Here's a link an actual draft of the proposed treaty from June.treeschanna510 wrote:because christopher monkton read the treaty and he said one world government was mentioned over 200 times not only that but the copenhagen treaty says when obama signs it we all have to band togther economically meaning all the nations that the bible names in revelations and no idont isreal being a country is a scheme i never said that but what i do think is that we're in the last days we're already in the midst of one world religion because the first thing you need to do to establish one world religion is get christians out of the way and they have a treaty for that called the "freedom doctrine" it sounds good but the name is contractradictory to what its really for basically if it passes pastors will be censored in their own churches from talking about homosexuality , god will never be allowed to be mentioned in schools there wont be as much christian programming on tv and its basically the beginning of oppressing the christian community another thing i think is going to force us into one world government is the one world currency coming into play and the thing about the copenhagen treaty is its not like it says blatently one world government treaty b ut its disguised as a global warming aid so when they tell obama about it and when he signs it he will think its for the good of global warming
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/i ... -legal.pdf
Now, before you complain, yes this is a Greenpeace site. No, I'm not a greenpeace supporter. Greenpeace was one of the organizations that helped to draft the proposed Copenhagen treaty. That means you have a credible link here based on the fact that this is an organization that participated and contributed in the process. That is known as a "primary source."
I haven't read the entire document, which in some countries might qualify as a form of torture.
I have however looked it over, scanned it and looked into it more. There is not one occurrence in the document of the words together "world government." I do note however, that there are many references to the United Nations (about 11). Most of the references are just factual references to prior treaties and committees within the UN. I didn't find any reference in the document advocating the establishment of a world government. Why don't you take a look at it and then if you can, show where Monckton finds the 200 references you suggest.Here's an interesting link as well that you might want again to look at. It's a fact-checking document posted in the St. Petersburg Times. Note what it says with regard to many of the claims on Monckton.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... reaty-thr/
Lest you think this paper is strongly biased toward Obama, note that they also are aggressively tracking his campaign promises and noting many of the broken promises of Obama. This is a credible newspaper attempting to evaluate the extraordinary claims made by Monckton and the almost cottage industry that appears to sprung up around it by those who start with Monckton's comments and then run them to ludicrous extremes.
Note the primary points to the article.
Note the final paragraph and conclusion,The Obama administration has publicly pledged that it will not sign an agreement unacceptable to Congress
The negotiators are aware of sovereignty concerns and are weighing options that would limit intrusiveness
Even if the United States does eventually cede some sovereignty on climate change, "freedom" and "democracy" are not at stake.
I don't advocate Wikipedia as an academic source by any means but the article there on Monckton seems pretty even handed and pretty well documented. For the purposes of a background look at him it serves pretty well.Even so, we find Monckton's claims to not only be unsupported but preposterous. First, it's impossible to know what agreement will come out of Copenhagen, and when. Second, the U.S. procedure for ratifying treaties requires consent by a supermajority of the Senate — a steep hurdle. Third, it's hard to envision anything coming out of Copenhagen that would change the United States' bedrock principles of freedom and democracy. And fourth, contrary to what Monckton says, the United States can leave an international agreement. So while it pays to be vigilant about threats to U.S. sovereignty, this one is not the threat that Monckton's rhetoric suggests. So Lord Monckton earns a special ruling — Britches on Fire!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christophe ... _Brenchley
Look especially, if you're so inclined, at the political affiliations, scientific credentials (practically nil) and article history as well as his reputation for exaggeration and hyperbole. Note especially, for example, his comments with regard to the AIDS epidemic in the late 80's.
So in short, you've offered as a basis for prophetic fulfillment, the unsubstantiated claims of a known activist in conjunction with an interpretation of scripture that attempts to tie the two with regard to the policy of a country (the US of A) that is not even specifically mentioned nor easily tied to the knowledge and intent of the original author of Revelation (John the apostle) or the original audience (the churches to whom John directed his apocalyptic writings).
Further, you've equated anyone disagreeing with any element of this tenuous construct as disagreeing with prophesy and the Bible.
It seems very weak to me. However, for starters if you want, you could point out some of the 200 references you rely upon Monckton's assessment of the document as fact.
I'm not saying to this to try and attack or embarrass you. You' ve posted on a public board, public claims and it's entirely appropriate to question them in the same forum.
I see this kind of stuff floating on the internet all the time and I put it in the same category as conspiracy theories, political hyperbole and rhetoric and I challenge it because frankly it saddens me and disappoints me to see Christians functioning in this manner because it discredits the cause of Christ in my mind and presents a picture of Christians as reactionary, undisciplined in their thinking and examination of both scripture and world events and willing to accept anything that trots down the pike that can be accepted and used to make outrageous and unsubstantiated claims and the more spectacular the better. I say that having grown up as a Christian raised in conservative circles in Canada and the US and having wrestled for years to finally identify and express the growing sense of concern over watching these types of claims for the past 30 years of my adult life, starting with the claims of Hal Lindsay and those like him in subsequent years who may be well intentioned but who continue to put out this type of material and then change it when the political landscape changes and requires it in order to keep it contemporary.
It seems to me to start with the news and then seek ways to interpret scripture in order to allow for a plausible appeal to a gullible audience who wants to seem party to some form of special teaching or understanding that is somehow only visible to those who are the favored chosen to sit under these teacher and modern day "prophets" who then continue to make claims and then escalate them in order to be heard above the noise of the crowd by making the claims more shrill and more dire.
Feel free to disregard the last part of this post as it is admittedly my own personal point of view and it may very well be less than fair to everyone in these "camps."
I would be interested though to see if you can examine the primary source material I provided you in the first portion and deal with it without just simply complaining that I'm "whining" and ignoring "facts". You have enough facts there to deal with if those are important to you and I hope you'll take advantage of the opportunity.
blessings.
bart
). I have read Hal Lindsay and many other scientifico-reliquo-panico scriptors as well, and like you said, some came up with stuff (we guessed, and so they did) had been close to the truth of that time. It was difficult then and it is more difficult today to find the truth. And Jesus-Christ warned us about it and I am not surely educating you about it.
)