In-Reply-To: <007201c5b1d6$8e19cb60$ff059044@cg.shawcable.net>
Hi Jim.
As a committed Christian I have to tell you that I think you are mistaken
to say that Social Credit could not be applied within an Iranian Theocracy.
If you are right to think that SC is practical Christianity, and I for one
think you are, then to say what you have about Iran, if we accept that it
is a Muslim nation, is to misunderstand Islam.
Ken.
-------- Original Message --------
X-Envelope-From:
socialcredit-return-2709-kenpalmerton=cix.co.uk@elistas.comReceived: from
q4.elistas.net (q4.elistas.net [216.66.20.202]) by mta05.mx.cix.co.uk
(8.13.4/CIX/8.13.4) with SMTP id j85BGJB8023796
for <kenpalmerton@cix.co.uk>; Mon, 5 Sep 2005 12:16:20 +0100
Received: (qmail 510 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2005 13:25:56 +0200
Received: from mail.e-listas.com (66.7.164.206)
by 192.168.0.152 with EMQP; 5 Sep 2005 13:25:56 +0200
Mailing-List: socialcredit@elistas.com
X-No-Archive: yes
List-Post: <mailto:socialcredit@elistas.com>
Reply-To: socialcredit@elistas.com
List-Help: <mailto:socialcredit-help@elistas.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:socialcredit-unsubscribe@elistas.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:socialcredit-subscribe@elistas.com>
Delivered-To: list socialcredit@elistas.com
Delivered-To: moderator for socialcredit@elistas.com
Received: (qmail 21243 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2005 07:16:46 +0200
Received: from unknown (HELO pd5mo1so.prod.shaw.ca) (24.71.223.10)
by mail.egrupos.com with SMTP; 5 Sep 2005 07:16:46 +0200
Received: from pd5mr3so.prod.shaw.ca
(pd5mr3so-qfe3.prod.shaw.ca [10.0.141.144]) by l-daemon
(Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built Mar 15 2004))
with ESMTP id <0IMB0065SV2IW130@l-daemon> for socialcredit@elistas.com;
Sun,
04 Sep 2005 22:56:42 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from pn2ml2so.prod.shaw.ca ([10.0.121.146])
by pd5mr3so.prod.shaw.ca (Sun ONE Messaging Server 6.0 HotFix 1.01 (built
Mar
15 2004)) with ESMTP id <0IMB0056ZV2IS790@pd5mr3so.prod.shaw.ca> for
socialcredit@elistas.com; Sun, 04 Sep 2005 22:56:42 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from Compaq (S010600e029839561.cg.shawcable.net [68.144.5.255])
by l-daemon (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.18 (built Jul 28 2003))
with SMTP id <0IMB0094FV1KT6@l-daemon> for socialcredit@elistas.com; Sun,
04 Sep 2005 22:56:42 -0600 (MDT)
Date: Sun, 04 Sep 2005 22:59:10 -0600
From: Jim <jschroeder@shaw.ca>
To: socialcredit@elistas.com
Message-id: <007201c5b1d6$8e19cb60$ff059044@cg.shawcable.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_006F_01C5B1A4.42B5F0E0"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
References: <090501c5b177$6ddc35e0$2602a8c0@Chick>
<004301c5b1b5$4347c0e0$ff059044@cg.shawcable.net>
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] The mind of God
X-Envelope-To: kenpalmerton@cixcouk.cix.co.uk
X-UIDL: _M0F.FkCHDB.mta05.mx
------=_NextPart_000_006F_01C5B1A4.42B5F0E0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Chick:
I did not respond fully to your message, and I apologize. I also =
attributed the following quote to Douglas, when it was by Beatrice Best =
in the Social Crediter:
"I would say that as Christianity is not a religion, but the Truth about =
religion ... revealed and made manifest in the Iife of Christ;"
I will continue to respond in red.
You further stated:
"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.=20
Of course it matters, or else he wouldn't have stated it. He stated it =
with a certain intent.
Because, if we have the job of presenting Social=20
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. =20
If I was in English speaking countries, I would speak English, if I was =
in a French speaking country, I would try to speak French. There is a =
difference between syntax and semantics. I can change the syntax and =
Social Credit remains the same, I cannot change the semantics =
(philosophy). Christianity is not "just another language".
Just as the rules of the use of=20
> the road are designed to be used by all people, regardless of =
religion,=20
> culture, language, colour or sex, so to must the language of our other =
> communications in order that we do not deliberately make our task=20
> impossible. With Social Credit it is difficult enough because of the=20
> economic system and its protectors that the world presently has.
>=20
Most of the greatest protectors of Social Credit are Christians. You =
will find that it has made the most inroads with Christians. Yes, the =
advancement of Social Credit is difficult because of the protectors of =
the current economic system, but the biggest inroads have come via =
Christians. To deny this fact is to deny reality. This is because =
Christians more readily reject "Judeo-Masonic" philosophy. I've debated =
this subject many times, and it's not the economic hurdle that first =
needs to be overcome. Most people when you tell them that you want to =
give everyone a dividend will reply, "that is immoral". And you can =
argue A+B until you're blue in the face with these people, because they =
will never accept the remedy, in spite of the economic facts presented =
in A+B.
>=20
> If we had the job of presenting Social Credit to the world we would =
have to=20
> decide how to go about it. So, if we put Bill in charge of presenting =
the=20
> idea to the world economists, Don in charge of presenting it to the =
world's=20
> politicians, Martin in charge of presenting it to the world's =
intellectuals,=20
> and Jim in charge of presenting it to the world's religions, how do we =
> present the story?
>=20
Why chose me? I'm only giving my opinion. I don't claim to be a =
"spokesman" for Social Credit. If someone else wants that moniker, more =
power to them. =20
>=20
> Should Jim go to the different religions of the world and tell them =
that=20
> they will not understand Social Credit unless they are Christians? =20
One will never totally understand Social Credit unless they are what =
Peter calls "covenant" Christians. Others will be tempted by the =
economic aspects of Social Credit to pervert it into a form of =
socialism, or "monetary reform scheme". That does not mean that a =
buddhist, or atheist or....., will not understand A+B, it's just a =
matter of "what to do about it".
Should=20
> Jim tell the world religions that Social Credit is applied =
Christianity or=20
> practical Christianity? If he did, he, and the rest of us are just as =
well=20
> to have left the idea on a shelf somewhere in the back room covered =
with=20
> dust.
Sure, but let's be honest. The countries where Douglas really thought =
that Social Credit could be applied was capitalist societies, whom are =
predominantly "Christian" nations. Social Credit is not applicable to =
an Iranian theocracy.
>=20
>=20
> What Jim has to do is, without ever using the word Christian, or =
Muslim, or=20
> Jewish, or Buddhist, or Hindu or anything else, present the concepts =
not=20
> 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=20
> as though it is applied and or practical anything and everything.
>=20
Why? Why would I betray the philosophy of Social Credit in order to =
"sell" it? I may be alot of things, and perhaps some of them are =
negative, but I do have integrity, and I would never do that.
>=20
> For years it seems, I have been trying to get across the idea that it =
did=20
> not matter what Douglas said or wrote because it is the obligation of =
those=20
> who grab onto his ideas and advance them, just as Einstein and =
Hawkings=20
> advanced the theories of the men of science before them.
>=20
Agreed, so long as people are "advancing" his ideas.
>=20
> Jim has finally said: The truth is that they are all THEORIES. I =
have=20
> mentioned in this list many times that Social Credit is not the =
ultimate=20
> Truth. It is merely one step in a journey towards the Truth. I'm =
certain=20
> that someday someone will come along and surpass the theories of =
Douglas.=20
> That is inevitable.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> What I am saying is that, how we present the theories of Social Credit =
and=20
> Douglas him self must be part of that advancement.
I agree, and it is my intent to ensure that part of that advancement =
holds firm to the principle that Social Credit is practical =
Christianity.
Cheers,
Jim
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Jim=20
To: socialcredit@elistas.com=20
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] The mind of God
Hi Chick:
I will respond in red.
----- Original Message -----=20
From: "Chick Hurst" <chickhurst@shaw.ca>
To: "Social Credit elistas" <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 11:38 AM
Subject: [socialcredit] The mind of God
> Jim and Peter have made my case or at least seem to agree with me, =
for the=20
> most part anyway:
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Jim said: I'm saying the absolute truth can't be learned. That is =
the=20
> point. I don't reject reason, I just see it's limits.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Deng Ming Dao says about Truth: "There are three levels of truth;=20
> Experience, reasoning, and knowing. All other assertions should be=20
> rejected."
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Jim said: The first two definitions of the truth can be rejected =
outright.=20
> Not one of us gathers enough experience to know the truth. We are =
limited=20
> by perceptions, age, geography ......... Reason alone cannot find =
the truth=20
> as is demonstrated by Godel's theorem: The only thing that can be =
proven=20
> with absolute certainty is that nothing can be proven with absolute=20
> certainty.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> 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=20
> three levels. But, for reasons known only to Jim, he says that =
Reason and=20
> Experience are to be rejected but then he retracts that to say =
reason alone=20
> cannot find the truth.
>=20
Actually, that's not true. I say that all three can be rejected. The =
first two can be rejected outright, but the last one, although more =
interesting, can also be rejected.
>=20
> Jim goes on to say: Reason has its uses, and it is extremely useful =
for=20
> knowledge. But as I stated previously, the Truth is not known. The =
Truth=20
> is lived. That is why the most ignorant man can accept Jesus into =
his=20
> heart, and live the Truth. He does not need to do calculus to have =
the=20
> Truth.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Jim also said: Not at all. As I'm demonstrating with Bill, and as =
I'll=20
> reiterate below, reason alone does not lead to the Truth. It can't! =
If you=20
> go down that route, you'll be waiting for the last day to know the =
Truth,=20
> and by then it's too late, for you did not know Him until then.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Jim said: The first two definitions of the truth can be rejected =
outright.=20
> Not one of us gathers enough experience to know the truth. We are =
limited=20
> by perceptions, age, geography .........
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Chick says: I don't think anyone said that reason alone will lead to =
truth.=20
> Just like working out any mystery, the pieces all have to come =
together.
>=20
Neither reason, nor experience, nor any combination of the two will =
lead to the Truth.
>=20
> Jim wrote: The way to the Truth is within. We all take different =
paths to=20
> it, but in the end, they all converge on one point. And, from the =
Christian=20
> perspective, that point is God in Time, or Jesus Christ. Faith is =
as=20
> important as works.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Jim wrote: The bible is the sharing of revealed knowledge of God =
passed down=20
> for millennia. You are free to share your experiences of =
enlightenment. I=20
> think we all have them, but few experience what is written in the =
bible.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Chick says: If I play the other side of the coin here, one could =
say:
>=20
>=20
>=20
> The Quran is the sharing of revealed knowledge of God passed down =
for=20
> millennia.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> The Book of Mormon is the sharing of revealed knowledge of God =
passed down=20
> for millennia.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> The Tao te Ching is the sharing of revealed knowledge passed down =
for the=20
> millennia.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> The Bhagavad-Gita is the sharing of revealed knowledge passed down =
for the=20
> millennia.
>=20
You could say that. I've never denied it. However; all Christians =
recognize the insight of the statement by Douglas, "I would say that as =
Christianity is not a religion, but the Truth about religion ... =
revealed and made manifest in the Iife of Christ"
>=20
> Jim said: I've never heard anyone say the same thing in the name of=20
> Christianity. The Pope is supposed to be God's representative on =
earth, but=20
> the Pope is not "the way, the truth and the life".
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Chick says: If that is the case then perhaps Jim has not been paying =
> attention. David Koresch, Ruth Profit, the television evangelists =
and=20
> untold self styled religious leaders throughout millennia have made =
all=20
> claims to being the path to God, in one form or another. The =
claimed=20
> infallibility of the Pope is the same statement, just a different =
form.
>=20
Like Peter said, in order to assume this you are assuming Jesus was a =
madman like David Koresh. It also denies the miracles perfomed by Jesus =
himself. But you are always free to believe what you want to believe. =
I will not lead you to Christ through reason, nor do I want to. =20
I'll leave Peter to reply to the rest.
Take care,
Jim
>=20
> Peter said: One of the best responses to those who want to reduce =
Jesus down=20
> to being just another holy man is that either Jesus was who he said =
he was=20
> or he was a madman
> because it is irrational to consider any middle ground. He is =
either the=20
> one or the other and no one else could have this applied to them.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Chick says: I would disagree; the same could be said about Joseph =
Smith,=20
> Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Mohammad, David Koresch, Ruth Profit, or =
anyone who=20
> claims to have seen a UFO or a Sasquatch.
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Peter said: N.T. Christianity is about God 'finding' his lost sheep =
and=20
> leading them into his pastures. The rest is man trying to find a =
way to=20
> God. A quest for a 'holy grail' if you like, shared with all the =
secret=20
> societies and cults. So it is entirely consistent that 80% can =
reject Jesus=20
> as God the Son, who is the way the truth and the light and the only =
way to=20
> God, rather than be proof it is non-truth. God is a not a =
democratic=20
> creation. Since none of the other religions have claimed to have =
found God=20
> they are in no place to assert with any conviction which is the way =
or not.=20
> The more so since, they are all [have] different ideas. If 80% were =
in=20
> agreement on an alternative that had something assertive then there =
is=20
> grounds to listen but they don't claim anything untidily assertive =
except=20
> they reject Jesus.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Peter also said: There is no comparison between New Testament =
(Covenant)=20
> Christianity and all other religions including many that use the =
name=20
> 'Christian'.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Chick says: The 80% is a rough approximation of the statistics of =
the world=20
> religions that are not Christian, or at least the stats that I have =
read=20
> being 82%, not counting of course the people who claim to be =
Christians but=20
> don't seem to have a right to that claim, by Jim and Peter's =
definition.=20
> And Peter is right, they do all have different ideas so there is no=20
> consistency but it is still the greater percentage of the population =
of the=20
> world. The point is that all religions believe that their religion =
or=20
> belief system or structure is the one handed down by God. And, as =
Jim says,=20
> the truth can not be known.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Peter said: So consistent with God being the operative one rather =
than Man,=20
> Chick you couldn't meet God on any mountain and be given any plates =
of=20
> commandments, because God called Moses, not the reverse. The devil=20
> approached Jesus, not the reverse.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Chick says: This may be true but whether Chick was called or Chick =
went=20
> looking and found, would still be a matter of disbelief. Chick =
would still=20
> be put in the category of UFO or sasquatch believers. It would =
indicate by=20
> Peters comments that it is worthless for the people of the earth to =
keep=20
> searching for God because they will never find God but if they just =
might=20
> happen to be one of the chose few, then perhaps God will find them. =
But,=20
> perhaps, if and when God finds you, it might be wise to keep your =
mouth shut=20
> because it will be a flip of the coin as to how you will be viewed =
by your=20
> society.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> So, Chick says: Because we can not know the truth about God, just =
simply=20
> believe, then I would suggest that we do not have the right to the =
arrogant=20
> claims of superiority over other religions or belief systems. So, =
we do not=20
> have the right to make such claims as, "One man is one with God," or =
We are=20
> not "one with God". We are God's creation, but we will never be =
God, or=20
> "one with Him," because we just don't know and we can prove nothing, =
just=20
> believe, no differently than anyone else.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> That brings us back to Social Credit. I still say, it does not =
matter=20
> whether Douglas called Social Credit, practical Christianity or =
applied=20
> Christianity or not. Because, if we have the job of presenting =
Social=20
> 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=20
> of the road, that everyone can understand. Just as the rules of the =
use of=20
> the road are designed to be used by all people, regardless of =
religion,=20
> culture, language, colour or sex, so to must the language of our =
other=20
> communications in order that we do not deliberately make our task=20
> impossible. With Social Credit it is difficult enough because of =
the=20
> economic system and its protectors that the world presently has.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> If we had the job of presenting Social Credit to the world we would =
have to=20
> decide how to go about it. So, if we put Bill in charge of =
presenting the=20
> idea to the world economists, Don in charge of presenting it to the =
world's=20
> politicians, Martin in charge of presenting it to the world's =
intellectuals,=20
> and Jim in charge of presenting it to the world's religions, how do =
we=20
> present the story?
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Should Jim go to the different religions of the world and tell them =
that=20
> they will not understand Social Credit unless they are Christians? =
Should=20
> Jim tell the world religions that Social Credit is applied =
Christianity or=20
> practical Christianity? If he did, he, and the rest of us are just =
as well=20
> to have left the idea on a shelf somewhere in the back room covered =
with=20
> dust.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> What Jim has to do is, without ever using the word Christian, or =
Muslim, or=20
> Jewish, or Buddhist, or Hindu or anything else, present the concepts =
not=20
> only in a way that they will understand and accept but make it easy =
to=20
> understand regardless of their religion. He should be presenting =
the idea=20
> as though it is applied and or practical anything and everything.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> For years it seems, I have been trying to get across the idea that =
it did=20
> not matter what Douglas said or wrote because it is the obligation =
of those=20
> who grab onto his ideas and advance them, just as Einstein and =
Hawkings=20
> advanced the theories of the men of science before them.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Jim has finally said: The truth is that they are all THEORIES. I =
have=20
> mentioned in this list many times that Social Credit is not the =
ultimate=20
> Truth. It is merely one step in a journey towards the Truth. I'm =
certain=20
> that someday someone will come along and surpass the theories of =
Douglas.=20
> That is inevitable.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> What I am saying is that, how we present the theories of Social =
Credit and=20
> Douglas him self must be part of that advancement.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Chick
>=20
> =
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>=20
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 kenpalmerton@cix.co.uk
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
------=_NextPart_000_006F_01C5B1A4.42B5F0E0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1515" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hi Chick:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I did not respond fully to your =
message, and I=20
apologize. I also attributed the following quote to Douglas, when =
it was=20
by Beatrice Best in the Social Crediter:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"I would say that as Christianity is =
not a=20
religion, but the Truth about religion ... revealed and made manifest in =
the=20
Iife of Christ;"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I will continue to respond in =
<STRONG><FONT=20
color=3D#ff0000>red.</FONT></STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#ff0000 =
size=3D2></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>You further stated:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>"That brings us back to Social =
Credit. I=20
still say, it does not matter whether Douglas called Social =
Credit,=20
practical Christianity or applied Christianity or =
not. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#ff0000 size=3D2>Of course it =
matters, or else=20
he wouldn't have stated it. He stated it with a certain=20
intent.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2> Because, if we have the job of =
presenting=20
Social <BR>Credit to the world, we must talk in a language, not a =
language like=20
English, French or Portuguese, a language more like traffic lights =
or=20
rules of the road, that everyone can understand. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#ff0000 size=3D2><STRONG>If I was in =
English speaking=20
countries, I would speak English, if I was in a French speaking country, =
I would=20
try to speak French. There is a difference between syntax and=20
semantics. I can change the syntax and Social Credit remains the =
same, I=20
cannot change the semantics (philosophy). Christianity is not =
"just=20
another language".</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Just as the rules of the use of =
<BR>> the road=20
are designed to be used by all people, regardless of religion, <BR>> =
culture,=20
language, colour or sex, so to must the language of our other <BR>>=20
communications in order that we do not deliberately make our task =
<BR>>=20
impossible. With Social Credit it is difficult enough because of =
the=20
<BR>> economic system and its protectors that the world presently=20
has.<BR>> <BR><STRONG><FONT color=3D#ff0000>Most of the greatest =
protectors of=20
Social Credit are Christians. You will find that it has made the =
most=20
inroads with Christians. Yes, the advancement of Social Credit is=20
difficult because of the protectors of the current economic system, but =
the=20
biggest inroads have come via Christians. To deny this fact is to =
deny=20
reality. This is because Christians more readily reject =
"Judeo-Masonic"=20
philosophy. I've debated this subject many times, and it's not the =
economic hurdle that first needs to be overcome. Most people when =
you tell=20
them that you want to give everyone a dividend will reply, "that is=20
immoral". And you can argue A+B until you're blue in the face with =
these=20
people, because they will never accept the remedy, in spite of the =
economic=20
facts presented in A+B.</FONT></STRONG><BR>> <BR>> If we had the =
job of=20
presenting Social Credit to the world we would have to <BR>> decide =
how to go=20
about it. So, if we put Bill in charge of presenting the <BR>> =
idea to=20
the world economists, Don in charge of presenting it to the world's =
<BR>>=20
politicians, Martin in charge of presenting it to the world's =
intellectuals,=20
<BR>> and Jim in charge of presenting it to the world's religions, =
how do we=20
<BR>> present the story?<BR>> <BR><STRONG><FONT =
color=3D#ff0000>Why chose=20
me? I'm only giving my opinion. I don't claim to be a =
"spokesman"=20
for Social Credit. If someone else wants that moniker, more power =
to=20
them. </FONT></STRONG><BR>> <BR>> Should Jim go to the =
different=20
religions of the world and tell them that <BR>> they will not =
understand=20
Social Credit unless they are Christians? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#ff0000 size=3D2><STRONG>One will never =
totally=20
understand Social Credit unless they are what Peter calls "covenant"=20
Christians. Others will be tempted by the economic =
aspects of=20
Social Credit to pervert it into a form of socialism, or "monetary =
reform=20
scheme". That does not mean that a buddhist, or atheist or....., =
will not=20
understand A+B, it's just a matter of "what to do about=20
it".</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Should <BR>> Jim tell the world =
religions that=20
Social Credit is applied Christianity or <BR>> practical =
Christianity? =20
If he did, he, and the rest of us are just as well <BR>> to have left =
the=20
idea on a shelf somewhere in the back room covered with <BR>>=20
dust.<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><STRONG><FONT color=3D#ff0000>Sure,
but =
let's be=20
honest. The countries where Douglas really thought that Social =
Credit=20
could be applied was capitalist societies, whom are predominantly =
"Christian"=20
nations. Social Credit is not applicable to an Iranian=20
theocracy.</FONT></STRONG><BR>> <BR>> <BR>> What Jim has to do
=
is,=20
without ever using the word Christian, or Muslim, or <BR>> Jewish, or =
Buddhist, or Hindu or anything else, present the concepts not <BR>> =
only in a=20
way that they will understand and accept but make it easy to <BR>> =
understand=20
regardless of their religion. He should be presenting the idea =
<BR>> as=20
though it is applied and or practical anything and everything.<BR>>=20
<BR><STRONG><FONT color=3D#ff0000>Why? Why would I betray the =
philosophy of=20
Social Credit in order to "sell" it? I may be alot of things, and =
perhaps=20
some of them are negative, but I do have integrity, and I would =
never do=20
that.</FONT></STRONG><BR>> <BR>> For years it seems, I have been =
trying to=20
get across the idea that it did <BR>> not matter what Douglas said or =
wrote=20
because it is the obligation of those <BR>> who grab onto his ideas =
and=20
advance them, just as Einstein and Hawkings <BR>> advanced the =
theories of=20
the men of science before them.<BR>> <BR><STRONG><FONT =
color=3D#ff0000>Agreed,=20
so long as people are "advancing" his ideas.</FONT></STRONG><BR>> =
<BR>>=20
Jim has finally said: The truth is that they are all =
THEORIES. I=20
have <BR>> mentioned in this list many times that Social Credit is =
not the=20
ultimate <BR>> Truth. It is merely one step in a journey =
towards the=20
Truth. I'm certain <BR>> that someday someone will come along =
and=20
surpass the theories of Douglas. <BR>> That is inevitable.<BR>> =
<BR>>=20
<BR>> <BR>> What I am saying is that, how we present the theories =
of=20
Social Credit and <BR>> Douglas him self must be part of that=20
advancement.<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><STRONG><FONT color=3D#ff0000>I agree,
=
and it is my=20
intent to ensure that part of that advancement holds firm to the =
principle that=20
Social Credit is practical Christianity.</FONT></STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><STRONG><FONT=20
color=3D#ff0000></FONT></STRONG></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><STRONG><FONT=20
color=3D#ff0000>Cheers,</FONT></STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><STRONG><FONT=20
color=3D#ff0000></FONT></STRONG></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><STRONG><FONT=20
color=3D#ff0000>Jim</FONT></STRONG></DIV></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=3Dltr=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV=20
style=3D"BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: =
black"><B>From:</B>=20
<A title=3Djschroeder@shaw.ca =
href=3D"mailto:jschroeder@shaw.ca">Jim</A> </DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A =
title=3Dsocialcredit@elistas.com=20
href=3D"mailto:socialcredit@elistas.com">socialcredit@elistas.com</A> =
</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Sunday, September 04, =
2005 7:00=20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style=3D"FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [socialcredit] The =
mind of=20
God</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Hi Chick:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I will respond in =
</FONT><STRONG><FONT=20
color=3D#ff0000>red.</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=3D#ff0000></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=3D#ff0000></FONT></STRONG> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>From: "Chick Hurst" <</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:chickhurst@shaw.ca"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>chickhurst@shaw.ca</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>To: "Social Credit elistas" =
<</FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:socialcredit@elistas.com"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>socialcredit@elistas.com</FONT></A><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 =
11:38=20
AM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Subject: [socialcredit] The mind of=20
God</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><BR><FONT size=3D2></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>> Jim and Peter have made my case =
or at least=20
seem to agree with me, for the <BR>> most part anyway:<BR>> =
<BR>>=20
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Jim said: I'm saying the absolute =
truth=20
can't be learned. That is the <BR>> point. I don't =
reject=20
reason, I just see it's limits.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> =
Deng Ming=20
Dao says about Truth: "There are three levels of truth; <BR>> =
Experience,=20
reasoning, and knowing. All other assertions should be <BR>>=20
rejected."<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Jim said: The first two=20
definitions of the truth can be rejected outright. <BR>> Not one of =
us=20
gathers enough experience to know the truth. We are limited =
<BR>> by=20
perceptions, age, geography ......... Reason alone cannot find =
the truth=20
<BR>> as is demonstrated by Godel's theorem: The only thing =
that can=20
be proven <BR>> with absolute certainty is that nothing can be =
proven with=20
absolute <BR>> certainty.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Chick =
says:=20
The author, Deng Ming Dao, did not say reason alone, nor <BR>> =
Experience=20
alone or Knowledge, or knowing, alone. The author said there are =
<BR>> three levels. But, for reasons known only to Jim, he =
says that=20
Reason and <BR>> Experience are to be rejected but then he retracts =
that to=20
say reason alone <BR>> cannot find the truth.<BR>> =
<BR><STRONG><FONT=20
color=3D#ff0000>Actually, that's not true. I say that all three =
can be=20
rejected. The first two can be rejected <U>outright</U>, but the =
last=20
one, although more interesting, can also be =
rejected.</FONT></STRONG><BR>>=20
<BR>> Jim goes on to say: Reason has its uses, and it is extremely =
useful=20
for <BR>> knowledge. But as I stated previously, the Truth is =
not=20
known. The Truth <BR>> is lived. That is why the most =
ignorant=20
man can accept Jesus into his <BR>> heart, and live the =
Truth. He=20
does not need to do calculus to have the <BR>> Truth.<BR>> =
<BR>>=20
<BR>> <BR>> Jim also said: Not at all. As I'm =
demonstrating with=20
Bill, and as I'll <BR>> reiterate below, reason alone does not lead =
to the=20
Truth. It can't! If you <BR>> go down that route, =
you'll be=20
waiting for the last day to know the Truth, <BR>> and by then it's =
too=20
late, for you did not know Him until then.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> =
<BR>>=20
Jim said: The first two definitions of the truth can be rejected =
outright.=20
<BR>> Not one of us gathers enough experience to know the =
truth. We=20
are limited <BR>> by perceptions, age, geography .........<BR>> =
<BR>>=20
<BR>> <BR>> Chick says: I don't think anyone said that reason =
alone will=20
lead to truth. <BR>> Just like working out any mystery, the pieces =
all have=20
to come together.<BR>> <BR><STRONG><FONT color=3D#ff0000>Neither =
reason, nor=20
experience, nor any combination of the two will lead to the=20
Truth.</FONT></STRONG><BR>> <BR>> Jim wrote: The way to the =
Truth is=20
within. We all take different paths to <BR>> it, but in the =
end, they=20
all converge on one point. And, from the Christian <BR>> =
perspective,=20
that point is God in Time, or Jesus Christ. Faith is as <BR>> =
important as works.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Jim wrote: The =
bible is=20
the sharing of revealed knowledge of God passed down <BR>> for=20
millennia. You are free to share your experiences of=20
enlightenment. I <BR>> think we all have them, but few =
experience=20
what is written in the bible.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Chick =
says:=20
If I play the other side of the coin here, one could say:<BR>> =
<BR>>=20
<BR>> <BR>> The Quran is the sharing of revealed knowledge of =
God passed=20
down for <BR>> millennia.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> The =
Book of=20
Mormon is the sharing of revealed knowledge of God passed down =
<BR>> for=20
millennia.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> The Tao te Ching is the =
sharing=20
of revealed knowledge passed down for the <BR>> millennia.<BR>> =
<BR>>=20
<BR>> <BR>> The Bhagavad-Gita is the sharing of revealed =
knowledge=20
passed down for the <BR>> millennia.<BR>> <BR><FONT=20
color=3D#ff0000><STRONG>You could say that. I've never denied =
it. =20
However; all Christians recognize the insight of the statement by =
Douglas,=20
"</STRONG></FONT><FONT color=3D#0000ff><STRONG>I would say that as=20
<U>Christianity is not a religion, but the Truth about =
religion</U> ...=20
revealed and made manifest <U>in the Iife=20
of Christ</U>"</STRONG></FONT><FONT color=3D#000000><BR>> =
<BR>> Jim=20
said: I've never heard anyone say the same thing in the name of =
<BR>>=20
Christianity. The Pope is supposed to be God's representative on =
earth,=20
but <BR>> the Pope is not "the way, the truth and the =
life".<BR>>=20
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Chick says: If that is the case then =
perhaps Jim=20
has not been paying <BR>> attention. David Koresch, Ruth =
Profit, the=20
television evangelists and <BR>> untold self styled religious =
leaders=20
throughout millennia have made all <BR>> claims to being the path =
to God,=20
in one form or another. The claimed <BR>> infallibility of =
the Pope=20
is the same statement, just a different form.<BR>> =
<BR></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT
color=3D#000000><STRONG><FONT=20
color=3D#ff0000>Like Peter said, in order to assume this you are =
assuming Jesus=20
was a madman like David Koresh. It also denies the miracles =
perfomed by=20
Jesus himself. But you are always free to believe what you want =
to=20
believe. I will not lead you to Christ through reason, nor do I =
want=20
to. </FONT></STRONG></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT
color=3D#000000><STRONG><FONT=20
color=3D#ff0000></FONT></STRONG></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT
color=3D#000000><STRONG><FONT=20
color=3D#ff0000>I'll leave Peter to reply to the=20
rest.</FONT></STRONG></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT
color=3D#000000><STRONG><FONT=20
color=3D#ff0000></FONT></STRONG></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT
color=3D#000000><STRONG><FONT=20
color=3D#ff0000>Take care,</FONT></STRONG></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT
color=3D#000000><STRONG><FONT=20
color=3D#ff0000></FONT></STRONG></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><FONT
color=3D#000000><STRONG><FONT=20
color=3D#ff0000>Jim</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><BR>> <BR>> Peter said: One of the best responses to those =
who want=20
to reduce Jesus down <BR>> to being just another holy man is that =
either=20
Jesus was who he said he was <BR>> or he was a madman<BR>> =
because it is=20
irrational to consider any middle ground. He is either the =
<BR>> one=20
or the other and no one else could have this applied to them.<BR>> =
<BR>>=20
<BR>> <BR>> Chick says: I would disagree; the same could =
be said=20
about Joseph Smith, <BR>> Abraham, Moses, Buddha, Mohammad, David =
Koresch,=20
Ruth Profit, or anyone who <BR>> claims to have seen a UFO or a=20
Sasquatch.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
Peter=20
said: N.T. Christianity is about God 'finding' his lost sheep =
and=20
<BR>> leading them into his pastures. The rest is man trying =
to find=20
a way to <BR>> God. A quest for a 'holy grail' if you like, =
shared=20
with all the secret <BR>> societies and cults. So it is =
entirely=20
consistent that 80% can reject Jesus <BR>> as God the Son, who is =
the way=20
the truth and the light and the only way to <BR>> God, rather than =
be proof=20
it is non-truth. God is a not a democratic <BR>> =
creation. =20
Since none of the other religions have claimed to have found God =
<BR>> they=20
are in no place to assert with any conviction which is the way or not. =
<BR>> The more so since, they are all [have] different ideas. =
If 80%=20
were in <BR>> agreement on an alternative that had something =
assertive then=20
there is <BR>> grounds to listen but they don't claim anything =
untidily=20
assertive except <BR>> they reject Jesus.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> =
<BR>> Peter also said: There is no comparison between New =
Testament=20
(Covenant) <BR>> Christianity and all other religions including =
many that=20
use the name <BR>> 'Christian'.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> =
Chick=20
says: The 80% is a rough approximation of the statistics of the =
world=20
<BR>> religions that are not Christian, or at least the stats that =
I have=20
read <BR>> being 82%, not counting of course the people who claim =
to be=20
Christians but <BR>> don't seem to have a right to that claim, by =
Jim and=20
Peter's definition. <BR>> And Peter is right, they do all have =
different=20
ideas so there is no <BR>> consistency but it is still the greater=20
percentage of the population of the <BR>> world. The point is =
that=20
all religions believe that their religion or <BR>> belief system or =
structure is the one handed down by God. And, as Jim says, =
<BR>> the=20
truth can not be known.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Peter =
said: =20
So consistent with God being the operative one rather than Man, =
<BR>> Chick=20
you couldn't meet God on any mountain and be given any plates of =
<BR>>=20
commandments, because God called Moses, not the reverse. The =
devil=20
<BR>> approached Jesus, not the reverse.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> =
<BR>>=20
Chick says: This may be true but whether Chick was called or =
Chick went=20
<BR>> looking and found, would still be a matter of =
disbelief. Chick=20
would still <BR>> be put in the category of UFO or sasquatch=20
believers. It would indicate by <BR>> Peters comments that it =
is=20
worthless for the people of the earth to keep <BR>> searching for =
God=20
because they will never find God but if they just might <BR>> =
happen to be=20
one of the chose few, then perhaps God will find them. But, =
<BR>>=20
perhaps, if and when God finds you, it might be wise to keep your =
mouth shut=20
<BR>> because it will be a flip of the coin as to how you will be =
viewed by=20
your <BR>> society.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> So, Chick=20
says: Because we can not know the truth about God, just simply =
<BR>>=20
believe, then I would suggest that we do not have the right to the =
arrogant=20
<BR>> claims of superiority over other religions or belief =
systems. =20
So, we do not <BR>> have the right to make such claims as, "One man =
is one=20
with God," or We are <BR>> not "one with God". We are God's =
creation,=20
but we will never be God, or <BR>> "one with Him," because we just =
don't=20
know and we can prove nothing, just <BR>> believe, no differently =
than=20
anyone else.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> That brings us back to =
Social=20
Credit. I still say, it does not matter <BR>> whether Douglas =
called=20
Social Credit, practical Christianity or applied <BR>> Christianity =
or=20
not. Because, if we have the job of presenting Social <BR>> =
Credit to=20
the world, we must talk in a language, not a language like <BR>> =
English,=20
French or Portuguese, a language more like traffic lights or =
rules=20
<BR>> of the road, that everyone can understand. Just as the =
rules of=20
the use of <BR>> the road are designed to be used by all people, =
regardless=20
of religion, <BR>> culture, language, colour or sex, so to must the =
language of our other <BR>> communications in order that we do not=20
deliberately make our task <BR>> impossible. With Social =
Credit it is=20
difficult enough because of the <BR>> economic system and its =
protectors=20
that the world presently has.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> If we =
had the=20
job of presenting Social Credit to the world we would have to <BR>> =
decide=20
how to go about it. So, if we put Bill in charge of presenting =
the=20
<BR>> idea to the world economists, Don in charge of presenting it =
to the=20
world's <BR>> politicians, Martin in charge of presenting it to the =
world's=20
intellectuals, <BR>> and Jim in charge of presenting it to the =
world's=20
religions, how do we <BR>> present the story?<BR>> <BR>> =
<BR>>=20
<BR>> Should Jim go to the different religions of the world and =
tell them=20
that <BR>> they will not understand Social Credit unless they are=20
Christians? Should <BR>> Jim tell the world religions that =
Social=20
Credit is applied Christianity or <BR>> practical =
Christianity? If he=20
did, he, and the rest of us are just as well <BR>> to have left the =
idea on=20
a shelf somewhere in the back room covered with <BR>> dust.<BR>> =
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> What Jim has to do is, without ever using =
the word=20
Christian, or Muslim, or <BR>> Jewish, or Buddhist, or Hindu or =
anything=20
else, present the concepts not <BR>> only in a way that they will=20
understand and accept but make it easy to <BR>> understand =
regardless of=20
their religion. He should be presenting the idea <BR>> as =
though it=20
is applied and or practical anything and everything.<BR>> <BR>> =
<BR>>=20
<BR>> For years it seems, I have been trying to get across the idea =
that it=20
did <BR>> not matter what Douglas said or wrote because it is the=20
obligation of those <BR>> who grab onto his ideas and advance them, =
just as=20
Einstein and Hawkings <BR>> advanced the theories of the men of =
science=20
before them.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Jim has finally said: =
The=20
truth is that they are all THEORIES. I have <BR>> =
mentioned in=20
this list many times that Social Credit is not the ultimate <BR>>=20
Truth. It is merely one step in a journey towards the =
Truth. I'm=20
certain <BR>> that someday someone will come along and surpass the =
theories=20
of Douglas. <BR>> That is inevitable.<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> =
<BR>>=20
What I am saying is that, how we present the theories of Social Credit =
and=20
<BR>> Douglas him self must be part of that advancement.<BR>> =
<BR>>=20
<BR>> <BR>> Chick<BR>> <BR>>=20
=
---------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>=
>=20
Some introductory materials to the discussion topic of this list are=20
at<BR>> </FONT></FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium";><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
=
size=3D2>http://www.geocities.com/socredus/compendium<;/FONT></A><BR><F
ONT=
=20
face=3DArial size=3D2>> You're subscribed to this list with the =
email </FONT><A=20
href=3D"mailto:jschroeder@shaw.ca"><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>jschroeder@shaw.ca</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2>> For more=20
information, visit </FONT><A=20
href=3D"http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit";><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit<;/FONT></A><BR><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>> </FONT></DIV>
=
<P><PRE>-----------------------------------------------------------------=
----
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
<P></P></PRE>
<P></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
<p><pre>-------------------------------------------------------------------
--
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 kenpalmerton@cix.co.uk
For more information, visit http://www.eListas.com/list/socialcredit
<p></pre><p>
------=_NextPart_000_006F_01C5B1A4.42B5F0E0--
|
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message