one world government is here (updated with link)

[treeschanna510]

http://loveforlife.com.au/content/09/12 ... -pages-pdf


this is someone else that read it and makes constant reference to the document

[zoegirl]

yeah bart i know and basically what i hear you saying is youre anti news and yeah actually i did read articles before i posted this it was on jack van impe and before you say anything i already know that youre going to try and discredit it but the way i see it youre a hypocrite because you got your evidence from wikipedia and then i heard you say you believe that the events in revelations are symbolic but people get so caught up in 100 percent of the bible being symbolic they dont want to admit that some of it might be literal and thats how things get thrown off because when you focus so much on symbolism you start to ignore what could be literal and miss out on the truth and once again it seems like youre trying to personally attack my view because im in the middle i believe somethings in the bible are symbolic but others are to be taken literally for example when it talks about the anti christ i believe it is actually goiing to be a man and thats fine that you dont believe that but when you try to tear down my evidence it frustrates me because i feel like im not trying to start a debate and that theres a difference between a debate and a discussion not only that but youve basically said youre anti news because youre tired of people tying current events to revelations but you cant ignore that someof these people are telling the truth and youre guilty of exactly what theyre doing because anything you say is backed up by an opinion that you try to reinforce and you do this even in your subconcious youre doing it now youre denouncing current events and youre denouncing some things that can be literal in revelations and then when someone presents you with over like 20 sources all saying the same thing you denounce them because it doesnt meet your standards and thats unhealthy and youre putting yourself in mental imprisonment with that mindset wich is why some people are as ignorant as they are is because anytime something doesnt match up with their beliefs they dismiss all sources and try to make excuses about why they arent good enough and you basically revealed yourself you said you see things from a symboic point of view when it comes to revelations and you hate it when people tie current events to revelations and that there's no way that 1 century Christians can tie events to 21st century europeans but you forget that the visions in revelations were given by the holy spirit and there are people smarter than you that are scholars and that have been ordained by god himself to help interpret the truth and youre missing out on that

Bart has been very clear in presenting sites where there could be possible error. Witness the caution with the Wikipedia site. I will say, at least with Wikipedia, there are (generally), references where one can check onthe information.


Trees, what, in your mind, would be the difference between a debate and discussion, at least on this site? You can't come here and not expect to have people bringing up different views, especially about such a tenuous and futuristic event. At best, this idea of a one world governemnt is a prediction, based upon some ideological beliefs.

I would suggest that you stop trying to build a case that rests upon his "fear" of thinking about things or upon some idea that he is afraid of news. These aren't news sources, at least the last several aren't.

Try instead to argue the ideas. For instance, he has asked you to examine the greenpeace article with regards to the actual draft. Instead of building up such a strawman about his fear of news, examine the site and pose your own arguments against them!

[treeschanna510]

well i jsut call it like i see it and i dont have a problem with people posting their views but i dont think i want someone lecturing me on how to do research when they get their sources from wikipedia

[Canuckster1127]

well i jsut call it like i see it and i dont have a problem with people posting their views but i dont think i want someone lecturing me on how to do research when they get their sources from wikipedia

Tree,

I made one reference from Wikipedia and before I made it I acknowledged its shortcomings myself, something that I didn't observe you to do with any of your secondary sources. The Wikipedia article has both positive and negative things to say about Monckton and it includes about 17 references to primary sources for any who wish to know more about him.

There's no more left to say for my part. Your response to my last post illustrate better most of my points and concerns better than anything else I could say and to address what you have to say there would simply be an exercise in repeating most of what I've tried to say. It would also require me to point out several ad hominem attacks, logical errors and given your response to those previously it would only serve to hurt your feelings, which has never been my goal. I've continued to field your comments and examine your sources and I've seen very little evidence of your interacting with what I've provided for you other than anger and frustration that you're being challenged and having to face someone who disagrees with you.

I'm going to leave it at this and any observing this thread or who come later can judge for themselves and come to their own conclusions as to the validity and support for our points of view.

Blessings to you and should you decide at some point that you wish to continue with this conversation let me know. In the meantime, I'd kindly suggest that you take a little time out before continuing with this thread or starting others so that you're better able to handle any challenges that might come to what you have to say.

blessings,

bart

[cslewislover]

csl i could be wrong but ti think theyre talking in pastence and connecting it to now

Treeshanna, I'm not trying to pick on you, but what the other mods are saying is good and they are really taking their time with you, especially Bart. He has taken a lot of his time trying to explain things, including his view on Revelation.

For my part, I pointed out that that article states that the US is now a dictatorship. But it's not. That statement is clearly false, and so bizarrely so, that there's no reason to take the article seriously. But this did not seem to matter to you. It's makes the conversation difficult, to say the least.

[Zebulon]

For my part, I pointed out that that article states that the US is now a dictatorship. But it's not.

Cslewislover, what is making you so sure that US is not a dictatorship? Or is not becoming one?

That statement is clearly false, and so bizarrely so, that there's no reason to take the article seriously

I will agree only if the statesment is proven false. Why? Because Canada is following USA as an American UN allye. And Canada is becoming a dictatorship loosing its democracy. Other than that, I have to admit that the writer of the article sounds fishy . But maybe that's part of the game.

But I only have a ton of arguments to discuss this. Maybe you have tons of arguements to help me have another view. One thing thaugh maybe we should start by defining if a dictatorship has to be governed by one dictator or many (silent?) dictators.

Kindly,

Zebulon

[cslewislover]

Zebulon, please look up the definition of a dictatorship. I need not explain it! Becoming more socialist doesn't equal dictatorship, although it can lead to that. Our country still has tons of legal competition with voting. I'm not saying there isn't a power structure that pulls a lot of strings. But we are not in a dictatorship, no . . .

And, amazingly, we still have our own armed forces!! It's been a while since I looked into this, but if the US decided not to pay its UN dues, wouldn't the UN have a major problem? Who's controlling who? I'm not sure, lol.

[Zebulon]

Zebulon, please look up the definition of a dictatorship.

Done:
dic·ta·tor·ship (dk-ttr-shp, dkt-)
n.
1. The office or tenure of a dictator.
2. A state or government under dictatorial rule.
3. Absolute or despotic control or power.

dictatorship [dɪkˈteɪtəˌʃɪp]
n
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) the rank, office, or period of rule of a dictator
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) government by a dictator or dictators
3. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a country ruled by a dictator or dictators
4. absolute or supreme power or authority

I need not explain it! Becoming more socialist doesn't equal dictatorship, although it can lead to that. Our country still has tons of legal competition with voting. I'm not saying there isn't a power structure that pulls a lot of strings. But we are not in a dictatorship, no . . .

Good point!

And, amazingly, we still have our own armed forces!! It's been a while since I looked into this, but if the US decided not to pay its UN dues, wouldn't the UN have a major problem? Who's controlling who? I'm not sure, lol.[/color]

Good argument again, Cslewislover.

Who's controlling who? I'm not sure either...

I will have to come back on this later concerning some of the bible passages. I know it had been discussed millions of time but I still think that time is running and that I am getting old or at least older... Things do not happen automaticly and for some reasons part of our responsabilities (if I am not wrong) is to leave to our children and following generations some kind of guidance.

Kindly

Zebulon

[treeschanna510]

nad you guys are right but i did post a new link after seeing that error its on the third page i think towards the end