Have you noticed the backtracking from 'end of the world' to 'a new age' ?

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   
If you asked people back in 2006 or even 2008, most who believe in Dec 21, 2012 would have mostly said its the end of the world. But now lately that sentiment seems to have shifted to "it will be a new spiritual awakening'.

I can't really pinpoint when this change occurred but it has happened slowly. What I want to know is why? Is it because the date has been coming quickly and you don't want to promise such a big thing, so you back track a little? I mean, saying it is the end of the world is bold claim and hard to argue ambiguity. But to say a spiritual awakening... is kind of... a cop out. Because what is a spiritual awakening? I would argue such a thing is much different for everyone. An awakening for me could be worlds different than one for you. There's no way to argue whether or not 'it' happened. It allows for people to come here or talk to their friends and family on Dec 22nd and save some face.

Maybe I'm being too cynical on this. I'm not trying to be. But Look at it a different way. If I promise you ''3 things to say in a job interview, and if said, you will get the job''... But then as I'm driving you to the interview I say ''well it depends on HOW you say those things. I cant promise what the interviewer will do if you say them wrong'' That would be backtracking. I look at it as the same thing. The majority claimed end of the world. And now I see far more spiritual outcomes as predictions. A highly ambiguous difference.

Note- this isn't for people who said it was a spiritual awakening the whole time. I get there's exceptions to every rule, but you all cant be the exception.
edit on 25-11-2012 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


Yes I have noticed

I knew this is how it was going to down: END OF THE WORLD.... I mean new age.... I mean... oh they.. meant 3012 not 2012 silly!




If humanity is still around in 1000 years they will go through the same "bs" no doubt about it.



SS



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Have you noticed the backtracking from 'end of the world' to 'a new age' ?


Since nothing can be created nor destroyed, 'end' literally mean 'change'. And if the world changes, it will bring a new age, correct?

I fail to see where the backtracking is, unless you mean the part where people are correcting themselves and understanding the phrase for what it truly means.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
This is the BIG one for these guys though. It is going to be ONE TOUGH pill to swallow when we all move on the Dec 22nd. To most, I would say Dec 21, 2012 has more behind it than y2k did. This is the premiere doomsday date. There will always be another random date to get people hyped up. But it will be hard to match this one. I fear some weak minded people may over react on that day. Wont be surprised to see reports of suicides and minor looting/domestic terrorism (im talking raiding the grocery store or some loon calling in a bomb threat)



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   
I never thought that it would be The End.

I've always felt that it would be some sort of new beginning.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity

Have you noticed the backtracking from 'end of the world' to 'a new age' ?


Since nothing can be created nor destroyed, 'end' literally mean 'change'. And if the world changes, it will bring a new age, correct?

I fail to see where the backtracking is, unless you mean the part where people are correcting themselves and understanding the phrase for what it truly means.


This is what I'm talking about. END of the world means what it means. If it meant change, then change would be the word used. If a game ENDS, it doesn't change, it STOPS, it CEASES to be.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   
A new beginning would be a new Big Bang now wouldn't it?

Take Timewave Zero for example; It goes back 25 billion years to the Big Bang and suddenly hits Zero on December 21, 2012. What's the opposite from the beginning? The Big Crunch, but even that idea seems way out there but it's bound to happen someday and even 25 billion years is a long time but the question is, is that how long a Universe will last?

Lot's of interesting theories behind December 21, 2012 and someone is right that there is more behind it than what infamous Y2K date had to offer.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
A few years ago the marketing ploy was fear. The End Is Coming, Prepare Your Soul!!
Now, they know nothing is really going to happen, but still want to make as much $$$ as possible, so they have had to switch to a message of spiritual change. That we will all be lifted to a higher plane. And so can you if you buy the book and CD combo for $29.95.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 



This is what I'm talking about. END of the world means what it means. If it meant change, then change would be the word used. If a game ENDS, it doesn't change, it STOPS, it CEASES to be.


No, it doesn't. A game never dies. How many times do you see some old gaffer talking about the game he went to when he was a kid, and how close the score was, and the excitement of that ball flying high, and how proud he was of catching it way up in the stands?

Nothing ever dies. It leaves behind memories. And really, that's the closest thing you'll find to immortality. If humans weren't so stupid, they would understand that nothing ever truly ends. In fact, you think World War 2 ended? Nah, its ideals live on in the hearts of people who are too smart to try and relight that fire. It's a dormant cause, and that's how it'll stay until one country or another finds itself sinking to an inevitable doom.

There is no such thing as ending. Even a forest doesn't end. It may burn down, but the ashes and smoke will hang around until they become something else. If you knew a damn thing about science, you would realize that this earth will only change, not end. And that just speaks to the stupidity of everyone else as well.

Take a science class, people. Seriously.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
I also wondered about this. For some reason I decided to see what the numerology of 12/21/12 could be broken down into.

1+2=3 2+1=3 1+2=3

3+3+3=9

3x3x3=27

2+7=9

12+21+12=45

4+5=9

More of a stretch here:

12x21x21=3024

30-24=6

30/6=5 24/6=4

4+5=9

To me 9 first represented simply "the end". But one could argue it also means "the end of the cycle" which goes hand-in-hand with the Mayan Prophecies. At first I believed the "mystery schools" aka "new age movement" used this to create fear, but now are utilizing it so some people think we are entering into some kind of golden age.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


Have i noticed the backtracking from 'end of the world' to 'a new age' ?

yes, i have;

from the sceptiks/materialists/nadaists and prophets of "nothing will happen"
to paraphrase afterinfinity [parenthesis mine]: "where [skeptics/materialists/nadaists and prophets of "nothing will happen" AND literalists] are correcting themselves and understanding the phrase for what it truly means."

i've also noticed a tendency from the "prophets" of "nothing will happen" crowd to state that:
"the maya did not predict their own DOOM"

L
L

of course they did.


but the mayan masses chose to listen to the "prophets" of "nothing will happen" of that day and age.

sorta like the OP and his fellow "prophets" are hoping.

"history does not repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes"


edit on 25-11-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 

For me, this demonstrates how the "2012" theory is actually a coalition of different belief-systems.
"End of the world" is one party (or group of parties, considering the different methods involved), while "new age" is a different set of parties.
Perhaps the first group has been losing ground now that it's becoming glaringly unlikely that some of the "end-of the-world" scenarios can possibly take place in time.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32

Maybe I'm being too cynical on this.


Egotistical too.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
They can't handle that they are here for no reason other than to be and need something to look forward to so latch on to these theories. when they come and go then the backtracking and denial start till the next crutch comes along.
edit on 25-11-2012 by aivlas because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Taken many science classes. Got my phd in anthropology (physical) actually. And no that's not just made up for talking with you. Check my post history. I was called out 3 or 4 years ago about it. (And please dont ask me what my defense was about to the academy, I dont feel like typing out 250 pages again lol)

And its pretty egotistical of you to essentially call people dumb because they dont think like you do in terms of things ending. You may think that just because something lives on in your memory it therefore did not end, doesnt mean you're right. The game ended. There arent people on the field playing that specific game in those specific circumstances. Nor will they ever again. It will be a different game. Again, because there are memories of the game doesnt mean its still going on, just proof to yourself that it happened. past tense, as in DID happen. AS in its over now.
edit on 25-11-2012 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by bknapple32

Maybe I'm being too cynical on this.


Egotistical too.


Not sure what was egotistical. It was merely an observation. Did I say that NOTHING possibly could happen? No. Did I even give my own opinion of what would happen? No. Don't jump the gun my friend, it's not becoming of a gentleman.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by aivlas
They can't handle that they are here for no reason other than to be and need something to look forward to so latch on to these theories. when they come and go then the backtracking and denial start till the next crutch comes along.
edit on 25-11-2012 by aivlas because: (no reason given)


And I've noticed some get very touchy touchy when one even questions the thinking on anything related to 2012.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
...All along it's consisted of two possibilities: destruction, and or transformation. It's also been
purported all along that humanity would collectively manifest one of the two possibilities.
One's consistent, and or inconsistent leaning to one or the other possibility is to be expected.
Both outcomes are spectacular below the light of the rational mind...it would seem one could
balk in favoring either outcome as the fateful date is less than a month away. As anything else
(but on a decidedly much larger scale) it's about "a leap of faith" when push comes to shove.
And if there's been significant interior structuralization based on what will transpire...its
integrity will be tested. One should at least have the integrity not to be a last-ditch-cynic in
lieu of the assuming, and or unassuming impending date of 12/21/12...if they contributed to
its epic, prophetic proportion.



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by bknapple32
 

For me, this demonstrates how the "2012" theory is actually a coalition of different belief-systems.
"End of the world" is one party (or group of parties, considering the different methods involved), while "new age" is a different set of parties.
Perhaps the first group has been losing ground now that it's becoming glaringly unlikely that some of the "end-of the-world" scenarios can possibly take place in time.



What I don't get is... why backtrack? Just because the date is approaching? Or because more things would need to be in motion for something catastrophic to happen in less than a month. I mean, if they are right, then who knows, still just as likely all the volcanoes erupt or massive planet wide earthquakes, or some solar flare or cme wipes out the power grid. I mean, those were the scenarios then, why not now still?



posted on Nov, 25 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerepentLEstranger
reply to post by bknapple32
 



but the mayan masses chose to listen to the "prophets" of "nothing will happen" of that day and age.

sorta like the OP and his fellow "prophets" are hoping.

[align=center] "history does not repeat itself, but sometimes it rhymes" [/align]
edit on 25-11-2012 by DerepentLEstranger because: (no reason given)


Its actually a little more simple than that... They just used slash and burn agriculture too much until they depleted their entire crop.






top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join