"The World" Means What?

Ba'al

It is not strange you have chosen this name for yourself. The god and the enemy of man and Gods plan for humanity. The end is in the hands of the creator, not the creation. He exists outside of our time and dimension. We are all a work in progress and it is Faith and Truth that will set use free, that Truth is Jesus. Believe or not the word has been given, “He who has ears let him hear”. To question is good, but when the answer is clear, stop your inquiry and believe.

Gods Peace, be with you all.

Concerned, even that passage is foolish pittle! The bible and the Church are in opposition to his ideas! I think I'd side with the bible over a self proclaimed "expert".

Bill,

I recommend reading one or all of Professor Crossan's 23 books on the NT. His (along with Watts) book, "Who is Jesus" is excellent.

An excerpt about atonement theology:

"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."

I would like to ask John Dominic Crossa what he believes in. I understand there are difficulties in the history of Christianity especially at the time of Constantine. Nevertheless, this has been an extraordinary faith began by a person whose follower grew in fantastic large numbers after he died.
You seem to have lost your faith altogether. Can you tell us what you do believe in?

The Chrsitian response is that God created the world to demonstrate His Justice, love and Mercy to other intelligent more or less rational beings.

The chief demand of God is that we stop being so selfish. Sin = Selfishness. None of us in this life ever get completely beyond the problem of selfishness.

Ba’al –-As a working definition I suggest that intelligence is the ability to apprehend, transmit or create sense.

You argue that what is typically recognized as intelligence ‘are emergent properties of neuronal circuitry’ and that “if you disrupt the organization these emergent properties -- all of them -- dissapear.” It seems to me that implicit in this argument is that there is either no implicit or no over-arching and sensible process by which these complex circuitries are created; that these properties are exclusively a local and contextualized phenomenon; that the process by which organizations, systems (at all levels of complexity including neural circuitries) arise, is fundamentally dumb, meaningless, arbitrary, senseless; even if there are local instances of interacting particles or forces that somehow create, transmit and apprehend sense.

I agree with you that intelligence manifests as complexity increases. Yet to argue that the process by which complex systems arise is senseless (if this is what you are arguing) seems like a magical jump to me. Furthermore, a consequence is that this very discussion is fundamentally senseless in any ultimate sense.

Even if I did not have faith, the logic of the argument you appear to me to be making suddenly appears forced, magical, exclusively dependent on the observed phenomena (systems interactivity) but truncating all implications. Please let me know if I am understanding it correctly. Once we come to a definitive agreement or disagreement on this, I can try to respond to your other comments. Otherwise, it gets too long.

Garyd

I have no doubt that the Christian reason as to why God created the universe is because he wanted to.

Think about the logic (or lack thereof).
“I believe the Bible is nspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.” Would your anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.”

Fill in the blanks:
x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran

Apparently some people talk to God. Please let us know the time and date, so we can join the discussion.

Ba'al you of course completely missed the point not that I expected much else.

Christ shall return again whenever God wishes precisely when that is is not and cannot be know by man.

As for creation - this universe - itself virtually every world religion or at least the three major monotheistic has an answer as to why God did it.

Ultimately the best we can do with iron clad certainty is that God created this when where and what we occupy because he desired to do so. Ultimately we can only hazard a guess as to His reasons based upon what scripture tells us.

Jeff Johnson,

I agree with you on Buddhist impermanence.

For the record, didn't the Vatican disapprove of Fr. Piere Teilhard de Chardin's writings? If so, then he ranks high in my book.

Regards.

Enrique

Everything you just mentioned, memory, conciousness, sense of self, intentionality, vision, hearing -- all of those things -- are emergent properties of neuronal circuitry. Forget that I even used the word intelligence, it is not relevant to my point. The point is that if you disrupt the organization these emergent properties -- all of them -- dissapear.

As for the famous passage in John, that says nothing explicit about why God created the universe, only his motivation in sending his Son. And with respect to Chapter 1 of Genesis, God saw that his creation was good -- AFTER he made things. Nothing in scripture says explicitly WHY he started making light, etc. etc. etc.

E. O. Wilson, one of the great scientists of my generation, sometimes likes to pontificate about areas far outside his own expertise and he is much more optimistic than most of us. Listen closely when he writes about evolutionary biology, sociobiology, the history of biology, and anything to do with social insects. But nobody is an expert on everything, not even professors at Harvard.

As for humility, admitting ignorance is a stance that shows that trait, but that doesn't mean you have to shut your brain off. The idea that life is a cosmic test in which we have to BELIEVE certain things about the universe or we are doomed to eternal torment seems as absurd to me now as it did the first time somebody told me that (when I was a child).

Jacob

"DOWN WITH SLOGANS"

"DOWN WITH SLOGANEERING"

"DOWN WITH ON FAITH THREAD'S PLACARDS"

"UP WITH G-D"

“G-d Bless UNITED States of America & FRIENDS!

(((( DOWN WITH IRAN's Rule By THEOCRACY ))))

(((((((((((( DOWN W/ SAUDI MONARCHY ))))))))))

((( Reward for MAHMOUD Ahmadinejad's TONGUE )))

(( DOWN WITH PERSIA's GOV. by THEOCRACY ))

USE YOUR ((( H.U.E.R.I.S.T.I.C.S ))) NOT RELIGION

(-: (((((( VOTE FOR SECULAR THINKING MINDS )))))) :-)

A Buddhist would observe that all is impermanent and that grasping for permanence is the root of Samsara. Just let go!

As a former student of Ursula King and Brennan Hill at Xavier University, I refer Christians to the teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and his escatalogical concept of Christ Omega.

In the "end" the sun will burn out after it has expanded enough to consume the earth. That is virtually certain. If there is some conscious hand in this, does it matter? I think it was Alan Watts who said '...it will be as if we never existed.'
For those who believe in an individual conscious existence after death, it would seem to matter even less. The only thing that does matter is will it happen in my lifetime. If not, I'll never know.

Dear Dr Crossan,
I have been researching the history of the early church latelly with view to writing a book.To cut a long storyshort I think I can show that Clements disputed letter to Theodore is a hoax.I have been sitting on itfor a couple of months because i really dont know what to do with it, and i was considering trying to make some money from it (which is perhaps rather unchristian of me). Anyway i would love to talk to you about it, ideally in confidence. Ishall contact you again.

"So, no, the biblical God will never annul creation by destroying the earth. The real danger is that we will destroy it all by ourselves. The sad and terrible truth is that, while we cannot transfigure the earth to justice and non-violence without divine empowerment, we can certainly destroy it without any such transcendental assistance."

Thank you.

It IS that simple.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

You write: "Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive....It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."

I don't take Genesis literally although it may contain historical truth. Note that when Cain is evicted from Eden he is afraid for there are other people who may hurt him. He moves to where other people live. So it seems Genesis is not suggesting Adam was alone on earth.

You also comment on the initiative by exegetes to present the bible "as a human rather than divine document. "

I don't see how an exegete is qualified to do that. Exegetes don't interpret, or at least are not expert interpreters, and that is an interpretation; indeed, a statement of faith.

In essence the opinions you provided in response to my 4 questions are based on what is believed to be known, or that may be known, empirically, all else seems dismissed as irrelevant at best, or unknowable. The possibility of knowing through faith is denied a priori. That appears to leave all that is fundamental out. Do you agree?

BA'AL:

You write: "To the best of my knowledge, the "why" question is never explicitly addressed in Judeo-Christian scripture either".

The first chapter of John talks about God 'loving the world' to the extent that He gave it His only son. Genesis describes God as pleased or satisfied by what He created. Seems to me that God might have been pretty surprised, exhillirated, that even He existed, rather than nothing. It might have been nothing, should have been nothing, yet, 'I am who am´. Might wanting to share the joy of being, when nothing should even be, be a motive?

You question 'time': "the
human brain is wired so as to perceive time in a certain way. However, we have known since the first half of the 20th century that this intuitive view of time is not in accord with physical reality."

I agree. Time as we experience it is an illusion, as is arithmetic. Whitehead ("Principia Mathematica") pretty much debunked the notion of exactness, not to mention, the reductionism involved in concluding that 1 + 1 = 2.

On intelligence you write: "Intelligence is an emergent property...".

Yes, Teilhard explained as much. But what is this property? Why does it emerge and what is it? Does the fact that it emerges necessarily mean that it is only emergent, that is, that it's only an epiphenomenon? I think not.

You then add: "Disrupt the organization and the intelligence dissapears permanently."

That's a jump one cannot make until one adequately defines intelligence and the experience of time.

You conclude: "It seems to me likely that humans are simply not intelligent enough to ever have a complete grasp of the cosmos or even how our own brains work. "

I agree although some reknowned scientists (e.g. E. O. Wilson - "Consilience") would have one believe that science is on the brink of explaining everything in terms of 3 or 4 fundamental principles.

We need some better definitions of intelligence.

Memory, imagination, 'logical reasoning', will or intentionality, seeing, hearing, etc. all seem to be lumped together under this notion of 'intelligence', as is order, reasonability, etc. The notion of 'logic' is suspect, for it means 'reason', or 'what is most reasonable' yet when pushed that which is supposedly 'reasonable' easily lead to a conundrum as philosophers, fully reasonable in their own eyes, often experience and are unable to fully resolve.

This lack of knowing leaves, or should leave, humans feeling quite vulnerable. We find ourselves at a party, do not know who is hosting it, when it started, how we got here, or where we are going afterwards. That does not mean there aren't objective answers to our questions, just that we don't have them philosophically or scientifically. So I think that when we address these issues, which are also religious issues, a certain humility is surely warranted.

In my experience and view, the revelation of Christ's love cannot be controlled on the human end, but humility probably helps.

Garyd

In Romans 11:32 Paul ( or whoever is writing in his name) says "For God has consigned all people to disobedience, so that he may have mercy on all".

In Romans 5:20 we read "Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound."

These passages mean that God introduced Sin into the world deliberately so he could showcase what a fine compassionate deity he actually is-- except, that is, for the vast majority of souls, who will be sent to eternal torment for not accepting Paul's theology in its entirety (an idea that pervades all of his letters).

Your comment suggests that when we all say "uncle" and admit we can't get things straight, Jesus will come again. Uh, OK.

1. Why did it start? Nobody can ever know the answer to this, scientists universally admit to having no opinion on this at all. To the best of my knowledge, the "why" question is never explicitly addressed in Judeo-Christian scripture either -- although I have no doubt that some of the "faithful" will find an answer to this based on some scriptural verse that is actually addressing something else.

2. What was there 'prior' to the Big Bang? The human brain is wired so as to perceive time in a certain way. However, we have known since the first half of the 20th century that this intuitive view of time is not in accord with physical reality, at least when we are talking about scales of size or speed outside of our usual experience. For this reason it is hard to conceive of the idea that there is no "prior" to the big bang -- that the question itself is akin to asking about the Dow Jones industrial average in the year 1066.

3. What is 'intelligence' if everything originated in non-intelligent (?) gases? Intelligence is an emergent property of a certain cellular organization in nervous systems. Large complex aggregrates of matter have properties over and above those of their constitutent parts. This is seen over and over again, not just with intelligence, but with a variety of other complex systems, even some that are man-made. Disrupt the organization and the intelligence dissapears permanently.

4. In your conception, does the apocalypse ever end? It depends I suppose on what eventually happens with the universe. Does it expand forever, does it "recrunch" to be followed by a big band, does someting else happen? Nobody really knows.

It seems to me likely that humans are simply not intelligent enough to ever have a complete grasp of the cosmos or even how our own brains work. But that is a guess.

Father Crossan is of course about half right, but that puts him one up on the current responders who are for the most part completely missed the boat.

The world was created good then into that was introduced free will and man and things rapidly declined. They are to date getting no better and in some (some would argue most) respects are getting arguably worse.

Why is God taking so long one poster asks? The answer is obvious but if he truely cared for an answer he'd already know. None the less I shall answer that the few real Chrsitians who show up to read such tripe might not be shaken. The answer is simply That man see fully his own inability to produce that world of peace, justice, mercy,and love.

Holy Roller: You dun got it right!

Starting with the Big Bang:

Some singularity (God?) is probably responsible for the Big Bang program that got the Ball rolling. It/He/She is unable to stop or influence it because this singularity includes Nature (universal physics), Future and Free Will. Good and bad, however, are part of the program. There is nothing to prevent the bad from winning as shown by historic events. Was JC an attempt at influence?? Probably not, just a Good part of the program in Run mode. One day lets hope the Good is part of everyone's Favorite list.

Pre-Big Bang? I don't have the "foggiest" idea.

What we do know:

Humans as we know them have been here for ~60,000 years based on the latest DNA studies.

As per National Geographic's Genographic project:

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

" DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who about 60,000 years ago began a remarkable journey. Follow the journey from them to you as written in your genes”.

"Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.

Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.

It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."

What else do we know:

1. The Sun will burn out in 3-4 billion years so we have a time frame.

2. Asteroids continue to whiz by us daily.

3. One large hit and it is all over in a blast of permanent winter.

4. There are enough nuclear weapons to do the same job.

5. Most contemporary NT exegetes do not believe in the Second Coming so apparently there is no concern about JC coming back on an asteroid or cloud of raptors/rapture.

Bottom line: our apocolypse will start between now and 3-4 billion CE.

Based on the discovery of exo-planets, life will continue on some other planet but in a different form from ours.

With respect to Genesis:

From http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

"New Torah For Modern Minds

Abraham, the Jewish patriarch, probably never existed. Nor did Moses. The entire Exodus story as recounted in the Bible probably never occurred. The same is true of the tumbling of the walls of Jericho. And David, far from being the fearless king who built Jerusalem into a mighty capital, was more likely a provincial leader whose reputation was later magnified to provide a rallying point for a fledgling nation.

Such startling propositions -- the product of findings by archaeologists digging in Israel and its environs over the last 25 years -- have gained wide acceptance among non-Orthodox rabbis. But there has been no attempt to disseminate these ideas or to discuss them with the laity -- until now.

The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, which represents the 1.5 million Conservative Jews in the United States, has just issued a new Torah and commentary, the first for Conservatives in more than 60 years. Called ''Etz Hayim'' (''Tree of Life'' in Hebrew), it offers an interpretation that incorporates the latest findings from archaeology, philology, anthropology and the study of ancient cultures. To the editors who worked on the book, it represents one of the boldest efforts ever to introduce into the religious mainstream a view of the Bible as a human rather than divine document. "

Well..
As for me, the end of my life is more important than the end of the world.
I will evaporate from this planet within 40-50 years.
Why?
Would it not be more serious issue?

When I want answers to scientific questions like this, I always turn to books written by iron age mystics. But please understand, I am a moron.

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated:

You've proposed: "The Apocalypse started with the Big Bang and continues with the ever expanding universe where stars and planets are continually destroyed and reborn in a very, very slow but ongoing process."

That's an interesting conception but it raises questions, for example:

1. Why did it start?

2. What was there 'prior' to the Big Bang?

3. What is 'intelligence' if everything originated in non-intelligent (?) gases?

4. In your conception, does the apocalypse ever end?

Your conception could be aligned with the story of the ´fall´ in Genesis. In such case, the fall, as Teilhard de Chardin suggests somewhere, was transhistorical, outside time, in another plane. If Teilhard is right, why not argue the apocalypse started there?

What do you think?

Concerned the Christian Now Liberated:

You've proposed: "The Apocalypse started with the Big Bang and continues with the ever expanding universe where stars and planets are continually destroyed and reborn in a very, very slow but ongoing process."

That's an interesting conception but it raises questions, for example:

1. Why did it start?

2. What was there 'prior' to the Big Bang?

3. What is 'intelligence' if everything originated in non-intelligent (?) gases?

4. In your conception, does the apocalypse ever end?

Your conception could be aligned with the story of the ´fall´ in Genesis. In such case, the fall, as Teilhard de Chardin suggests somewhere, was transhistorical, outside time, in another plane. If Teilhard is right, why not argue the apocalypse started there?

What do you think?

The Apocalypse started with the Big Bang and continues with the ever expanding universe where stars and planets are continually destroyed and reborn in a very, very slow but ongoing process.

The apocalypse as religious-cultural literature can also be understood as the further manifestation of the eruption of the ‘other’ in a totality. Jesus, irregardless of whether one believes in his divinity or not, erupts into Hebrew culture and contradicts some of its central world views, its understanding of what it is to be human, its practices. A Jew, he walks into the Jerusalem temple and throws out the money makers, cures on the Sabbath, etc. and claims he is the same thing as, and is performing the works of, “I am who am”. The priests at the Jerusalem temple collect taxes on behalf of empire. With Jesus a profound transformation of that totality begins and John’s apocalypse reflects the depth, reach and existential impact of what Christ, the ‘other’, begun. The plight of the unrecognized ‘other’: the poor, the ostracized sinner, the leper suddenly had Jesus to speak for them with unprecedented authority. “Blessed are the poor…the peacemakers…the persecuted for justice… the pure of heart…” The Old Testament’s true meaning comes into focus: ‘an eye for an eye’ is trumped by ‘Love your enemies’; what is in the heart trumps that which is pronounced by the lips; the Good of man trumps the Law. Furthermore, whatever is made to happen in the here and now, projects into eternity, the true container and battleground of authentic existence. The apocalypse emerges from this fundamental challenge by Jesus, the ‘other’. In 70 AD, aprox 35 years after it did, the Jerusalem temple was destroyed.

Yet the seeds of the challenge arguably spread to other totalities. In that sense what the Apocalypse describes and prophesied began with the crucifixion of the Christ, as then the anti-Christ released all of its venom, visible almost everywhere today, and yet it was not enough: Jesus resurrected, became visible to followers, who testify He is everywhere. Wherever he or the ‘other’ for whom liberation was proclaimed is crushed, the other reemerges; definitive justice and eternal life are assured.

Yet the anti-Christ presents himself as the Christ. Like the priests in charge of the Jerusalem temple, they claim to represent ´God’s will’ while contradicting the historical Christ... Empire presumes itself to be divinely instituted, the legitimate authority, to be entitled to kill in the name Christ, notwithstanding what is actually proclaimed in the gospels.

The apocalypse arguably began about 2000 years ago, when the artificially sweetened, phenomenally powerful, yet vacuous and deceitful venom of the anti-Christ first confronted the pure, authentic redemptive love of the Christ. The confrontation then spread to a variety of totalities, or worlds, and now with the advent of globalizations, in the planetary stage that encompasses them (and throughout the relative space-time continuum as the threatened colonization of space and nano-world suggest). John’s apocalypse as an expression of the most fundamental existential struggle and its definitive outcome arguably has a historical starting point and a logic that should not be dismissed a priori simply because of its literary style.

A scholar like Crossan should know and acknowledge that Josephus was correct in putting the blame for all Jewish woe on their messianic beliefs. The whole emphasis on the end of the world and the creation of a new Jerusalem is bound up with messianic revenge and "ressentiment" -- some Nietzsche correctly excoriated.

Those who wrote apocalyptic literature were desperate fanatics seeking to overcome their grief. For 21st century Americans to take them seriously is a sign of serious mental disorders.

Were it possible, all evangelicals should be put in mental wards or concentration camps.

Mr. Crossan,

I saw an evangelical board recently where a religious poster argued, "why should she care about global warming and pollution -- since the world was going to be destroyed soon (with Jesus' Coming) anyway??"

I appreciate your post -- but i don't think it's going to convince any of these selfish religious loonies. And there is a huge block of them voting for conservative Republicans ready to sell out the country to plutocrats -- and make the world a far worse place for future generations. It is sickening.

The world as ´planet earth' or the world as ´a´totality', whose inhabitants cannot imagine anything 'other' than the totality?

Unexpectedly, the 'other' manifests in such a totality, and like a bubble it bursts. Sort of what has begun to happen in this culture. The begining of liberation, perhaps.

Enrique Dussel elaborates this conception quite thoroughly as did Edward said.

Anon,

I believe NG's Genographic Project is only partially funded. That is why there is a charge of $100 for testing your DNA to determine your origins. Nice item for your Christmas wish list??

Check out the Atlas on the same website. It is one of the best sources for tracing pre and post Adam. The time line is real unlike the mythical time line of the Bible.

Dear Concerned,

Thanks for the link to the website. I've just a couple of quick comments about what I found there.

After clicking on the link, I briefly explored the website. In the "About the Project" section, after describing why National Geographic believes the project is so important, the site states, "But to fully complete the picture we must greatly expand the pool of genetic samples available from around the world. Time is short...But we don't just need genetic information from Inuit and San Bushmen—we need yours as well. If you choose to participate and add your data to the global research database, you'll help to delineate our common genetic tree, giving detailed shape to its many twigs and branches."

Sounds great, right? However, there's a catch. When you click on the link to participate, you are led through three easy steps. Step #1:"Once YOU HAVE PURCHASED YOUR OWN Genographic Project Public Participation Kit, you can begin the exploration into your deep ancestry." (emphasis mine) Instead of seeking to recruit folks and pay them to participate, this project requests that you purchase your own kit for $99.95 (plus S&H). Something's fishy there...

At the end, the site states that "Your haplogroup's story may evolve as the Genographic Project collects thousands of DNA samples during the next few years. When it does, tantalizing new chapters will be added to this Web site and your information will be updated." Translation: "There's a good chance we'll get it wrong and have to change our results a few times." Is it possible that their current conclusions are inaccurate and may need to "evolve" as well? Something to ponder...

5000 years?? How about 60,000 years based on the latest DNA studies.

As per National Geographic's Genographic project:

https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

" DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who about 60,000 years ago began a remarkable journey. Follow the journey from them to you as written in your genes”.

"Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.

Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.

It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."

Your distinction between this world ending and this planet being destroyed is probably too subtle for most folks (which is why some Bibles translate "world" as "System of Things"). In this country, we have become addicted to Hollywood style endings. You are also too kind in your answer by not pointing out the Grand Illusion that has been (and continues to be) so successfully foisted over the human race. Sometimes it is amusing to consider the possibility that the world will be destroyed not by God "doing something", but by His not doing something.

Sorry, the paragraph in my post about the world having come to an end for people over the past 5,000 years would be clearer if it read:

If you think about all the people who have died in the past 5,000 years, then the world has come to an end for all of them whether they believed in or did not believe in whatever forms of religion, paganism, cultism, etc. that have existed or come and gone. The world also comes to an end for thousands more who die every day from natural or other causes.

Professor Crossan you are the only panelist to ponder whether the question is one about religious faith. Of course, some have answered the question in terms of whether man will bring the world to an "end" - leading some to point out that bringing the "world" of "man" to an end does not mean the end of the world in its physical or cosmic sense.

The question posed is apparently not well thought out because it asks not only for a prediction of whether and when the end will come, but what it will look like. Presumably if it is at an end, it is at an end, so there is no point in our worrying about what it looks like. OTOH, perhaps the question intends to ask what the process of the coming to an end will look like -- and I suppose that is a question about religious faith although science and geopolitics give us some clues as to what might happen, barring a scripture-type of cataclysmic and abrupt end.

One of the panelists wrote that if you ask a child in Sudan, perhaps the world is already at an end.

If you think about the past 5,000 years, then the world has come to an end for all those who believed in or did not believe in whatever forms of religion, paganism, cultism, etc. that have existed or come and gone. The world comes to an end for thousands more every day.

It is a curiosity to me that most religions seek to condition salvation or something in the afterlife on belief in their tenets and adherence to certain codes of conduct. Yet, since dying is a necessary element of getting to the afterlife, it is not treated as welcome, but rather the collective death of all is treated as the end of the world -- and disastrous.

One can foresee that with predictions of inadequate water supplies for 40% or so of people in Africa and India and perhaps a similar number in China, billions could die. Similarly, AIDS has killed many and could cause more devastation. Or, terrorists or some crazy leader of some country could launch another war, this time with nuclear, chemical or bio weapons.

OTOH, humanity has survived for some 5000 years and adapted. Major advances in medicine (e.g something as basal as antibiotics), public health, communications, transportation, food production, and technology of all sorts, have been concentrated in the past two centuries, and more and more, the pace of change and innovation accelerates.

So, who is to say that we won't find a solution to water problems - desalinization or whatever, to energy needs, a preventive vaccine or curative treatment for AIDS, or reach an agreement to eliminate nukes, etc.?

The point, of course, is that for all of us humans, the end of the world has come in general at some point before our 116th or 121st birthday (I looked it up in Wikipedia and the "undisputed" oldest person lived to 115+ and the oldest is said to have lived to 120+ but this is disputed).

Even with advances in medicine and gene therapy, at least for the foreseeable future, the world will thus come to an end. For those who have died and those who care about them, we know in general what the end looks like.

So, whether one looks at this question in religious or in secular terms, the point is that coming to an end is an endless process. It seems that there is nothing peculiarly religion-related about the process, since humans of all sorts, believers in different religions, non-believers, good, bad, indifferent, continue to die.

Why should all this lead us to believe that there is some religion-based cataclysm coming? After all, if death is what God or whoever seeks to achieve, there is a pretty efficient process in place and it has worked for 5,000 years. Why should we believe that there is some secular process that will bring things to an abrupt halt for humanity? Well, only because we have the means to bring about massive destruction and therefore, the odds of its happening increase exponentially.

What will it look like? My guess is that my world be ended before I need to worry about it.

Paul was also overly optimistic but it did result in many Gentile conversions and monetary donations to the cause.

The writers of at least two of the Gospels have Jesus saying that he expects the Kingdom of God, this "end of evil" as Professor Crossan puts it, within the lifetimes of those who were listening to him. Assuming he lived and said something along those lines, it would seem Jesus was overly optimistic about people's ability to collaborate with the program.

I am not going to write anything that hasn't been considered for centuries, but I havn't seen a good anwswer yet. Specifically, why would an all-powerful god would take so long to establish a world of justice and allow so much evil in the meantime? Also, why do we have to believe in Christ for his supposed powers to "save" us be effective?

Maybe he never said anything of the kind? Maybe he never really existed?

As for the question, obviously at some point this planet will no longer be able to sustain life, but it would be best if this time was not hastened by our activities.

What we know:

1. The Sun will burn out in 3-4 billion years so we have a time frame.

2. Asteroids continue to whiz by us daily.

3. One large hit and it is all over in a blast of permanent winter.

4. There are enough nuclear weapons to do the same job.

5. Most contemporary NT exegetes do not believe in the Second Coming so apparently there is no concern about JC coming back on an asteroid or cloud of raptor.

Bottom line: the world will end sometime between now and 3-4 billion CE.

This world and this universe will be brought to their ends by the processes of nature and "nature's laws", not by a deity's fiat.