| Subject: | Re: [socialcredit] The mind of God | | Date: | Tuesday, September 6, 2005 12:58:13 (-0600) | | From: | Jim <jschroeder @....ca>
|
| In reply to: | Message 2722 (written by Kenneth Palmerton) |
Hi Ken:
I think to say that Social Credit could be applied in an Iranian theocracy
is to misunderstand Social Credit.
Islam wants to make Jesus a "prophet". Perhaps the most important prophet
since it is Jesus who returns on the last day (oddly Islam does not explain
why it is Jesus that comes back when he's only a "prophet" like all the
others). Anyway, Social Credit is incompatible with a society based on
Sharia. Islam means submission. Christianity does not believe that one
comes to God by submission. Conversion does not come by force (whether by
sword, or fear of the sword -i.e. law). Conversion comes by change of
heart, and accepting Jesus into your heart. That is not to say that some
"Christians" don't try to convert by force, but they are a perversion of the
essence of Christ.
A practical Christian society exalts the individual. Christians believe
that conversion comes from within, so individuals are free to believe what
they want to believe. There have been instances where the Romanised church
persecuted people for their beliefs, but this is anti-Christian, and the
truth is that people are the most free in Christian countries. Go to a
Muslim theocracy and try to practice your beliefs. You can be killed for
converting someone to Christianity, yet nothing is said about that, but
people like Chick attack Christians for their belief that Jesus is God.
You cannot have a Social Credit society that exalts the individual in a
society that demands submission. The two are not consistent.
Take care,
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Palmerton" <kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk>
To: <socialcredit@elistas.com>
Cc: <kenpalmerton@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 5:52 AM
Subject: Re: [socialcredit] The mind of God
> 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