|
Hi Chick:
I will once again respond in red.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2005 7:02
PM
Subject: [socialcredit] The mind of
God
> I honestly thought that we could carry on a
rational and reasonable dialogue
> but, that seems to be
impossible. One side is talking apples and the other
> is
deliberately talking oranges, potatoes and cucumbers.
>
I agree.
>
> To try to make this
simple, if Jim had fourteen brothers and sisters, and
> don't argue
whether he does or not or would or would not or could or could
> not, and
all had different religions.
This of course is a common
misconception about what I'm saying. 1+1=2 by definition. I do not
deny the truth of this statement by definition.
1+1=2 is an ideal
truth. There is a difference between ideality and reality. Reality
is immediacy, but in immediacy the question of the truth
disappears.
If one waits for convergence
between the word and reality for the truth, then the truth becomes a
limit. An approximation. A person is forever waiting for
the last day for the truth to be revealed.
Should Jim be able to carry on a
>
conversation with them, whether it is a conversation about economics, the
> theory of relativity, the weather, or the colour of grass, in a common
> language or should he hold superior attitude toward all and alienate
them
> all?
That's unfair Chick,
especially since you know me personally. I do not think that I'm
"superior" to you because of my beliefs. There is no doubt that some
"Christians" use Christ as a means to flaunt a supposed "superiority". The
White Knights are a prime example, but to assume all Christians are like the
members of the Klu Klux Klan, or the White Knights is absurd. Because I
reject Judeo-Masonic philosophy does not mean I hate Jews or Masons. I
simply reject their philosophy. That does not mean I'm "superior" to
them.
You are free to worship
as you see fit. And if I controlled the land, you would be free to worship
in any way you pleased, and I hope you would extend the courtesy. I'm
merely telling you what I believe, just as Douglas told people what he
believed. He didn't call Social Credit "practical Christianity" because he
was trying to sell it to Christians - something you seem to want to
assert. He called it practical Christianity because he was a Christian,
and used Christian philosophy/theology in the formulation of Social
Credit. To deny the Christian element of Social Credit is to deny its very
essence. What is ironic is that you like Social Credit, but deny its very
essence because you reject Christ. You are free to believe what you want
Chick, just as I'm free to disagree. And the fact is that Douglas did call
Social Credit practical Christianity, and he also stated that all policy flows
from this fundamental philosophy. This is why Social Credit has been
perverted into socialism, and "money reform". People reject the
fundamental philosophy, and Social Credit becomes something
else.
In fact, I just emailed
the ASCP because in there "resource materials" section there is not ONE
book by Douglas referenced. Don't you find that odd for a "Social Credit"
party?
Cheers,
Jim
| 
Re: [socialcredit]
Reply to this message
