|
Hi Chick:
I'll respond in red.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 11:00
AM
Subject: [socialcredit] The mind of
God
> Jim Said; "Jesus said, "I am the way, the
truth, and the life."
>
>
>
> Chick says; anyone can
say the same thing; in the name of Christianity,
> several people have
claimed the same or similar things, most modern day
> evangelists and the
infallibility of the Pope for example.
>
I've never heard anyone say the
same thing in the name of Christianity. The Pope is supposed to be God's
representative on earth, but the Pope is not "the way, the truth and the
life".
>
> Jim said; The man/God - Jesus - is a necessity to
bring man to God. Without
> Jesus, and the trinity, man is lost
searching for the Truth,"
>
>
>
> Chick said; [This]
can only be assumed to be true if you are Jim or of the
> same mindset as
Jim."
Not at all. As I'm
demonstrating with Bill, and as I'll reiterate below, reason alone does not lead
to the Truth. It can't! If you go down that route, you'll be waiting
for the last day to know the Truth, and by then it's too late, for you did not
know Him until then.
>
>
> Chick says; Hindu person, Jew person, Muslim
person, Buddha person, Jain
> person, whoever person, can very easily
reject this statement of Jim's
> because they do not hold to the
importance of Jesus.
>
Anybody can reject
Jesus. I never made a claim otherwise.
>
> Jim said:
Let's explore this statement further, and it has to do with the
> nature
of the truth. Now a half truth is not the truth. You further
went
> on to define the truth with the following statement:
>
>
>
>
>
> " Deng Ming Dao says about Truth:
"There are three levels of truth;
> Experience, reasoning, and
knowing. All other assertions should be
> > rejected.
>
>
>
> Jim said: The first two definitions of the truth can
be rejected outright.
> Not one of us gathers enough experience to know
the truth. We are limited
> by perceptions, age, geography
.........
>
>
>
> Chick asks: Does this mean that the
flood in New Orleans is the figment of
> the imagination.
Not at all. The flood in New Orleans is
Reality. However; the statement you just wrote above is ideality.
There is a difference between the actual flood, and the words you wrote
above. I'm saying that any statement you can make about the flood will be
incomplete. The reality of the event transcends any statement you can make
about it. And thus, the event will transcend any knowledge you have of
it. Your knowledge will always be incomplete.
I would strongly suggest that this is a very real truth.
It is a real truth, but immediacy tells us
nothing. Consciouness is mediacy between reality and
ideality.
> I have lost the use of an eye. I know people who have lost
limbs. Is Jim
> saying that this is not truth; that it is in fact
the figment of the
> imagination?
>
> I'm saying any statement you can make about the event is
incomplete. You lost sight in an eye. Why? And then
extrapolate, and see where it takes you.
>
> If I go up on a
mountain and meet face to face with God and he gives me
> stone tablets
with the ten commandments on them is that different from
> Moses, if so
how? If I go into the wilderness and wrestle with the devil,
> how
is that different from the experience of Jesus, or anyone else?
Has it happened to you? God does not reveal
himself that way to many people.
>
>
>
> If I
have no right to make claims of enlightenment, the meeting with God, or
>
the wrestling with inner demons, then, how can anyone, including those who
> wrote the bible about any of the characters in their
book?
>
The bible is the sharing of revealed knowledge of God
passed down for millenia. You are free to share your experiences of
enlightenment. I think we all have them, but few experience what is
written in the bible.
>
>
> Jim said: Reason alone
cannot find the truth as is demonstrated by Godel's
> theorem: The
only thing that can be proven with absolute certainty is that
> nothing
can be proven with absolute certainty.
>
>
>
> Chick
asks: If this is true, then why are we expected to believe the
> theories
of Einstein, Newton, Douglas or anyone else?
The truth is that they are all THEORIES. I
have mentioned in this list many times that Social Credit is not the ultimate
Truth. It is merely one step in a journey towards the Truth. I'm
certain that someday someone will come along and surpass the theories of
Douglas. That is inevitable.
Is it not, only by
> reason that we are able to study the wisdom of
others and glean from it what
> we are able to reason as truth from all
our learning, perceptions,
> understanding, etc, and try to accept part
or all of it as a truth and from
> there continue to advance that
learning to teach and build a better society?
Reason has its uses, and it is extremely useful for
knowledge. But as I stated previously, the Truth is not known. The
Truth is lived. That is why the most ignorant man can accept Jesus into
his heart, and live the Truth. He does not need to do calculus to have the
Truth.
>
>
>
> Jim wrote: The last definition
is more intriguing. Knowledge is defined by
> Chick as:
>
>
>
> "There is a third type of truth that is different
from these two. This is a
> way of direct spiritual knowing. Wholly
internal, this mode is the direct
> experiencing of truth
through the opening of higher faculties. Meditation
> gives one
perceptions of absolute certainty. There is no doubt of need of
>
other investigations; this knowledge is beyond words, descriptions, and
>
rationalization. In fact one must be careful not to let the fruits of
one's
> meditation pass into the realm of rationalization. This
will subject you to
> the relativity of external truths and ruin your
confidence. To avoid doubts
> and conflicting opinions, followers
of Tao keep their revelations secret.
> Then what is known directly
is absolutely yours."
>
>
>
> Jim said: This method
of obtaining Truth Kierkegaard describes as Socratic
> (it is also the
method of the Buddhist). To Socrates, the truth was already
> in
us, but we have forgotten what we already knew, and it was only a matter
> of recollection of the truth. This means that the truth lies in
all of us
> waiting to be remembered if we focus our attention towards
our inner truth.
> In other words, one become one with truth (God) by
becoming that truth
> himself in a state of "nirvana".
>
>
>
> Chick says: I don't think this is exactly right. I am
not a Buddhist master
> but the way I understand it is that one does not
become one with God in a
> state of enlightenment, or nirvana, the term
used in Hindu and Brahman, but
> one is already one with God and one
learns this through enlightenment. Even
> Jesus said that the truth
is within, as is the highest temple.
>
> The
way to the Truth is within. We all take different paths to it, but in the
end, they all converge on one point. And, from the Christian perspective,
that point is God in Time, or Jesus Christ. Faith is as important as
works.
>
> Jim Said: The contrary position is that man is
born in error (sin), and the
> truth does not exist in man, but exists
outside of him. In this event, a
> teacher becomes of the outmost
importance, because without a reference
> point, there can be no
truth. In this instance the teacher (Jesus Christ)
> must be the
Truth itself (God). The Truth which transcends time must enter
>
time in order to teach those in time who are in error, and the Truth then
> becomes a paradox.
>
>
>
> Chick says and
asks: This to can be rejected outright by at least 80% of the
> world's
population, those who do not consider themselves Christians.
>
>
The merit of a statement is based upon whether it is
accepted by the majority of people? There was a time when the majority of
people thought the Earth was the centre of the universe. Were they
correct?
>
> Also, time is a human scientific theory; the
same as is the law of Gravity,
> or relativity, reasoned and expanded
upon by man. If we must reject
> reasoning as a method of learning
truth, then must we not reject the
> statement?
I'm saying the absolute truth can't be learned.
That is the point. I don't reject reason, I just see it's
limits.
Time is a human scientific theory; the same as is the law of
>
Gravity, or relativity, reasoned and expanded upon by man. If we must
> reject reasoning as a truth, then must we not reject the
statement?
>
>
>
> If we accept time as an element of
God or as being God, then are we not
> accepting that man is one with
God?
One man is one with God.
If that is the case, regardless of who
> we are, do we not learn
from both the other humans as well as from our
> relationship with
God? If we reject our oneness with God, then are we not,
> perhaps,
considering that God is a separate entity and perhaps the teachings
> of
the ancient Taoist masters are true?
We are not "one with God". We are God's creation,
but we will never be God, or "one with Him". This is what I mean by the
teaching of the buddhist believing that the Truth can be reached through
learning what one forgot. It is the belief that man is God.
If that is the case, is God not
> whatever we perceive God to
be? And is God not then one with Tao, as is
> everything
else. Tao is the term used to describe the absolute, which can
>
not be worshiped, and God being the deity that can be worshiped.
>
> The idea of an immanent God rejects the idea that
God is transcendent.
>
> Jim said: The question then becomes
is man capable of becoming the Truth
> (God) by recollection of what one
forgot, or is it necessary for God to
> enter time to teach man (i.e. God
becomes immanent).
>
>
>
> One [school of thought]
believes that man is less than God and needs
> salvation, while the other
belief system dictates that one is equal with God
> and has God "in
him".
>
>
>
> Chick says: There is a difference
between being one with God and being
> equal to or with God. I
would think that if the human being considered them
> self equal with
God, that human could reject God outright and totally
> unnecessary
because if one is equal then one is just as good as and,
> considering
man's ego, makes God redundant. Perhaps I am wrong, but, my
>
learning indicates that the human is constantly searching and believing in
> that one thing that is bigger and better than it's self.
>
> And that is why humans are always incomplete, and
hence always searching. But if the Truth enters time, then the gap is
bridged.
Take care,
Jim
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
