Forget the NWO what about the NAU - Writers Forum

scott777ab777 · 01-19-2007, 09:43 PM

NAU = North American Union.
What are your thoughts?
Do you think it is coming or not?
And if not, why?

Here is a link to the most interesting site about the NAU that I have found.

http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/NAU/

CroZ · 01-20-2007, 12:49 PM

I assume NWO is New World Order.

Why shouldnt there be a NAU? What's so wrong with that? Europe did it. World unity, yay.
Unless your just rascist then it's a good thing. And why do you imply the NAU to be worse than an NWO?

HippyVanMan · 01-20-2007, 01:35 PM

I think it's a good idea, but very likely too have problems because of the serious differences in wealth between the countries involved.
The USA is likely to expand anyway, with many citing Puerto Rico as the next member.

scott777ab777 · 01-20-2007, 03:12 PM

Darn it, I am unable to answer you guys questions without refreing to the bible which is what I do not like to do anymore.

But it goes simply like this one world government under the anti-christ.
Kind of strange that all of a sudden in my lifetime the world seems to be moving towards it.

Sorry I really want to try to stay away from theology in any form in my discussions, but I guess that was the real reason behind my question.

HippyVanMan · 01-20-2007, 03:55 PM

Why would a unified world government involve us being ruled over by the anti-christ?

scott777ab777 · 01-20-2007, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HippyVanMan

Why would a unified world government involve us being ruled over by the anti-christ?

Don't really want to get into this.
But that is what the bible says.
That is all I will say on it.

CroZ · 01-20-2007, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Why would a unified world government involve us being ruled over by the anti-christ?

The book of revelations states (vaguely) the anti-christ will come when the world is unified. Either he'll found the one world order or be elected as president of earth.
It's also said (guessed) the first president of Europe might be the AC. The whole thing is nobody can actually guess who he is until he reveals himself (he's not meant to know either). Chances are (and if the signs are accurate) he'd probably be in his teens at the moment and someone we've never heard of.

a few other signs of the end are, the re-establishment of Israel, the rise of Rome (the EU), new star in the sky (space station), insane weather, end of ignorance/rise of inteligence, all the world being capable of seeing the anti-christ at once (television), two succesive world wars, and imagery of monsters some think fitting to our modern war machines.
I think the final sign was world war 3 (guess how that might start). I can't actually remember what his role in the war was/ would be. I think he's meant to claim power afterward using a message of peace.

Plus there's others I can't remember, or are simply too vague.

EDIT: As for the topic, I'd consider it a bad idea for america to do this before anyone else gets a chance to. Things are a little one sided as is.

Hodge · 01-20-2007, 08:21 PM

All of those are really vague. New star in the sky being the space station? The EU being Rome? "Insane" weather?

Nah. People took all the signs from Revelations and interpreted them to mean Hitler was the anti-Christ. He wasn't. People tried to say Stalin was (Russia was originally meant to be sort of a "new Rome" -- Czar is the Russian word for "Caesar"). He wasn't.

I don't think there is one. The biblical armageddon is just like any other end of the world myth involving ambiguous "signs" of the apocalypse that can be interpreted in many, many ways. And the sad thing about this is that since the Christian myth involves world unification, you can bet there'll be plenty of them opposing any sort of unification of the world. So we'll probably never see it. At least, not until people start to abandon religion and focus on reality.

scott777ab777 · 01-21-2007, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hodge

. The biblical armageddon is just like any other end of the world myth involving ambiguous "signs" of the apocalypse that can be interpreted in many, many ways.

No Hodge the bibical armageddon sense your brought it up is very specific. It is to be taken place in the valley of mediggo, hence the reason for the name armageddon. That is a specific place, with no other interpretation possible.

Hodge · 01-21-2007, 07:05 AM

The place may be specific, but the details of what brings it on are not. The Norse Ragnarok is specific to place as well, but it's to happen at a very ambiguous time in the future.

CroZ · 01-21-2007, 04:38 PM

Quote:

All of those are really vague. New star in the sky being the space station? The EU being Rome? "Insane" weather?

true. And as far as I know the space station hasn't enough mass to be a star.

Quote:

Nah. People took all the signs from Revelations and interpreted them to mean Hitler was the anti-Christ. He wasn't. People tried to say Stalin was (Russia was originally meant to be sort of a "new Rome" -- Czar is the Russian word for "Caesar"). He wasn't.

Hitler could never have been the anti-christ because Israel hadn't been established then. Logically (ahem) if the return of Israel is a sign of the coming apocalypse (as in fact) then the world can only end after 1948.

other signs (like those relating to 9/11) are just plain silly

Kane · 01-22-2007, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hodge

All of those are really vague. New star in the sky being the space station? The EU being Rome? "Insane" weather?

Haven't heard about the space station thing, but could the EU be the REVIVED ROMAN EMPIRE? (not Rome)

It sure looks like a possibility. Without comparing ANYTHING else, just take a look at this Wiki excerpt:

"The two main treaties which form the basis of EU law are the Treaty of the European Community, or the Treaty of Rome from 1957, and the Treaty of the European Union, or the Maastricht treaty of 1992. The Treaty of Rome is the so called 'first pillar' of the EU. The "European Community" refers to the competence of the EU to act in the social and economic arena. The Maastricht treaty formed the new European Union, and added two further "pillars". These are a common foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs."

Well, if you are looking to build a revived Roman Empire, it sure won't hurt to have the political cornerstone of your Union be named the Treaty of Rome. It also doesn't hurt that Rome is a part of the EU.

Quote:

Nah. People took all the signs from Revelations and interpreted them to mean Hitler was the anti-Christ. He wasn't.

People couldn't have taken "all" the signs from Revelation to interpret them in such a manner. As was pointed out, the FIRST prophecy that had to be filled in order to bring about Armageddon was Israel becoming a nation.

[Rome]People tried to say Stalin was (Russia was originally meant to be sort of a "new Rome" -- Czar is the Russian word for "Caesar"). He wasn't.[/quote]

We're not talking about copies of Rome here... Russia doesn't apply, and has a separate role to play in Armageddon - Gog.

Quote:

I don't think there is one. The biblical armageddon is just like any other end of the world myth involving ambiguous "signs" of the apocalypse that can be interpreted in many, many ways. And the sad thing about this is that since the Christian myth involves world unification, you can bet there'll be plenty of them opposing any sort of unification of the world. So we'll probably never see it. At least, not until people start to abandon religion and focus on reality.

I've been hesitant lately to get into these debates, as they are a huge drain on my time. But if you had the desire and the ability to form a coherent argument against the relevance of Biblical prophecy, I might be willing to jump in for a few rounds. This is, of course, supposing that you can form your argument without your usual tricks, namely your penchant for arguing against anything Christian with an uninformed bias, ala "The biblical armageddon is just like any other end of the world myth involving ambiguous "signs" of the apocalypse that can be interpreted in many, many ways." I mean, I don't know about you, but I have spent many hours over the years devoted to the comparison of Biblical prophecy to the modern day. Have you? I don't think you have. In fact, I don't think you are remotely qualified to claim that Biblical prophecy regarding the end times can be interpreted in many, many ways, because I don't think you are familiar enough with Biblical prophecy to know what you are talking about.

Your last statement is also pretty ridiculous, since most "Christians" live in reality. You're the one with blinders on, refusing to see what is right in front of you. I guess that's why prophecy is prefaced with, "For them who have wisdom let them hear." Yeah, you're smart, but you're not wise, and therein lies your problem. That's all right. Most people do move blindly ahead, and that's why you aren't going to see a massive "Christian" movement opposed to the RRE. The next MAJOR occurance in the prophetic timeline should be a peace treaty signed between Israel and its surrounding enemies. The orchestrator of this peace treaty should also rise to power as the leader of the RRE.

I don't even know if this is a debatable topic between the watchers and the uninformed. I already know how close-minded you are to anything that doesn't fit within your scope of reality, and I know how much time and thought I've expended into this topic in the past. While it is a subject I've been interested in sharing and collaborating on, I don't know that it's one I want to painfully try to convince you of. That's not my place, to convince you, only to put the stuff out there. I know I've discussed this on the forums before. What was the conclusion(as if there could be any) reached before?

Hodge · 01-22-2007, 09:17 PM

Tune in tomorrow for another episode of, "Anyone Who Disagrees with Kane is Wrong," and a brand new episode of "Pot Calls the Kettle Black."

Quote:

I already know how close-minded you are to anything that doesn't fit within your scope of reality

Kane · 01-22-2007, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hodge

Tune in tomorrow for another episode of, "Anyone Who Disagrees with Kane is Wrong," and a brand new episode of "Pot Calls the Kettle Black."

Is that airing right after, "Watch Hodge hide the fact that he doesn't have a valid argument by feebly snubbing Kane?"

I'm quite open-minded, Hodge. In fact, for the longest time on these forums, I debated with the expectation of having my views changed. Unfortunately, you rhetoric wasn't enough to sway me toward your side, and aside from rhetoric and an uncanny ability to argue long after you are blue in the face, you've had little else to offer. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and I've never had a problem accepting or admitting that. Unfortunately, though you've labeled me or my beliefs wrong 101 different ways, you've rarely been able to actually show how they were wrong.

Hodge · 01-22-2007, 10:18 PM

You're right. A reference to Rome in, of all places, Europe (and not the Roman Empire, but the city named Rome -- you know, the one in Italy) certainly proves the prophecy true. And it's our God-given duty to make sure Israel never makes peace with its enemies so that Armageddon never comes! Just World War III, right?

Guess what? You're effing wrong. Just because YOU think you know what the book of revelations "means" does not mean that it isn't open to interpretation. And the fact is, it's very open to interpretation. It's also very vague. And if you took the initiative to expose yourself to other mythologies, you might realize that it's not so different from other end of the world myths.

But of course you say I'm wrong and since you don't back it up you must be right!

Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe I have to argue until I'm blue in the face because the person I'm arguing with refuses to address my points and instead says I argue until I'm blue in the face?