| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] Re: The mind of God | | Date: | Thursday, September 1, 2005 11:50:39 (-0600) | | From: | Jim <jschroeder @....ca>
|
| In reply to: | Message 2674 (written by cymric) |
Hi Peter:
Thanks for the insight. I couldn't agree more. I just want to elaborate on
a few points.
You state, "There is no comparison between New Testament ( Covenant)
Christianity and all other religions including many that use the name
'Christian'."
I couldn't agree more, and this is why Douglas said, "It is not too much to
say that one of the root ideas through which Christianity comes into
conflict with the conceptions of the Old Testament and the ideals of the
pre-Christian era, is in respect of this dethronement of abstractionism.
That is the issue which is posed by the Doctrine of the Incarnation. "
There are many 'Christians" who cling to the Old Testament ideal, and many
of them are great friends of Jewish philosophy.
You also said, "Abraham wasnt a Jew and his name means Father of Nations."
Again, I agree. A Jew is a follower of Judaism (or what can be called
"Phariseeism"). There is a difference between a Judean, or a semite, and
those who practice the religion of Judaism. And by stating this fact, in no
way am I "persecuting, or advocating persecution" of Jews. I'm merely
relating a fact. God made a covenant with the tribes of Israel, not with
the followers of Judaism, and much confusion has resulted from this. If I
were to convert to Judaism, I could become a citizen of Israel because I
would be a "Jew". This is not the covenant God made with Abraham and his
descendants.
This relates to Social Credit in the following way: Conversion does not
come through force of law as in the OT. Conversion comes through change of
heart. Those who want to convert society through changing laws are
following "phariseeism", and in my opinion, Social Credit rejects this
philosophy.
This is why Douglas said:
"We do not know what is the automatic reaction consequent on the killing of
one individual by another, as distinct from the non-automatic and artificial
reaction involved in the trial and punishment of a murderer in a court of
law. But we do know that over every plane of action with which we are
acquainted, action and reaction are equal, opposite, and wholly automatic.
Consequently, there is nothing to indicate that the automatic consequences
of a given action will exhibit any difference if committed under the orders
of a superior officer, or not. Further, it may be observed that
non-automatic "punishment" really constitutes a separate group of actions
and reactions.
If we throw a stone into a still pool of water, the ripples which result are
not eliminated by throwing in a second stone, although they may be masked,
and to the extent that legal punishments represent, not the ripples from the
first stone, but the casting of the second, it will be seen that a
complicated situation is inevitable. "
Take care,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: <cymric@xtra.co.nz>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2005 5:27 AM
Subject: [socialcredit] Re: The mind of God
> There is no comparison between New Testament ( Covenant) Christianity and
all other religions including many that use the name 'Christian'.
> So it is pointless reasoning or arguing as though a philosophical debate
will finalise what God shall be and for what reason we have.
> N.T. Christianity is about God 'finding' his lost sheep and leading them
into his pastures. The rest is man trying to find a way to God. A quest
for a 'holy grail' if you like, shared with all the secret societies and
cults.
> So it is entirely consistent that 80% can reject Jesus as God the Son, who
is the way the truth and the light and the only way to God, rather than be
proof
> it is non-truth. God is a not a democratic creation. Since none of the
other
> religions have claimed to have found God they are in no place to ascert
with any conviction which is the way or not. The more so since they are all
got different ideas. If 80% were in agreement on an alturnative that had
something ascertive then there is grounds to listen but they dont claim
anything unitedly ascertive except they reject Jesus. And even his own
crucified him as God had the prophets say so hundreds of years in advance.
> So consistent with God being the operative one rather than Man, Chick you
couldnt meet God on any mountain and be given any plates of commanments,
because God called Moses, not the reverse. The devil approached Jesus, not
the reverse. If you were baptised and a dove like form descended and God
spoke audibly so all present heard you might get a visit, but dont expect to
be offered the keys to the Whitehouse and Whitehall etc. And if you
surrenered your will unto death do you think you will be resurrected and
return? Could you raise anyone from the dead by your will?
> The remains of all the other leading lights are still in their graves of
known locations. Jesus' grave is empty and there were plenty of witnesses
and unknown for sure regards location. Contrasts with everything else are
endless. Revelation not reason can bridge the gap.
> Check out the testimony of Saul who was a zealous Jewish persecuter of
Christians who encouraged the stoning to death of believers, but once he was
> thrown to the ground and blinded by a bright light he had his will tested
following revelation, after asking the divine being who He was and
resurrected Jesus answered and told him, Paul immediately without a lengthy
philosophical debate about how one defines truth, said "what would you have
me do LORD?". God is the operative one not man. Saul thought he was the
operative one and fought God in the process. He never found God until God
'found' him. Contrast, contrast, contrast and 80% is logical and probably
under estimated even then.
> "I am the way the truth and the light" The 'name' of God originally was
unknown and known only by "I am" obviously in reference to The Eternal One.
The 'I am' in relation to the way etc is ambiguous. Jesus said to people in
the Temple "Before Abraham was, I am" and they wanted the stone him. He is
the God of Abraham and the God of Israel and all Gentiles ( nations ) who
'respond to him' as such. (Abraham wasnt a Jew and his name means Father of
Nations.)
> Everyone else says it the reverse ( man searches for God) and so they have
no one with miracles and fulfilled prophecy to set them apart for rejection
by everyone else.
> One of the best responses to those who want to reduce Jesus down to being
just another holy man is that either Jesus was who he said he was or he was
a madman
> because it is irrational to consider any middle ground. He is either the
one or the other and no one else could have this applied to them.
> Peter H
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are at
> http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium
> You're subscribed to this list with the email jschroeder@shaw.ca
> For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
>
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message