by any chance? Because you make up facts, or make irrational connections just like she did.
.I made up nothing. A world government is not beyond the realm of reason as the next step, and I didn't say it was a fact, but if a tax is the first step, what do you see as the second step?
And IF it isn't the first step?
Dontcha just hate them IF scenarios, Well YOU used to, in another thread...in fact YOU gave me what for, for using the word IF.
"not beyond the realm of reason as the next step" = IF?
You don't make up stuff you just say what if?
And what is your post topic line supposed to mean?
2 people .......ONE thought?
That role, as the predecessor of the beast,
Prominent evangelists, sometimes on national media, some considered great relgious leaders by large number of followers, preached warnings against Kissenger and any thing he was associated with.
So who would you cast in the role? since there seems some implication in your post.
One can point to those who would tend to support such a person and such a government and such actions under such a government, but till God is willing for the individual to be revealed, the identity will remain concealed. At some point the individual will be exposed. The question then is if one believes it is a certainty, or a warning of something that could happen at any time too many people are willing to accept such a thing, thereby placing the blame where it belongs, on those who accept it. Is it a possible future, or a definite one? I personally believe it is a definite one at some point in time. Some try to allegorize it to such an extent it becomes a general "what could happen" rather than an exact time and place in the future.
What is the goal of Christians supposed to be? Obviously to warn about it, maybe to fight against it, until either the Christians find themselves removed from the scene prior to the final war, or they perish since it says they will be "overcome". So, should Christians not look forward to those days knowing it signals a short time (some say 7 years) prior to a kingdom of Christians on earth?
There is a scattering of images of the last days throughout the Bible, not just in Revelation. Zechariah 14 is a strong place to look also.
I think when the time arrives, there will be no doubt among Christians about that being the time, even Christ said to look for that day, "even so the more as you see it approaching".
Jesus best advice on it is to not worry about what the morrow may bring since each day has enough worries of it's own. If God wishes a person to be delivered from temptation or time of trial, he'll provide a means of escape.
I do think taking the overall pattern outlined for those days and applying to aspects or tactics already seen in history, we can use that to try and avoid or forestall such a time, maybe push to the future, but I suspect just as Christ came first at a particular time, he'll come again at a particular time and nothing we do will change the date of that, nor sure we should desire it.
Paul said Christians fight against principalities and powers in the heavenlies, so Christians first responsiblity is to stand against immoralities both in our life, and in laws passed which we can influence, to fight corruptions which empowers Satan's aims in this world.
A Fox exclusive report? Or just a Fox exclusive rumor?
There's a big difference between member states of the UN paying dues to an organisation they belong to and that organisation imposing taxes directly to inhabitants (persons or companies) in those states.
If you're a member of a local club (Rotary, housewifes, chess, whatever you prefer) you wouldn't object to pay certain dues. It's your own choice to be a member. But you would object if they would charge your children, I think.
But, of course, the USA can decide to leave the club, just like you can decide to end the membership of your local club. Wasn't it called "splendid isolation" once in the UK? After some time they decided it wasn't such a good idea, but that was 100 years ago already. Things certainly are different now.
There are a lot of countries who would enjoy housing the UN headquarters. Probably, related organisations like the IMF and the World Bank would follow. Just like the Rotary club probably wouldn't assemble in your restaurant if you as the owner decides to quit.
and I'm getting a little tired of having the liberals here in SE assuming so.
Take your pick of any of the following links that AREN'T from Fox about the SAME story.
The link you gave says (first line of third paragraph): "Fox News claims in an exclusive report ..."
And that means it came from Fox. It wouldn't have been exclusive otherwise.
That's all for me. I won't do your google search. I'm a little bit tired of people not reading the links they post after the first 2 paragraphs.
language news source.
"RT is the first Russian 24/7 English-language news channel which brings the Russian view on global news."
"TH - I provided the link to the UN and Global Tax issue" no you provided a link to a Russian site speculating on the linkage of the UN and Global Taxation, a really great unbiased source, "......I made up
nothing." except the speculation "A world government is not beyond the realm of reason as the
next step, and I didn't say it was a fact, but if a tax is the first
step, what do you see as the second step?" I don't speculate on panic situations to which there is no concrete linkage, no evidence whatsoever. You've just swallowed Russian propaganda hook line and sinker, and don't even know it.
It is interesting and important to note that FoxNews is a useful source for Russian ? Transmission, Translation, Twisting, whatever RT really stands for. Just as Joe McCarthy and the other witch hunters did more damage to the US both inside and to its reputation outside the United States, so Fox, even though it was not your source is at least connected to your source.
I don't remember saying that. And I don't know the UN rules. Could be a per capita sum, for example. Or a fixed percentage of the national income. And maybe the 5 permanent members of the Security Council pay more (because they have more influence). Or less, for the privilege.
As in any club, it's the General Assembly that fixes the rules.
It would be an interesting experiment, to say the least, if the USA should decide to cancel their membership. Anyway, with a Republican majority in the Congress and in the Senate, why not do it? It would save a lot of money. And if BO should veto it, you've got another argument to not vote on him (although I don't think you need one more).