "Arnie" movie that was! I know my Bible, too well to believe it.

[stranger]

So freeze yourself and find out in a millennia :P

Enticing people to 'top' themselves may be against the site etiquette :P

[stranger]

Really? Wasn't the world supposed to have ended, like 1,900-1850 or so years ago?

I really don't think so :sadcheer:

Yes, I know an exact year wasn't given, but when it's 33 CE and somebody says "soon", unless they're a liar or deluded, that means less than a century.

I can find no place where Jesus says 'soon' , the nearest thing I can find to what you refer to is :-

Lu 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
and that might indicate 25 years in modern parlance but the word actually can refer to a whole genealogy, a stock... and thus clearly is referring to Israel, not to some time period ...

compare :-
Mt 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

It *really means* less than a century when it says people won't "taste of death til they see Him coming in his Kindom", since people didn't live very long then(on average), and still don't, he should have been back *long* ago.

Again i ma presuming that you refer to this :-
Mt 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

note that Jesus says 'some' , not all ... that should have given you the clue ... since surely all would be dead within say a century or so [as you point out] , not just some ...

So consider why this man was translated to immortal spirit that he did not see death :-

Heb 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God

Now consider that some disciples [notably John I would think] may well have pleased God and being so 'taken' , just as one in every seventh generation from Adam was taken and does not die ...

That means, that if Rev. is true, we're living in the 8th Day

I think not my friend, there are only seven days in the whole of prophetic time , time itself ends in God's rest for His whole creation on the seventh 'day'

The New Beginning.

I would suggest that the spirit baptism of all flesh [Joel 2:28] after the second resurrection in the righteous [loving] new earth is the 'new beginning'


I see death and suffering, can't be the 8th Day.

I dunno where you get the idea of an 8th day from, but sufferng clearly indicates tribulatioan and that we are nowhere near the 6th day, let alone the 8th

We had the 6th Day a number of years back;

I am not clear why you say that


damn what a crappy "Arnie" movie that was!

Maybe i missed that one :)

I know my Bible, too well to believe it.

Perhaps we can discuss your bible eveidence then , I would like that :)

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Perhaps we can discuss your bible eveidence then , I would like that :)


Wow, you're really serious about this I see. Sorry it took me so long to get back to you on this. I'll dig up the verses again, should have the time tommorow. If I don't, drop me a PM, because I probably just forgot. Now I'd rather not bother with any of this unless you're open to admitting you're wrong, and judging by the fact you use a Bible verse as your sig, I'm highly doubting that's going to happen. I'll reply to you once with the evidence the Bible writers thought the world would end very close to their lifetimes, then, unless you cut the shameless apologetics, I'll refrain from wasting my time with you; because I have far better things to do.

[stranger]

I'll reply to you once with the evidence the Bible writers thought the world would end very close to their lifetimes,

Save yourself the trouble, since I don't see any reason to dispute that

then, unless you cut the shameless apologetics

I am not into apologetics , that is for religionists and I do not believe i religionism [since I was a teenager even]

You have simply made far to many assumptions and that does not make for useful discusssion, also it rather negates yout username since it is not even good scepticism ...

[stranger]

Are you prepared for 2012?

Nah, but I'll lay odds that civilisation as we know will be in deep slump by then, falling apart at the seams ...

http://www.bartlett.house.gov/SupportingFiles/documents/Bartlett_9-26-2005_Conference.pdf
[Transcript of the Energy Conference ]

http://www.dieoff.com/

http://www.bartlett.house.gov/

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Save yourself the trouble, since I don't see any reason to dispute that

I am not into apologetics , that is for religionists and I do not believe i religionism [since I was a teenager even]

You have simply made far to many assumptions and that does not make for useful discusssion, also it rather negates yout username since it is not even good scepticism ...


Too late, I looked it up before I read your post. Anyway, here it is:
Mat 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

You sure about that? What you were doing with those verses in your reply to mine is what is known as apologetics.
So, you're not religious? What's your game then, just playing around?

I didn't make many assumptions. If someone uses a verse of the Bible as their sig, it tells me they are very likely a Christian. Since I can't meet you in person, it's hard to know anything about you other than what you post and wear as your sig.

[stranger]

Mat 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

OK, you simply misunderstood what the 'cities of Israel' are , Jesus sent the disciples amongst the gentiles to find the scattered lost House of Israel amongst the cities of all nations containing Israel , not just the Holy land ... the scripture could not be referring to Israel the modern land , but to Israel the people scattered all over the world...

the proof is simple really, there would be no point in Jesus returning until the disciples had visited ALL the remnant of the outcasts of Israel from all over the world...

[QUOTE]You sure about that? What you were doing with those verses in your reply to mine is what is known as apologetics.

Nay my friend, just discussing your reply

So, you're not religious? What's your game then, just playing around?

Not really a game, simply resolving anargument i am having with God about how easy it would be to mess up His plan if people could understand a rational account of it presented to them... God s winning the argument as usual ... :)

I didn't make many assumptions. If someone uses a verse of the Bible as their sig, it tells me they are very likely a Christian. Since I can't meet you in person, it's hard to know anything about you other than what you post and wear as your sig.

You could always just ask I guess ?

[Johnny Pneumatic]

OK, you simply misunderstood what the 'cities of Israel' are , Jesus sent the disciples amongst the gentiles to find the scattered lost House of Israel amongst the cities of all nations containing Israel , not just the Holy land ... the scripture could not be referring to Israel the modern land , but to Israel the people scattered all over the world...

the proof is simple really, there would be no point in Jesus returning until the disciples had visited ALL the remnant of the outcasts of Israel from all over the world...

[QUOTE]You sure about that? What you were doing with those verses in your reply to mine is what is known as apologetics.

Nay my friend, just discussing your reply

So, you're not religious? What's your game then, just playing around?

Not really a game, simply resolving anargument i am having with God about how easy it would be to mess up His plan if people could understand a rational account of it presented to them... God s winning the argument as usual ... :)

I didn't make many assumptions. If someone uses a verse of the Bible as their sig, it tells me they are very likely a Christian. Since I can't meet you in person, it's hard to know anything about you other than what you post and wear as your sig.

You could always just ask I guess ?


Wouldn't a less confusing way to say it would be "Jesus will be back before you're able to go to all the cities of the world that have Jews?" "Cities of Israel" means what it says, unless you'd agree when I say Cities of New York State can include Tampa, Florida.
I think Jews have been witnessed to long, long ago. So, where's the Christ?
Lets say they hadn't been though, what logic was God running by when he allowed the Jews to be scatered? Why not keep them in one area until they can be witnessed to? Surely an omnipotent God could witness to them himself, expecially if they were all in the same place?
Ah, fuck this, I'm wasting my time with this.

[stranger]

[QUOTE=SkepticJ]
OK, you simply misunderstood what the 'cities of Israel' are , Jesus sent the disciples amongst the gentiles to find the scattered lost House of Israel amongst the cities of all nations containing Israel , not just the Holy land ... the scripture could not be referring to Israel the modern land , but to Israel the people scattered all over the world...

the proof is simple really, there would be no point in Jesus returning until the disciples had visited ALL the remnant of the outcasts of Israel from all over the world...

[QUOTE]You sure about that? What you were doing with those verses in your reply to mine is what is known as apologetics.

Nay my friend, just discussing your reply

So, you're not religious? What's your game then, just playing around?

Not really a game, simply resolving anargument i am having with God about how easy it would be to mess up His plan if people could understand a rational account of it presented to them... God s winning the argument as usual ... :)

I didn't make many assumptions. If someone uses a verse of the Bible as their sig, it tells me they are very likely a Christian. Since I can't meet you in person, it's hard to know anything about you other than what you post and wear as your sig.

You could always just ask I guess ?


Wouldn't a less confusing way to say it would be "Jesus will be back before you're able to go to all the cities of the world that have Jews?" "Cities of Israel" means what it says, unless you'd agree when I say Cities of New York State can include Tampa, Florida.

I did explain why that interpretation is impossible ...

I think Jews have been witnessed to long, long ago. So, where's the Christ?

Your thought result though is unscriptural, the House of Judah is not witnessed to until after the 'fullness' ofthe paganised House of Israel, thus most jews still donot believe in Jesus ... te latter rain continues and soon will be predominanetly upon the Jews... then things start happening rapidly , for the jews only work the 'last hour' for a full day's pay [redemption] and from the time of baptism of the last Jewish saint until the return of Jesus is but three and a half years ... so maybe ask God what it's all about , it's easier on the mind anyway , and far more reliable info than thought...

Lets say they hadn't been though, what logic was God running by when he allowed the Jews to be scattered? Why not keep them in one area until they can be witnessed to? Surely an omnipotent God could witness to them himself, especially if they were all in the same place?

God hardly needs people in one place to reach them ...

[Johnny Pneumatic]

I did explain why that interpretation is impossible ...

I think Jews have been witnessed to long, long ago. So, where's the Christ?

Your thought result though is unscriptural, the House of Judah is not witnessed to until after the 'fullness' ofthe paganised House of Israel, thus most jews still donot believe in Jesus ... te latter rain continues and soon will be predominanetly upon the Jews... then things start happening rapidly , for the jews only work the 'last hour' for a full day's pay [redemption] and from the time of baptism of the last Jewish saint until the return of Jesus is but three and a half years ... so maybe ask God what it's all about , it's easier on the mind anyway , and far more reliable info than thought...

God hardly needs people in one place to reach them ...

And your apologetic is a load of shit. The Bible means what it says. If "cities of Israel" doesn't mean the cities of the country of Israel, then maybe when the Bible says "saved" it doesn't really mean saved. Maybe when it says Jesus turned water into wine, the Bible simply left out the bit about him watering and tending to grape vines, which is what it really meant when it said he turned water into wine. I fail to see how a city that has a few(Yes, I said a few, because Jews are a minority.) Jews in it makes it a city of Israel. So your pathetic, and I must also say the most vile and shameless apologetic "interpretation" I've ever seen(And I've seen some doozies), has lost it's former footing, and a most feeble footing at that.

WTF?

I didn't say he did. Would you mind answering a question that's been on my mind for years? Why doesn't God do his own witnessing? He talked to people in the Old Testament, so why does he limit himself to just a few people? Surely the best way for him to witness would be to do it himself, because God wouldn't screw up his own word. I mean, just look at how many sects of Christianity there are alone. They can't all be right. So, who is? Each one has parts of the Bible they use, and parts they ignore. NO sect uses all of it. They can't. It says one thing in one place, and another in another place, so they have to ignore the parts they don't like. Then there's the other religions like Islam, Hinduism, Wicca, Shintoism etc., who's right? Rather odd don't you think, that a being that can do anything trusts us humans, who are as "filthy rags", to teach other people about God? Maybe being all powerful makes him stupid, takes the blood flow away from his brain when it's going to his peni..., I mean, whatever organ God has that gives him his power?

[stranger]

[QUOTE=SkepticJ]I fail to see how a city that has a few(Yes, I said a few, because Jews are a minority.) Jews in it makes it a city of Israel.[/b]

The reason is simply that God has to gather the house of Israel from all nations, but the House of Israel is no longer a nation , they do not have their own cities

And that this is what it means is shown by thesimple fact that the message must reach all the ciies where Israel is scattered to before Jesus returns... I don't see how you can question that ...

Would you mind answering a question that's been on my mind for years? Why doesn't God do his own witnessing?

He does! eventually, after the second resurrection -Joel 2:28 ... what he cannot do though is His own deluding beforehand in order to [falsely] convince satan that he is the god of men [2Thess 2:4]

2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

He talked to people in the Old Testament, so why does he limit himself to just a few people?

Well the plan of redemption is three-stage, first Jesus, then 144,000 saints, then each of them brings in as many as Jesus did ... so God simply does not need to give all men all truth yet, rather he requires n=men to be deluded into worshipping Satan as if he were Chrsit and God [Re 13:3-7]

[Johnny Pneumatic]

The reason is simply that God has to gather the house of Israel from all nations, but the House of Israel is no longer a nation , they do not have their own cities.

He does! eventually, after the second resurrection -Joel 2:28 ... what he cannot do though is His own deluding beforehand in order to [falsely] convince satan that he is the god of men [2Thess 2:4]

2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

He talked to people in the Old Testament, so why does he limit himself to just a few people?

Well the plan of redemption is three-stage, first Jesus, then 144,000 saints, then each of them brings in as many as Jesus did ... so God simply does not need to give all men all truth yet, rather he requires n=men to be deluded into worshipping Satan as if he were Chrsit and God [Re 13:3-7]

They would have if God wouldn't have allowed them to be scattered. So your problem remains, why, when God is so powerful, does he act so inanely with this?

"Falsely convince Satan"? You mean lie to Satan, in other words? If that's not what you mean, what does God care what Satan thinks, cares, is convinced of? God knows He Himself is God, what's he got to prove to Satan? God's ego being hurt by no one but Himself giving a shit that he's God? Your problem still remains, why doesn't God do his own proselytizing to everybody? He DID to a few people, Moses, Paul etc. Isn't God supposed to not respect persons? Well, he respected them enough to talk to them, but nobody else. The rest of us have to take it on faith that Moses, Paul and the like aren't a pack of liars, or lunatics. I don't think that's fair.

Ummm, God wants some people to follow Satan why?

[stranger]

The reason is simply that God has to gather the house of Israel from all nations, but the House of Israel is no longer a nation , they do not have their own cities.

He does! eventually, after the second resurrection -Joel 2:28 ... what he cannot do though is His own deluding beforehand in order to [falsely] convince satan that he is the god of men [2Thess 2:4]

2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

He talked to people in the Old Testament, so why does he limit himself to just a few people?

Well the plan of redemption is three-stage, first Jesus, then 144,000 saints, then each of them brings in as many as Jesus did ... so God simply does not need to give all men all truth yet, rather he requires n=men to be deluded into worshipping Satan as if he were Chrsit and God [Re 13:3-7]



They would have if God wouldn't have allowed them to be scattered. So your problem remains, why, when God is so powerful, does he act so inanely with this?

I would have to ask what you think is inane , since to me God's plan is elegant and loving and beautiful. a way to deal lovingly with resolving all evil, all arrogance, all pride in every created being ...

"Falsely convince Satan"? You mean lie to Satan, in other words?

No lie, simply give Satan a whole earthful of men [bar a coule of thousand saints] to worship him as a god, so that he confesses his blasphemous desire - 2Thess 2:4

If that's not what you mean, what does God care what Satan thinks, cares, is convinced of?

God is love, loves all creation .. thus redeeming Satan is just as important as redeeming all other men and angels from God's creation

God knows He Himself is God, what's he got to prove to Satan?

Satan needs to find out [the hard way] that he is not God ... then he too will love God [for what God is] ...

God's ego being hurt by no one but Himself giving a shit that he's God?

Only human beings have egos , not God .

Your problem still remains, why doesn't God do his own proselytizing to everybody?

Well i thought that i had made it clear that He does - e,g. Joel 2:28

He DID to a few people, Moses, Paul etc. Isn't God supposed to not respect persons?

God will redeem a priesthood and some elders firts so that the priests can minister and assist the billions that come afterward, no-one is left out ... but it is a multi-stage plan ... not everyone is saved at the same time ... it proceeds in an orderly prscribed manner according to the prophecies in scripture ... why not read them, it is easier than stumbling around in misunderstnadings ... even ask God what it is all about if you really want to know from the top ...

Well, he respected them enough to talk to them, but nobody else. The rest of us have to take it on faith that Moses, Paul and the like aren't a pack of liars, or lunatics. I don't think that's fair.

That indeed would not be fair, but you will find that it is only religionists who want to SELL you a leap of faith into believing THEM .... rather why not read the scripture and then yearn to God [without your own thoughts interfering] for His take on things... it very different than the views almost all christians come out with ...

Ummm, God wants some people to follow Satan why?

Cos' Satan won't confess his blasphemy [2Thess 2:4] until he is convinced that he is the god of men with almost all men worshipping him [Rev 13:3-8]

then Jesus can return and begin the proof to saqtan that he is not a god by his mortal death :-

Ezekiel 28:9 Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am God? but thou shalt be a man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth thee.

[Dingfod]

Well the plan of redemption is three-stage, first Jesus, then 144,000 saints, then each of them brings in as many as Jesus did ... so God simply does not need to give all men all truth yet, rather he requires n=men to be deluded into worshipping Satan as if he were Chrsit and God [Re 13:3-7]I've really not ever heard that interpretation before, but mathematically, we've got some time yet, 144,000 times 144,000 is almost 21 billion people. BTW, a little nitpick, it's Christ, not Chrsit. I would think you'd be very careful about spelling Jesus' last name. ;)

[JoeP]

I would think you'd be very careful about spelling Jesus' last name.His Dad might smite you.

[Dingfod]

What about his middle names? You know, H. Fucking.

[stranger]

Well the plan of redemption is three-stage, first Jesus, then 144,000 saints, then each of them brings in as many as Jesus did ... so God simply does not need to give all men all truth yet, rather he requires n=men to be deluded into worshipping Satan as if he were Chrsit and God [Re 13:3-7]I've really not ever heard that interpretation before, but mathematically, we've got some time yet, 144,000 times 144,000 is almost 21 billion people. BTW, a little nitpick, it's Christ, not Chrsit. I would think you'd be very careful about spelling Jesus' last name. ;)

Nitpicking amuses you , OK lets play that game a while then :) ? Did the simple typo not communicate the same info as if it hadn't been made ?

'Christ' isn't Jesus' last name, it's the English transliteration of the Greek translation of the Hebrew that is transliterated as 'Messiah' ... it's a title meaning 'annointed king' of Israel , not a name at all :P

As to numbers , so do you know how many people and angels have ever lived? .... that is the number that we are talking about being moved toward redemption after so many men are resurrected at tthe second resurrection, it's not not the number of men alive today we are interested in here ... God has a better idea by far of this number than we do , so how do think that you know and what value do you assign to it ?

[Dingfod]

Nitpicking amuses you , OK lets play that game a while then :) ? Did the simple typo not communicate the same info as if it hadn't been made ?Yes, but it shows you're sloppy regarding your savior. I'm not sure he should be happy about that.

'Christ' isn't Jesus' last name, it's the English transliteration of the Greek translation of the Hebrew that is transliterated as 'Messiah' ... it's a title meaning 'annointed king' of Israel , not a name at all :P Duh, that's why there was a winking smiley at the end.

As to numbers , so do you know how many people and angels have ever lived? .... that is the number that we are talking about being moved toward redemption after so many men are resurrected at tthe second resurrection, it's not not the number of men alive today we are interested in here ... God has a better idea by far of this number than we do , so how do think that you know and what value do you assign to it ?Don't care. Doesn't matter anyway, it's all bunkum. There, is that dismissive enough?

[stranger]

2Esdras 2:36 And unto these things Uriel the archangel gave them answer, and said, Even when the number of seeds is filled in you: for he hath weighed the world in the balance.
37 By measure hath he measured the times; and by number hath he numbered the times; and he doth not move nor stir them, until the said measure be fulfilled.

Rev 7:3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.
4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.

[Leesifer]

There you go, Warren. That showed you didn't it!

[Dingfod]

Oh, yes, I've been totally pwnd by bible verses. I now feel a compelling need to go to church this Sunday.

[Leesifer]

You'll probably get to sing carols if you go this Sunday. :P

[godfry n. glad]

'Christ' isn't Jesus' last name, it's the English transliteration of the Greek translation of the Hebrew that is transliterated as 'Messiah' ... it's a title meaning 'annointed king' of Israel , not a name at all :P Duh, that's why there was a winking smiley at the end.

:D

Hey, Warren... He's got it partly right. It is a title. But in a discussion of the usage of a Grecophonic Jewish historian of the late 1st century - Flavius Josephus - I came up with a better understanding of what Paul's audience might of thought of the term. See here:

I keep coming back to the understanding that _AofJ_ was written for a Graecophonic Roman audience, most of whom would have no idea to what the term referred. What would they have thought of this "Christ," had the undefined term been included as it is in modern translations? Well, lacking as I am in proficiency with Koine Greek, I sought assistance from others in understanding how the term might have been understood by the gentile audiences that Paul and his competitors would have addressed. Another poster in another forum (Dr. Christopher Forbes, who lectures in New Testament, Hellenistic history, and history of ideas at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, where he is also Vice President of the Society for the Study of Early Christianity) was kind enough to send me this:

"The term meant 'ointment' or 'lineament'. Outside the Jewish-Christian sources, it was never used for a person on whom ointment had been put, 'an anointed one'. As far as I have been able to tell, the following statement by C.F.D. Moule (The Origin of Christology, Cambridge University Press, 1977, p. 31-2) is correct: 'The Septuagint seems, thus, to have introduced a new technical term ... when Biblical Greek uses _christos_, not for the ointment ('for external application') but for an anointed person or thing, this is a new usage.' (fn. 37): 'in secular Greek _christos_ is applied to the ointment, never, it seems, to the one anointed: it means 'for external application' or 'externally applied', as against something that is drunk and used internally.'"

"Essentially the same view is expressed by Hess in Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 9, p.495: 'Christos is never related to persons outside the LXX, the NT, and dependent writings.' In other words, as far as we know it was not used as a title of any sort outside the Judaeo-Christian sphere of influence. To someone with some knowledge of Judaism or Christianity it meant 'anointed person', i.e. person marked out for some special role by anointing. I have found no evidence at all that it was used by other Graeco-Roman religious groups."

So, unless one were a member of the small minority group of the far-flung Jewish communities of the 1st century Mediterranean, or the even smaller minority of the germinal Christian communities, the chances are that one might think that Josephus was referring to "Jesus, called the ointment"....or "called the lineament."

I'd say that would distinctly call for an explanation, or at least a definition of what a Jewish speaker meant by using the phrase. Yet, such seems to be entirely absent from _Antiquities of the Jews_ or any of Josephus' other works.

Now, I think that Monty Python could have a field-day with this understanding. Just imaging two or more Greek rustics, standing on the periphery of one of Paul of Tarsus' outdoor crowds as he haranged them about Joshua "the Ointment"...Jesus "For External Application Only".

:roflmao:

[stranger]

Oh, yes, I've been totally pwnd by bible verses. I now feel a compelling need to go to church this Sunday.

A common enough error my friend to confuse religion [and churches] with God ...

[Dingfod]

Well, I didn't go. For one thing, I was being facetious. I can't imagine anything short of brain damage that would make me believe in your god right now.

[California Tanker]

Well, taking a more literal answer to the thread title, in a thousand years, assuming we are all still on Earth, we will be approximately 350,040,000,000 miles further on our course around the Galaxy's central point. To put that into perspective, if you were to take a top-down (Or bottom-up, I guess) view of the Galaxy, draw a circle 30,000 light years out to represent our orbit, we would have progressed a total of eighteen ten-thousandths of a degree around the circle.

Similarly, in a million years from now, we'll be about 1.8 degrees around the circle. (We go around every 200 million years, give or take)

Universe is a big frigging place.

NTM

[MonCapitan2002]

That it is. That it is.

[stranger]

Well, I didn't go. For one thing, I was being facetious. I can't imagine anything short of brain damage that would make me believe in your god right now.

Not sure what that's got to do with anything, you do not know [acknowledge] my God, nor do I want to make you or anyone believe in Him ...

nor do I really see why brain damage would make you believe in my God or that you are even qualified to state this wityhout even knowing what my God is ...

I think you rather lost track almost completely now and simply made some yet more untrue presumptions ...

[Dingfod]

Well, I didn't go. For one thing, I was being facetious. I can't imagine anything short of brain damage that would make me believe in your god right now.

Not sure what that's got to do with anything, you do not know [acknowledge] my God, nor do I want to make you or anyone believe in Him ...

nor do I really see why brain damage would make you believe in my God or that you are even qualified to state this wityhout even knowing what my God is ...

I think you rather lost track almost completely now and simply made some yet more untrue presumptions ...You were the one quoting bible verse in this thread. If the god of that bible isn't your god, you're fucked up quoting it to justify yourself.

As for the brain damage thing, I will say this, if Jehovah himself showed up in person, performed some sort of miracle right in front of me, my reaction will most likely be to check myself into the nearest mental health facility.

[stranger]

Well, I didn't go. For one thing, I was being facetious. I can't imagine anything short of brain damage that would make me believe in your god right now.

Not sure what that's got to do with anything, you do not know [acknowledge] my God, nor do I want to make you or anyone believe in Him ...

nor do I really see why brain damage would make you believe in my God or that you are even qualified to state this wityhout even knowing what my God is ...

I think you rather lost track almost completely now and simply made some yet more untrue presumptions ...You were the one quoting bible verse in this thread. If the god of that bible isn't your god, you're fucked up quoting it to justify yourself..

As I pointed out before i is your mistake to confuse the god of scripture with the god of christianity ... a mistake caused by your own comprehensible reluctance to check out scripture and christianity to see the distinction for yourself , but just presuming on the basis of what men say ...

As for the brain damage thing, I will say this, if Jehovah himself showed up in person, performed some sort of miracle right in front of me, my reaction will most likely be to check myself into the nearest mental health facility

It will be some light relief to see whether you do this when the antichrist turns up doing miracles and claiming to be the manifestation of God and Christ then, I look forward to your reaction to something beyond your limited experience manifested before your eyues then... I doubt that you will get much help from 'mental health' though, they only deal with normality and will be just as unable to resist the temptation to fall in line with a manifest god doing miracles as you will be ... 'normality' will just be re-defined then and all will continue until Jesus returns and shows the mistake for wht it is ... then things get really bad for folks as the consequences of being unloving finally unfold for all humanity even after Satan is dead ...

[California Tanker]

Is this where we mention the return of the Great Prophet Zarquon at the End of the Universe?

NTM

[godfry n. glad]

Well, taking a more literal answer to the thread title, in a thousand years, assuming we are all still on Earth, we will be approximately 350,040,000,000 miles further on our course around the Galaxy's central point. To put that into perspective, if you were to take a top-down (Or bottom-up, I guess) view of the Galaxy, draw a circle 30,000 light years out to represent our orbit, we would have progressed a total of eighteen ten-thousandths of a degree around the circle.

Similarly, in a million years from now, we'll be about 1.8 degrees around the circle. (We go around every 200 million years, give or take)

Universe is a big frigging place.

NTM

Yeah? Well, what goes around, comes around.

[Dingfod]

As I pointed out before i is your mistake to confuse the god of scripture with the god of christianity ... a mistake caused by your own comprehensible reluctance to check out scripture and christianity to see the distinction for yourself , but just presuming on the basis of what men say ...That's the best laugh I've had all day. Thanks.
It will be some light relief to see whether you do this when the antichrist turns up doing miracles and claiming to be the manifestation of God and Christ then, I look forward to your reaction to something beyond your limited experience manifested before your eyues then... I doubt that you will get much help from 'mental health' though, they only deal with normality and will be just as unable to resist the temptation to fall in line with a manifest god doing miracles as you will be ... 'normality' will just be re-defined then and all will continue until Jesus returns and shows the mistake for wht it is ... then things get really bad for folks as the consequences of being unloving finally unfold for all humanity even after Satan is dead ...I'll take my chances that none of what you say is going to happen in the future will happen, I think it's a very safe bet.

I figured a psychologist could prescribe some drugs to make the hallucinations go away. They can do that you know?

[Leesifer]

Is this where we mention the return of the Great Prophet Zarquon at the End of the Universe?

NTM

He'll turn up late, you know. :yup:

[stranger]

Is this where we mention the return of the Great Prophet Zarquon at the End of the Universe?

NTM

Nah ,plenty of time for just one more bath I think ...


Ecclesiastes 3:1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

Luke 14:17 And sent his servant at supper time to say to them that were bidden, Come; for all things are now ready.

Psalms 119:126 It is time for thee, LORD, to work: for they have made void thy law.

Job 7:1 Is there not an appointed time to man upon earth? are not his days also like the days of an hireling?

Deuteronomy 32:35 To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.

Haggai 1:3 Then came the word of the LORD by Haggai the prophet, saying,
4 Is it time for you, O ye, to dwell in your cieled houses, and this house lie waste?
5 Now therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts; Consider your ways.
6 Ye have sown much, and bring in little; ye eat, but ye have not enough; ye drink, but ye are not filled with drink; ye clothe you, but there is none warm; and he that earneth wages earneth wages to put it into a bag with holes.
7 Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Consider your ways.

Genesis 30:33 So shall my righteousness answer for me in time to come, when it shall come for my hire before thy face

Genesis 43:20 And said, O sir, we came indeed down at the first time to buy food:

Deuteronomy 5:5 I stood between the LORD and you at that time, to shew you the word of the LORD: for ye were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the mount;

Joshua 22:24 And if we have not rather done it for fear of this thing, saying, In time to come your children might speak unto our children, saying, What have ye to do with the LORD God of Israel?
...
Joshua 22:27 But that it may be a witness between us, and you, and our generations after us, that we might do the service of the LORD before him with our burnt offerings, and with our sacrifices, and with our peace offerings; that your children may not say to our children in time to come, Ye have no part in the LORD.
Joshua 22:28 Therefore said we, that it shall be, when they should so say to us or to our generations in time to come, that we may say again, Behold the pattern of the altar of the LORD, which our fathers made, not for burnt offerings, nor for sacrifices; but it is a witness between us and you.

Judges 9:8 The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them; and they said unto the olive tree, Reign thou over us.

2 Kings 5:26 And he said unto him, Went not mine heart with thee, when the man turned again from his chariot to meet thee? Is it a time to receive money, and to receive garments, and oliveyards, and vineyards, and sheep, and oxen, and menservants, and maidservants?

Job 9:19 If I speak of strength, lo, he is strong: and if of judgment, who shall set me a time to plead?

Amos 5:13 Therefore the prudent shall keep silence in that time; for it is an evil time.

Psalms 102:13 Thou shalt arise, and have mercy upon Zion: for the time to favour her, yea, the set time, is come.

Isaiah 11:11 And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.

Jeremiah 51:33 For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; The daughter of Babylon is like a threshingfloor, it is time to thresh her: yet a little while, and the time of her harvest shall come.

Hos 10:13 Ye have plowed wickedness, ye have reaped iniquity; ye have eaten the fruit of lies: because thou didst trust in thy way, in the multitude of thy mighty men.



Isaiah 42:23 Who among you will give ear to this? who will hearken and hear for the time to come?

[stranger]

That's the best laugh I've had all day. Thanks.


ur welcome :) [strange thing about humour, it is always about the true things that people find hard to acknowledge openly ...]

I'll take my chances that none of what you say is going to happen in the future will happen, I think it's a very safe bet.

Aside from the very obvious fact that it ain't a matter of chance , so betting is irrelevant , that is a very common approach, so if one follows the herd one simply dies as they fall over the cliff, no problem ...

try Silmansky for size:- http://philo.haifa.ac.il/faculty_pages/smilansky/Free_Will_two_radical_proposals.htm

Romans 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

I figured a psychologist could prescribe some drugs to make the hallucinations go away. They can do that you know?

psychiatrists are the ones who prescribe pschoactive drugs , not psychologists, but you will find that they have no cure for the delusions of life because they too believe in them and are just as ill with them ,or even more so, as most of the herd...