| Subject: | [socialcredit] Re: The mind of God | | Date: | , September 7, 2005 04:09:17 (+0200) | | From: | cymric <cymric @.......nz>
|
| In reply to: | Message 2729 (written by Chick Hurst) |
Howdy Chick,
You have argued that I was wrong before this.
Your 1st point: I have already said I didnt know what your beliefs are and you
had not referred to what you might claim as authoritive writings, which appears
that since you want to keep your label a secret it might be Ba'Hai.
I wasnt wrong there, I told you you dont say what you are.
Your 2nd point: No one has said that others dont or cant have canonised books
and to respect and look to as a light on their path to finding God or a better
understanding of reality equally as do Christians theirs. Your inference by
context was that the Bible is nothing more than the others and if we thought so
we were arogant and you expected us to stop thinking ours better like all the
others do theirs. My reference to what was unique about the Bible was to show
your ignorance about it not to demean the others.
The sovereignty of the individual principle allows everyone to believe what they
want about God. But you of cause dont want anyone to believe they can know truth
about God so you dont believe in that principle.
Your 3rd point: simply means you want all to come under the same international
religious 'law'( collectivist)which is the world religion now being formed,
promoted by the Rockefellers and company. World govt needs world religion and
world economy and world law and world police force. This sameness/equalness was
what permeated the past arguing that we resisted and you then said we were
arogant. This again violates the sovereignty of people (who dont believe in the
re-constitutuioon of ancient Babylon that God scattered.)
Your 4th point: No one said that S.C. was a Christian secret, especially since
Douglas said it was practical Christianity - the application of Christian
principles. That all came from your suggestion that we should avoid talking
about Christianity if we talk S.C. to non-Christians. Just as an aside, there
are a number of people who are very keen to see Islamic banks operating in the
'Christain' world to compete with the Jewish dominated ones that are based on
usury. No one is offended in the Christian world that it is 'Islamic', because
its based on more honest and just principles, so you can put away your red
lights. People are atracted by the principles and the obvious outcomes of those
principles and not offended by a religious label.
I challenge you to come back with a quote from me or Jim that indicated that
non-Christian people had to become Christians to use the principles and policy.
Nothing of it is patented and anyone can read the S.C. books and employ the
knowledge.
Douglas actually gave Shintoist Japanese an opportunity to go over the whole
lot, but they took off only partway in the seminars because they thought they had
it all. To follow your suggestion and hide Christianity then we would have to
also ban Douglas books from these people unless they read about practical
Christianity, so I guess we should then authorise you to re-write all Douglas'
books so they arent offensive to the rest of the world. For your information the
West is post Christian.
To teach S.C. one has to include its foundation philosophy. Its all there in
Douglas' book and doesnt need attaching to religion and churches and probably
wiser not to. In fact Douglas saw a 'law' of sorts in the make up of the
universe rather than dug out some choice lines of scripture and thus he
recognised the same creators signature in the New Testament as well which gave
him a perception even theologians missed. He wasnt consumed with religiosity and
maybe you are.
You weren't requesting we treat the others with dignity and respect because we
never said anything against any other religion, we defended our beliefs against
your attack - lack of dignity and respect - re the Christian faith.
The main issue has been over your claim that no one can know the truth about God
which then refutes the Christain faith and you inferred we were arogant for not
agreeing with you. This is the essential issue not us and dignity and respect
and the golden rule regards others.
Your golden rule is everyone is the same and cant know the truth about God.
Social credit is a social science that will be applied only when those in
authority are prepared to condone practical democracy and power to the people and
sovereignty to the individual. Any society where these principles are not
welcome which includes those who rule the West it will not happen unless the
people can enforce it by getting control of the sanction ( the power of the state
which may come down to control of police and the military).
One merely has to define the essential philosophy behind the main world
religions to see what chance there is of S.C. happening, that is apart from their
elites that rule and then apart from their debt entanglement with the IMF etc.
There is no vacuum, as in all the cultures a philosophy of some kind is fully
ensconced and the Rockefellers who are your oneness world religion champions
believe in monopoly and despise competition and freedom because they destory the
power of monopoly.
If you believe in dignity and respect then simply witdraw your judgement over
not complying with your religious conception in relation to God. Or drop the
whole thing.
Peter H
|
Re: The mind of Go
Reply to this message