>
> 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
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
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
