Evidence for God from Science

the thing is,there are no inconsistancies mainly because like ive said before the road we're going down is headed straight towards a one world government for example one world currency

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75856
http://www.futureworldcurrency.com/

I certainly hope that everyone following this clicks on your links and evaluates them. WorldNetDaily is hardly an objective new source and further the future world currency site you reference is just simply a private site put up.

Do you think that just because something is stated on an internet site that that means it is true or that you've proven a point?

i didnt mean all 195 nations would become a one world government i meant the 10 powers that the bible was talking about in revalations and those are the ones that they have on the new world currency

I'm very familiar with many different approaches and interpretations of Revelations. The interpretation you offer is certainly one of them. Apparently you've confused your interpretation with the word of God itself, because it is certainly not a foregone conclusion that:

1. It is certainly not a foregone conclusion that your interpretation is accurate with regard to what the symbolism of Revelations represents.
2. It further is not a foregone conclusion that we are in the last days and the parallels drawn as to possible correlations between modern nations today and what Revelations is referring to, are the same.

not if youre trying to say im wrong in which case you need evidence saying that im wrong its not my job to work on your negative evidence

This appears to be something of a lost cause. You either sincerely don't understand the concept of taking a pro position in a discussion and then having the responsibility to prove your point, or there is something else at work. I won't do you the same discourtesy that you've afforded me of laying out that those options might be, but there's no point in continuing to repeat this.

http://wallstreetmarketnews.blogspot.co ... lobal.html

A blog!?

and in those obama said it himself

i never said you were an athiest i was just using an example but you seem to have the same kind of ideology

What ideology might that be? Disagreeing with you on something?

no actually its not a tactis you said yourself that you refuse to accept whats happening in front of you as reality

This is just sad.

I'm not prepared to see it as cut and dried and take Mr. Monkton or Fox News opinion as my authority? Would that be OK or is that not one of my choices?

its through that comment that you revealed yourself as not wanting to face the truth im simply saying bible prohpecy is happening right now and i think that you refuse to accept the fact that it is

I think you mistake your interpretation for the bible itself and in doing so appear willing to accept anything that you can use to "prove" your point without examining the credibility of your sources or the soundness of your reasoning. Church history is full of many such teachings and interpretations of prophecy that were applied to the days in which those people lived and while I certainly must admit and do admit, that it is possible that we're in the last days and possible that we may be moving toward a one world government, I remain unconvinced by the poor evidence and logic that you've provided.

Now again, the person who makes an assertion such as this, is the person who is responsible to prove their point. All I have to do is point out where you've failed to prove your point, and in this instance, unless you which to challenge it, you're welcome to examine the evidence that there are currently (as of July 31, 2009 anyway) 195 countries in the world and by definition, a country has it's own independent form of governance, so all indications would indicate that your claim is not true.

well i know what my bible says which is: that there will soon be a one world government and if you choose to believe every part of your bible except Revelations fine go ahead but just know that youre going to be shocked at how we're in the midst of creating a one world government, one world currency and one world religion[/quote]

All you've done here is repeat your assertion without further evidence. I knew there were few possibilities to this conversation when I began it, and I'm certainly not attempting to embarass you or insult you.

I simply hope that any viewing this discussion will examine your materials and hopefully understand that the use of critical thinking and examining sources is something that Christians can and should be doing and not simply making assertions and then going to look for something to throw at a statement and then hope it will stick.

blessings,

bart

ok so why is it that you don't think the events in revelations will come true?

I simply hope that any viewing this discussion will examine your materials and hopefully understand that the use of critical thinking and examining sources is something that Christians can and should be doing and not simply making assertions and then going to look for something to throw at a statement and then hope it will stick.

but thats not my issue that you refuse to accept my sources just because of who writes them i showed you evidence youre just choosing not to accept it because you dont believe revelations is true

treeschanna510 wrote:

I simply hope that any viewing this discussion will examine your materials and hopefully understand that the use of critical thinking and examining sources is something that Christians can and should be doing and not simply making assertions and then going to look for something to throw at a statement and then hope it will stick.

but thats not my issue that you refuse to accept my sources just because of who writes them i showed you evidence youre just choosing not to accept it because you dont believe revelations is true

Disagreement with you does not equate to declaring Revelations is not true. That you would attempt to make that assertion just further illustrates my point.

you just said earlier that you dont think revelations is about prophecy you need to explain your position because when you dont i assume that you dont think revelations is true

treeschanna510 wrote:you just said earlier that you dont think revelations is about prophecy you need to explain your position because when you dont i assume that you dont think revelations is true

I said no such thing. You're quite correct that you're making assumptions, however. I don't have the time or patience however to continue with this conversation and I don't see any evidence that you're ready to have a conversation on this subject that would be anything other than frustrating for both of us. So believe what you wish but kindly stop putting words in my mouth.

Trees,

There are certainly different approaches to Revelations and simply saying that one is unconvinced of your applicaiton of the prophecy does not equate to rejecting Revelations outright, nor does it point to a rejection that Revelations is about prophecy.

All Canuckster has asked in the beginning was to provide for more sources (which required a number of posts to have them provided) and then has critiqued the sources you provide. This certainly isn't a bad thing, since one does have to be careful about internet sources. Pretty much anybody can say anything anywhere on the internet and it can remain there for quite a ahile without criticism or correction. One of the main worries about Wikipedia and blogs.

It may well be true what they say, Obama certainly has been for bringing together the nations. But there is nothing wrong in debate and criticism and it simply isn't true that debate means a rejection outright of an assertion. It merely means that they have yet to be convinced.

Trees,

You are right, but so does Canuckster and Zoegirl.

You started the tread with: one world government is here, while the Washington Times scripted (wrote) that it is coming... This is part of the lies. IT IS NOT COMING, IT IS HERE.

Revelation is part of the Word of Father. The Word of Father is the Word of Jesus-Christ, Immanuel (The Father with us). Now you will ask me why do you call God Father? Because his Son, our brother, said so. Open your new testament and check it out for/by yourself. And at one point, realize that He said OUR FATHER when asked how we should pray

This phrase from Gman's signature correspond very accurately with Revelation:
We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel

zoegirl wrote: There are certainly different approaches to Revelations and simply saying that one is unconvinced of your applicaiton of the prophecy does not equate to rejecting Revelations outright, nor does it point to a rejection that Revelations is about prophecy.

Right Zoegirl, and may I add that Revelation is the Word of Father/Christ about Then, Now and of the Future, and that while we have to be carefull about the Internet, it is a tool that was not expected by the false prophets, where Christians around the world can get together.

Zebulon

well i felt like canuckster was personally attacking me and its frustrating to lay out evidence and then hear someone say "you didnt give evidence" when they themselves didnt give any evidence as to why the one world government wont happen and then he never explained his views on revelations

Revelation is part of the Word of Father. The Word of Father is the Word of Jesus-Christ, Immanuel (The Father with us). Now you will ask me why do you call God Father? Because his Son, our brother, said so. Open your new testament and check it out for/by yourself. And at one point, realize that He said OUR FATHER when asked how we should pray

umm, dont quite know why that was put in there i mean i agree with it buut it just seems kinda random

well im gonna continue my thread by saying that i believe the Copenhagen treaty will usher in the one world government

I said no such thing. You're quite correct that you're making assumptions, however. I don't have the time or patience however to continue with this conversation and I don't see any evidence that you're ready to have a conversation on this subject that would be anything other than frustrating for both of us. So believe what you wish but kindly stop putting words in my mouth

well you never explained your position on revelations and i dont want anyone criticizing my sources becuase it just lets me know that you haven't read them and the reason you haven't read them is because like you said earlier you're not ready to accept one world government either that or you interpret revelations differently but the fact is i take it literally and i do believe in that chapter and maybe you would be happier in life if you stopped focusing on the little things in a negative light for example my evidence you didnt even read it because you were soooooooo hung up on the sources if you don't like my sources or my thread or this topic you don't need to make it public in my thread you need to either go message a friend about it or whine to someone else but im not about to let you critique my personal thoughts or my beliefs and if you didn't want me to put words in your mouth you needed to give evidence for your side and explain what you think about revelations because thats what this thread was for and i dont even wanna hear your "it not my responsibility " speech because its not my responsibility to look up evidence for your belief i had a claim that the one world government is imminent and that's what my evidence backs up you had a claim that it wasn't imminent and that's your job to look up your evidence for your claim not mine

and now im going to continue my thread

if you clicked my earlier links youll see that obama has showed signs of being in favor of a one world government and i think he'll be the one to usher it in

treeschanna510 wrote:well im gonna continue my thread by saying that i believe the Copenhagen treaty will usher in the one world government

Treeschanna,

Can I ask you why you think Copenhagen treaty will usher in the one world government more than anything else or, what else do you think is ushering toward a NWO? Do you think that the Copenhagen resolutions are not saying the truth? Do you think that the actual Israel as a country is part of the sheme?

Kindly,

Zebulon

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

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

Wow! Thanks Treeschanna.

I got back to your links and they refer to a lot of readings I have made before. One of them I search within other links and arrived on a very interresting french speakin Belgium Biblical Archeologist. I will listen to his videos. Do you speak any french?

Thanks again, and bring more of what you think, you are opening my curiosity.

Kindly,

Zebulon

anytime =D and no sadly i dont speak french =(

Trees,

One request. Could you try to not use run-on sentences in your posts? They are very hard to follow because they just tend to run into each other.

Canuckster is perfectly in his right to question the sources, just as you are perfectly right to defend them. But simply saying that you are right is not *showing* it.

trees wrote:dont want anyone criticizing my sources becuase it just lets me know that you haven't read them

This is a rather bizarre statement that implies that no one can disagree with the content. The reasonable response is to defend them, not simply to repeat over and ver that they are right. If this is where you want to leave the thread, that is fine, but it hardly merits the label "discussion"

trees wrote:little things in a negative light for example my evidence you didnt even read it because you were soooooooo hung up on the sources

Trees, in a debate, when one makes a claim or asserts a position, it's only proper to be able to defend it by supporting your claim with details as well as the source.

tree wrote: if you don't like my sources or my thread or this topic you don't need to make it public in my thread you need to either go message a friend about it or whine to someone else

First, This is not your blog, trees, and you can't simply post assertions without being able to support them. It is very reasonable to expect either clarification or ask for supporting details for your claims or even criticisms about your claims. This is a *discussion* forum and as such you should expect discussion.

Second, Canuckster has certainly *not* whined about it. Ad hominem attacks hardly support your position.

trees wrote:but im not about to let you critique my personal thoughts or my beliefs

and if you didn't want me to put words in your mouth you needed to give evidence for your side and explain what you think about revelations

whether or not evidence was given, it is never acceptable to put words in someone else's mouth. If you wanted to know someone else's view of Revelations, then by all means ask for clarificaton. So far, your posts have not provided any encouragement to the readers that any disagreement would be encouraged.

trees wrote: because thats what this thread was for and i dont even wanna hear your "it not my responsibility "

It seems that you want this thread to be about *your* view ...your way or the highway. Canuckster simply asked for your sources and then critiqued them, asking if there were other journalistic sources that supported your view.

It *is* your responsibility to support *your* view, just as it is Canuckster's responsibility to support his view. As it stands, your belligerence certainly has squashed any debate.