Evidence for God from Science

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

Here's a link an actual draft of the proposed treaty from June.

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.

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.

Note the final paragraph and conclusion,

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!

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.

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

Bart,

Thanks for your post and personal pledge.

Nevertheless conspiracy's worst ennemy is conspiracy itself (this is a personnal declaration, and may not be considered as an affirmation ). 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.

Nevertheless:

Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is a poet, writer, and researcher. He was born in Montreal in 1929, the only son of the poet F.R. Scott and the painter Marian Scott. His prose books include The War Conspiracy (1972), The Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond (in collaboration, 1976), Crime and Cover-Up: The CIA, the Mafia, and the Dallas-Watergate Connection (1977), The Iran-Contra Connection (in collaboration, 1987), Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies, and the CIA in Central America (in collaboration, 1991, 1998), Deep Politics and the Death of JFK (1993, 1996), Deep Politics Two (1994, 1995, 2006), Drugs Oil and War (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, March 2003), The Road to 9/11 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007), and The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War (Ipswich, MA: Mary Ferrell Foundation Press, 2008).

His last writing is entitled: Obama and Afghanistan: America's Drug-Corrupted War (fairly long article I must admit, but hopefully quite interresting)

You can read it here (it is well backed by links and related articles at the bottom): http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=16713

This article does not mean that I support all articles of this site.

Cheers,

Zebulon

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.

ok, well apparently you didnt see all the sources i posted

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.

your right i didnt mainly because if i wanted to debate on this i wouldve said that earlier and its my thread and i get to decide if iwant a debate or not and...i dont

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.

no its ok to put your views out there but it frustrates me when i find sources that are credible and people dont accept them then they say i didnt post sources and then i post other sources and they dont like those either im not about to do all that just to please one person and yes i am gonna get upset when im brave enought o put my idea out there for DISCUSSION not debate im on the debate team for my school and i didnt post this for a debate purpose regardless as to what you believe and if canuckster paid attention he wouldve noticed i did site my sources and put articles out there but its not my problem if my sources arent good enough, thats his personal problem and if you have a problem with me or my posts you need to IM me directly because when you pull stuff like this it throws the topic way off and again if canuckster doesnt want people assuming what his position is its his responsibility to make his position known so dont come up in my face and act like its my fault because the truth of it is if he didnt complain about the sources i provided and he actually read them and if he didnt like my sources he shouldve IM'd me we wouldnt be having this discussion

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christophe ... _Brenchley

okayyy sooo you wanna critique my sources and yet you get yours from Wikipedia...one of the most unreliable websites...because that makes a lot of sense right?

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.

no i didnt equate that to anyone disagreeing with revelations...i only said that because im trying to get you to say what revelations means from your point of view and it does seem like youre just denouncing everything that comes into your path and that is an athiest ideology

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.

so then is revelations a conspiracy theory? and im not spewing out a random conspiracy theory because im simply agreeing with revelations that there will be a one world government and what i heard you say is that revelations is wrong in that there will be a one world government because thats what ive been saying the whole time and so far youve been saying "you dont have prrof no it wont" and as a conservative i feel like youve been so in exposed to the truth i mean youre running around criquing me at everyturn yet you use wikipedia as a source you yourself never came up with any credible journalists at least i tried but you couldnt wait to criticize me at every turn i posted this thread to discuss revelations and when i asked what you thought you couldnt even answer and its frustrating because im trying to get clarification about what your views are because now it sounds like you dont think one world government will happen at all and if you think otherwise you need to say something because youre complaining that im assuming things about you and yet you assume that im like some bullhorn christian just shouting conspiracies when this is the road america is headed towards and thats basically what revelations is saying is there will be a one world government and i choose to believe revelations and maybe youre so used to hearing lies about the government that you dont know when youre hearing the truth and i dont know if you noticed but one of my sources was polifacts and you used it as your source another thing i dont understand why youre so quick to deem everything as a lie im not saying to believe everything but there does need to be some sort of middle ground because it sounds like everytime someone mentions a prohpecy from the bible and tries to back it up with current events and give ytou sources regardless of how good the sources are you wanna complain about every little thing and that nothing is ever good enough for you and btw i know the copenhagen draft youre talking about and they updated it the latest verion does mention one world government

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.

ok so in other words this just proves that im right and youre anti news and anti prohpet and anti fact which makes me wonder how you deal with the bible because thats full of prophets and news and youre just enclosing yourself in amental prison because then you wont know whats going on if you continue to denounce current events and youll miss the truth because some prophets have been ordaned by god david was an ordaned prohpet and i believe that ordaned prohpets do still exist granted there are liars out there but that doesnt mean everyone should be silenced on account of a few bad apples

blessings.

bart

http://www.sosnews.org/pdf/copenhagen-brumbyy-2009.pdf

read this

treeschanna510 wrote:

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.

ok, well apparently you didnt see all the sources i posted

yes, of course I saw them. The point is that you haven't defended them. All you have said repeatedly to any criticism is
1) read my source
2) if you don't agree with me, then you haven't read my source
3) you're wrong

Certainly not good debating skills and certainly not convincing.

trees wrote:

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.

your right i didnt mainly because if i wanted to debate on this i wouldve said that earlier and its my thread and i get to decide if iwant a debate or not and...i dont

Please read through the discussion guideline, this is a discussion forum, not a blog.

trees wrote:

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.

no its ok to put your views out there but it frustrates me when i find sources that are credible and people dont accept them then they say i didnt post sources and then i post other sources and they dont like those either im not about to do all that just to please one person

You should do that because it's good thinking and scholarship, not to please someone. You should be able to defend your ideas (for instance, Canuckster provided an interesting rebuttal with a source of his own, and you should examine it and defend your position and then critique his!!! )

trees wrote: and yes i am gonna get upset when im brave enought o put my idea out there for DISCUSSION not debate

it *is* under discussion. Which is good! There is nothing wrong with what is happening now. It's great that you are coming here and providing a starting point for a good discussion. But this isn't just a soapbox. Within reason, if there is someone that wants to say "hey, I'm not sure I agree with that" then that should happen!! Proverbs 27:17 should provide us with a good reason for healthy friction.

trees wrote: im on the debate team for my school and i didnt post this for a debate purpose regardless as to what you believe

The point is that it *is* a discussion board, the discussion guideline have clear points to follow.

trees wrote:and if canuckster paid attention he wouldve noticed i did site my sources and put articles out there

Trees, please go back and notice what the previous posts were about. You posted an assertion about one world governemnt, Canuckster asked for a source. You provided one. He critiqued them. There is not issue here, no whining, and no problems.

If you are on the debate team then surely you understand that when you are asked to support your decision then you need to be ready to back things up. There have been no attacks, simply honest opinions and critiques.

trees wrote:but its not my problem if my sources arent good enough, thats his personal problem and if you have a problem with me or my posts you need to IM me directly because when you pull stuff like this it throws the topic way off

There is no problem with asking on a public forum and discussing something. There is nothing personal here, no attacks, and no whining. Let's move on and have a great discussion. Canuckster has provided an interesting source for consideration. Let's discuss and have some great ideas traded.

trees wrote: and again if canuckster doesnt want people assuming what his position is its his responsibility to make his position known

absolutely, and I'm sure that if you really want to know then he would be glad to elaborate on his position. Would you be interested?

trees wrote:so dont come up in my face and act like its my fault because the truth of it is if he didnt complain about the sources i provided and he actually read them and if he didnt like my sources he shouldve IM'd me we wouldnt be having this discussion

On a public forum there is no need to pm if it is simply about discussing the topic in question. If he wanted to ask something more personally, then absolutely, but this has always been about the information and the willingness to discuss.

Now there has been the start of a very interesting discussion which would be nice to see develop more fully. So let's continue discussing.

Tree,

This is not a personal blog. This is a discussion thread on a public board. If you post to it you should expect that you will be questioned and challenged if you post something incorrect (as you did, citing one world government is here, and then claiming the Washington Post as a source, which you had to correct once you were challenged.)

If you want to have a private discussion then you were welcome, and still are, at any time to pm me and I would have been happy and still am to discuss things with you there as well.

I even tried to back away sensing that you weren't interested and that we were just repeating ourselves. Perhaps I should have held to my comment to disengage, but then too, you continued to challenge and push on your points and I'll confess to having the all too human desire to wish to demonstrate my points, especially when I feel that they are better supported and can serve to illustrate something for the many other people who are involved with watching a thread.

Frankly, if you had asked me to not debate the issues with you, I would have discussed it with you, to help you understand. Look at the discussion guidelines. Having a discussion, by definition, involves more than one person. In addition, the discussion guidelines make it clear that if you're going to start a discussion it assumes that you have done at least a little bit of homework and know what you are talking about. It can be embarrassing, no doubt, to be challenged on things. I can understand that. It's happened to me many times as well and sometimes, I've had to retract statements and back away from things I've said. That's part of the process of learning and it's also a part of how this board helps Christians to grow personally.

So again, I'm really not trying to be out to get you. I'm aiming, as best I can, my comments at your positions and not you personally, although that is something that is hard to see when you feel like you're being targeted.

Anyway, if you wish to take up the issues on the last post feel free. If you wish to ignore them and continue in your assertions, then that is your choice as well, but respectfully, if you wish to have a platform to speak without being challenged then start your own board or your own blog and you can do that to your heart's content. If you're going to post here, or, I think you'll find on any other public board, you can expect to be challenged on issues by those who disagree with you and those who question the validity of your sources.

blessings,

bart

im ok with discussion and im sorry for getting angry but im just sick of people criticizing everything i do

treeschanna510 wrote:http://www.sosnews.org/pdf/copenhagen-brumbyy-2009.pdf

read this

Ok. I read it. All 26 pages of it. Did you read it?

The SOS News site is again, a private blog site in Australia that's been made up to look like a journalistic site. Just looking around the site a little bit after I read the article I was able to find that it is a politically oriented site that is strongly conservative and purports to be against the current government in Australia, primarily because of the concerns of those who sponsor the site which focuses around the special interests of farmers who oppose anything that would cause additional costs, taxes or impact negatively their economic position. That doesn't make everything the site or article says wrong, but it certainly puts it into context.

If you read the article, perhaps you would have notices as I did the constant references to the Prime Minister of Australia as a, and I quote, "bastard", "prick" and a "judas."

In addition, even with this polemical name calling, you might have noticed as well that even this site and article recognized that the proposed draft treaty was very rough, would not remain in the form it was now and was very unlikely to remain in that form.

So I read it and that's my impression of it in terms of where it's coming from and how reliable it is. My question to you is, again, did you read it and if so, what was your point?

blessings,

bart

my point in that article regardless of the name calling is that it could still be a credible source mainly because the person has read the latest draft of the treaty and i have too

http://www.libertygunrights.com/AlertCo ... atySet.pdf

it shows the actual document at the end i have read this one and it is a credible source straight from the hearing itself

Since you've asked, (I think) for what my position is on the interpretation of Revelation, I'll refer you this article which lays out the 4 major ways of approaching the book of Revelation.

http://www.frame-poythress.org/Poythres ... ntro1b.htm

I fall primarily into the Futurist camp, which is likely where you would fall in general in terms of what I've read from you. I also, even though this article doesn't have a great deal of respect for the position see some elements of historicism.

There's a great deal of range within the futurist camp as you can probably see. I tend, as I've mentioned, to be very leary of the common practise in modern evangelicalism of reading into (or eisogeting) the text our perspective as 21st century americans. Revelation was written to late 1st century Christians not 21st century americans, or europeans. Further, it is highly symbolic and that symbolism is purposely meant, in my opinion, to keep us from attempting to use it to presume a map of future events that line up in such a way that we'll be trying to guess and make it fit (as christians of most every age have done). The primary point I see is a literal return of Jesus Christ for which we are to live as if it were imminent or possible at any time. Of course there's a great deal more there, and I'm not attempting to oversimplify it. I'm quite honestly however, weary of and tired of those who treat Revelation as if it were some Gnostic document for which they possess the key to figure out how all the political events of today, whether it is global warming (which I have serious doubts about but not to extent of denying humans have impact on their environment.), the european economic consilidation etc. etc.

Is it possible that Revelation was referring to these events? Well I think, given there's so much mystery and symbolism I'd have to confess that there is not reason why it couldn't be. It's certainly not certain however, nor is it necessary to fulfill that primary purpose which is for us to be living as if Christ's return were real and could come at any time. I believe that. I don't fear it. I look forward to the day I am joined to my Savior whether through death or however things happen to work at the return of Christ. I'm very aware that there is a spirit of anti-christ alive and well in this world. It may refer to a literal anti-christ or it may refer to the spirit of the age. In terms of how I live and walk with Christ today it matters very little.

I can discuss this more if you wish, but since you asked, that is my position.

blessings,

bart

Treeschanna, I looked at that for a few minutes and found these:

By virtue of the General and Complete Disarmament Program signed as Public Law 87”297 in 1961, the United Nations requires all national armed forces all over the world to be under its authority. This law requires the national armed forces of the United States to be transferred on a permanent basis to the United Nations, leaving the U.S.A. with no army, no navy, and no air force of its own in the future.

It says right there that this law was signed in 1961, which was a really long time ago, yet it says that we will have no armed forces because of it. I don't know about that law, what it really says and what it means, but I know we haven't given our armed forces to the UN, leaving us with nothing. Besides, since we are a strong country, all's we have to do is say "no."

The Third Point: The United States form of government has been severely changed from a republic into a dictatorship . . .

Obviously this isn't true, so how can you trust the rest of the document?

treeschanna510 wrote:my point in that article regardless of the name calling is that it could still be a credible source mainly because the person has read the latest draft of the treaty and i have too

http://www.libertygunrights.com/AlertCo ... atySet.pdf

it shows the actual document at the end i have read this one and it is a credible source straight from the hearing itself

While reading a document is certainly a wonderful start and may certainly provide a presumed level of credibility, there is a huge difference between reading a document objectively and seeking to summarize what it says and reading a document selectively with a point of view already formed and inclined to emphasize those elements of the document that support their own cause or which can be used to make exagerated claims which are designed to appeal to the fears of their listeners.

It's the difference, or at least used to be the difference anyway, between reporting the news objectively and what you get on the editorial page where someone gives you their opinion as to how those facts should be understood.

Building a position based on sources that are all advocasy journalists or political activists with an agenda is always a tenuous position to come from and begs the question as to whether an issue is being looked at objectively. It doesn't really matter what the bias is. This happens all the time from all different political positions. It's not unique to anyone.

What is really scary to me, is that with the booming of the internet, people can now do a search and find sites, but there's often times very little evidence that much critical thought goes into evaluating how valid a position or point of view is based on the credibility of the source.

For example, again, you've thrown up another site now from an advocacy group.

Be honest. Are these sites you looked at and evaluated before you put your post up and came to your position? Or, are you, as I have in the past and still do occassionally, just googling on the web, finding a site that repeats what you want to say and just putting it up and considering that "proof". All I've really seen are opinions masquerading as news. They can have some value, but they are secondary and don't replace objective news sources and primary sources and a willingness to suspend judgement while reading in order to try and look at the issue from several points of view.

It's impossible to remove all bias but it's certainly possible to limit it and to learn to look at things more objectively.

Taking an already decided point of view with regard to prophecy and then jumping to politically tainted web sites to connect the two and then come to the conclusion that we're on the verge and already arrived at a one world government, is frankly, just a unsupportable position and wishing it were so and then wishing that the sources of prophetic interpretation that you're relying on were the Bible themselves, is just not a good position to be coming from in my opinion and observation. It does more harm to the cause of Christ, by holding it and Christians up to ridicule.

The fact that particular prophetic interpretation is plausible does not mean it is probable or accurate.

blessings,

bart

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

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