| Subject: | [socialcredit] Re: Douglas and immanence | | Date: | , September 3, 2005 23:12:15 (+0200) | | From: | cymric <cymric @.......nz>
|
| In reply to: | Message 2679 (written by Triumphofthepast) |
Howdy Michael,
"The Big Idea" does elaborate the points raised by Douglas in "Whose Service Is
Perfect Freedom". I dont see any contradiction or sarcasm. And there is nothing
contradictory in what Jim said in relation to what Douglas said, in my view.
I will quote from p19 The Big Idea:
"...and that the determined effort to present human beings, and to treat human
beings, as a collective, is the Sin against the Holy Ghost, for which there is no
forgiveness."
Non-immanent sovereignty is the soulless collective organisation that replaces
the acknowledgement and place of God. Jewish policy, particularly when it
expressed itself through communism, is expressing this. ( Rabbi Stephen Wise said
Judaism was marxism)
Christian philosophy should express itself through policy that will enhance the
sovereignty of the indivdual which then allows the free man to be able to express
immanent sovereignty, not non-immanent sovereignty.
You say the transcendant God isnt the same as an immanent God.
The Life of Christ was the transcendant God, in one body subject to time and
space. He told his disciples that it was expedient that he went away in order
for the Holy Spirit to come and indwell ( immanent God ) them individually. This
is the Spirit of Truth, for each member of the Body of Christ of which Jesus is
the Head. Now instead of one person having Truth ( and claiming infalibility)
and being limited to one place and to time as the case would be if Jesus remained
after his resurrection, all believers God accepted into the body is blessed by
the immanent God the Spirit so that there was no limit in time or space as
believers joined the body all over the world.
The Jewish policy of reducing man to a dependant group of beings as monolisthic
Churches also do, under non-immanent organisation (idolatory) in defiance of what
God had done has no remedy. It will all ultimately be destroyed to make way for
the Kingdom of Heaven.
Non-immanent is externalised force that encapsulates the people and prevents
immanent sovereignty. I have mentioned this as the difference between Lore and
Law. God always intended that the Law to be teacher so that eventually they
would appreciate that God always intended in dwell in their hearts whereby the
Lore would be in their hearts and thus as the good Samaritan would live life
outwardly according to the lore written in his heart. ( not because he would be
fined if he didnt)
The Law become corrupted, the people become racist and their religion become an
abomination which brought judgement upon them.
When Jesus asked his disciples who did people say he was, Peter answered
correctly, and Jesus said that Simon Peter was blessed by revelation from God in
being right and that it would this divine revelation that He would build his
church ( body ) on and later he explained how - why he had to go so the Comforter
( Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, through whom we get revelation ) could come
and indwell in their hearts as God always intended- immanent domain/sovereingty.
Traditions subverted then and still do today, the Word of God. Faith comes by
hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Not traditions. The Spirit of Truth
dwells in hearts not abstract traditions and organiiations. "Jews" and
"Christians" in their millions are kept blind to the truth.
If anyone can understand the direction of policy centralisation as opposed to
decentralisation in politics and finance then the parallel is the same regards
policy regards the spiritual reality. Thus Douglas faithfully endevours to
ensure that policy as deriving from Christian culture is true to its origins- the
Emminanent Sovereignty. Thus it isnt hard to see where people are coming from
and where they are going. It cant be hid.
I hope this has helped clarify things.
Peter H.
Triumphofthepast@aol.com wrote:
>
> "Man is always in the process of completing himself. This is why our
> knowledge is always incomplete, and the reason for an immanent God."
(Jim)
>
> Douglas affirms an immanent God negatively as follows: "Jewish Policy is
what
> Christianity is not. . . . The Philosophy from which it proceeds is that
of
> non-immanent Sovereignty" ("Whose Service Is Perfect Freedom," p. 39).*
>
> To this compare: "The conception of the exteriorization of force (like
the
> exteriorization of Divinity) is quite modern" (Big Idea, p. 63)
>
> However: "The human mind has no way of obtaining the truth. . . . The
Truth
> enters time and shows us the way towards the Truth." (Jim)
>
> This seems to say something completely different from the above. A
> transcendent God incarnate (Truth entering time) is not at all the same
thing as an
> immanent God. In addition, Truth entering time doesn't solve the
problem, since
> we still have to have that in ourselves which recognizes the Truth.
>
> Michael
>
> *I am confident this title is an example of Douglas sarcasm.
>
>
|
Re: Douglas and im
Reply to this message