>
> 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
