| Subject: | [socialcredit] The mind of God | | Date: | Sunday, September 4, 2005 11:38:13 (-0600) | | From: | Chick Hurst <chickhurst @....ca>
|
Jim and Peter have made my case or at least seem to agree with me, for the
most part anyway:
Jim said: 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.
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 ......... 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 says: The author, Deng Ming Dao, did not say reason alone, nor
Experience alone or Knowledge, or knowing, alone. The author said there are
three levels. But, for reasons known only to Jim, he says that Reason and
Experience are to be rejected but then he retracts that to say reason alone
cannot find the truth.
Jim goes on to say: 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 also said: 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.
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 says: I don't think anyone said that reason alone will lead to truth.
Just like working out any mystery, the pieces all have to come together.
Jim wrote: 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 wrote: The bible is the sharing of revealed knowledge of God passed down
for millennia. You are free to share your experiences of enlightenment. I
think we all have them, but few experience what is written in the bible.
Chick says: If I play the other side of the coin here, one could say:
The Quran is the sharing of revealed knowledge of God passed down for
millennia.
The Book of Mormon is the sharing of revealed knowledge of God passed down
for millennia.
The Tao te Ching is the sharing of revealed knowledge passed down for the
millennia.
The Bhagavad-Gita is the sharing of revealed knowledge passed down for the
millennia.
Jim said: 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".
Chick says: If that is the case then perhaps Jim has not been paying
attention. David Koresch, Ruth Profit, the television evangelists and
untold self styled religious leaders throughout millennia have made all
claims to being the path to God, in one form or another. The claimed
infallibility of the Pope is the same statement, just a different form.
Peter said: 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.
Chick says: I would disagree; the same could be said about Joseph Smith,
Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Mohammad, David Koresch, Ruth Profit, or anyone who
claims to have seen a UFO or a Sasquatch.
Peter said: 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 assert with any conviction which is the way or not.
The more so since, they are all [have] different ideas. If 80% were in
agreement on an alternative that had something assertive then there is
grounds to listen but they don't claim anything untidily assertive except
they reject Jesus.
Peter also said: There is no comparison between New Testament (Covenant)
Christianity and all other religions including many that use the name
'Christian'.
Chick says: The 80% is a rough approximation of the statistics of the world
religions that are not Christian, or at least the stats that I have read
being 82%, not counting of course the people who claim to be Christians but
don't seem to have a right to that claim, by Jim and Peter's definition.
And Peter is right, they do all have different ideas so there is no
consistency but it is still the greater percentage of the population of the
world. The point is that all religions believe that their religion or
belief system or structure is the one handed down by God. And, as Jim says,
the truth can not be known.
Peter said: So consistent with God being the operative one rather than Man,
Chick you couldn't meet God on any mountain and be given any plates of
commandments, because God called Moses, not the reverse. The devil
approached Jesus, not the reverse.
Chick says: This may be true but whether Chick was called or Chick went
looking and found, would still be a matter of disbelief. Chick would still
be put in the category of UFO or sasquatch believers. It would indicate by
Peters comments that it is worthless for the people of the earth to keep
searching for God because they will never find God but if they just might
happen to be one of the chose few, then perhaps God will find them. But,
perhaps, if and when God finds you, it might be wise to keep your mouth shut
because it will be a flip of the coin as to how you will be viewed by your
society.
So, Chick says: Because we can not know the truth about God, just simply
believe, then I would suggest that we do not have the right to the arrogant
claims of superiority over other religions or belief systems. So, we do not
have the right to make such claims as, "One man is one with God," or We are
not "one with God". We are God's creation, but we will never be God, or
"one with Him," because we just don't know and we can prove nothing, just
believe, no differently than anyone else.
That brings us back to Social Credit. I still say, it does not matter
whether Douglas called Social Credit, practical Christianity or applied
Christianity or not. Because, if we have the job of presenting Social
Credit to the world, we must talk in a language, not a language like
English, French or Portuguese, a language more like traffic lights or rules
of the road, that everyone can understand. Just as the rules of the use of
the road are designed to be used by all people, regardless of religion,
culture, language, colour or sex, so to must the language of our other
communications in order that we do not deliberately make our task
impossible. With Social Credit it is difficult enough because of the
economic system and its protectors that the world presently has.
If we had the job of presenting Social Credit to the world we would have to
decide how to go about it. So, if we put Bill in charge of presenting the
idea to the world economists, Don in charge of presenting it to the world's
politicians, Martin in charge of presenting it to the world's intellectuals,
and Jim in charge of presenting it to the world's religions, how do we
present the story?
Should Jim go to the different religions of the world and tell them that
they will not understand Social Credit unless they are Christians? Should
Jim tell the world religions that Social Credit is applied Christianity or
practical Christianity? If he did, he, and the rest of us are just as well
to have left the idea on a shelf somewhere in the back room covered with
dust.
What Jim has to do is, without ever using the word Christian, or Muslim, or
Jewish, or Buddhist, or Hindu or anything else, present the concepts not
only in a way that they will understand and accept but make it easy to
understand regardless of their religion. He should be presenting the idea
as though it is applied and or practical anything and everything.
For years it seems, I have been trying to get across the idea that it did
not matter what Douglas said or wrote because it is the obligation of those
who grab onto his ideas and advance them, just as Einstein and Hawkings
advanced the theories of the men of science before them.
Jim has finally said: 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.
What I am saying is that, how we present the theories of Social Credit and
Douglas him self must be part of that advancement.
Chick
|
The mind of God
Reply to this message