Subject: Re: TURMEL: Why did Christ speak in parables?

From: [email-masked] (John Turmel)
Date: Sat, 8 Jul 1995 03:40:08 GMT

Subject: Re: TURMEL: Why did Christ speak in parables?
 
     [email-masked] (Jim Graham) wrote: 
 
>John Turmel ([email-masked]) wrote:
>
>>      If they are that easy to understand, why are there so many 
>> different interpretations? And none dealing with his stated 
>> reason for why he spoke in parables?
>
>Precisely.  Christ did not speak in parables to make difficult 
>concepts EASIER for the masses to grasp.  He spoke in parables so 
>that the masses did NOT understand, unless they were "ready".
>In short, he spoke in parables to confuse the masses, as they 
>were not yet prepared within their hearts and spiritually to 
>follow him. At least that's how I remember the reason for 
>parables.
>Jim Graham
>
     Thanks Jim. I was only guessing that all the 
misinterpretations were part of his plan to hide the true meaning 
of his mission. 
     But if that's what you were taught, then it certainly 
conforms with my deduction. 
 
>"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquillity of 
servitude
>greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in
>peace.  We seek not your counsel, nor your arms.  Crouch down and lick the
>hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
>(Samuel Adams)
>
     The contest for true freedom was part of Christ's mission. 
After all, he did say that he didn't come to bring peace but to 
bring a sword. Though he did end up using a whip.  

     [email-masked] (Lazarus) wrote: 
 
>What amazes me is the audacity of these "Christians" who try to 
>substantiate their failing positions with "biblical 
>interpretations".
>
     What until you find out what Christ's differential equation 
stands for and then tell me if my "biblican interpretation" is 
substantiating a "failing position" or not. 
 
>A)  Mathematical formulae for these positions you espouse did not 
>exist until centuries after the existance of "Christ";
>
     The Mathematical formulae may not have been known until 
after the existence of Christ but they have existed for all time. 
Would you say that algebra didn't exist until it was discovered 
or it wasn't known until it was discovered? The formulae were 
always there, only their discovery was lacking. 
 
>B)  Not everyone subscribes to the "truth" which you indicate 
>exists as a matter of simple scholarly pursuits; 
>
     I haven't even told them my "truth" yet so why would they 
already be not subscribing? 
 
>and by no means 
>what is written in the "New Testament" can be taken as fact by 
>any student of empirical studies as you profess to be by your 
>postings.  
>
     If Christ's statement is the truth, how can the fact it 
resides in the New Testament suggest that it not be taken as 
fact?
 
>Religion is based on faith, mathematics on true science.
>
     Who says religion can't be based on true science too? 
 
>Differential equations?  I'm no self-proclaimed expert in 
>differential equations, 
>
     I'm not a self-proclaimed expert. I'm proclaimed by my 
university professor after I passed his course. 
 
>but didn't advanced calculus begin with 
>the Newtonian Era of thought?  If such methods of analysis 
>existed back when this "Christ" was around, do you not think that 
>there would be some substantiable evidence of the fact which 
>would be available for discussion?
>
     That's what I hope to provide on the week-end when I publish 
his differential equation. The fact he described the oppressor 
system in prose is not reason not to be able to see that he 
described it in the form of a differential equation. 
     Besides, Stephen Froelich, an impartial scientist, figured 
out 99% of the differential equation on his own. If he can see a 
differential equation in the prose too, how can you publically 
state that you have doubt? 
 
>Excuse me for pointing out FACTS, but economical questions back 
>then were for the most part dictated by Roman occupational forces 
>and Empirial dictum  -- now that was economic power!. 
>
     Rome was just another national empire within the orbit of 
the world-wide gold-bullion-brokers empire stretching from Europe 
to Asia just as every nation on Earth today is under the control 
of a Global Banking cartel. All nations are enslaved by the same 
device to the same group.
 
>To attribute modern mathematical theorums to those times 
>related by the "testaments" written about that time (centuries 
>after the fact, actually) is sheer folly.
>
     Oh, so what was true in the past is necessarily not true 
anymore? I have to disagree. The root cause of poverty and 
slavery then is still the root cause of poverty and slavery now. 
That's why Stephen Froelich has a science degree and you don't. 
He didn't treat it like sheer folly. 
 
>Need I add more?  
     I think you'll have to try. 
 
>To begin with, currencies in circulation then 
>were based upon actual valuable metals, linked directly to 
>verifiable "collateral" as the coinage was in actual precious 
>metals -- the coins themselves were minted from valuable metals, 
>and had value beyond any guarantees made by sovereign states. 
>
     Not all currencies were based upon valuable metals. The 
original Roman Empire used fiat Aes Grave copper money. Many 
other fiat currencies were based on clay, leather, etc. Actually, 
the very best money has no intrinsic value at all. Credit in a 
bank's computer is working all over the world now and how much 
intrinsic value resides in the deposit in your bank account? 
 
>Fiat currencies were a long way from becoming the current 
>standard, let alone the system which we now have, which is based 
>on a country's promise to pay, and compared against the 
>international market for valuation against other currencies.
>
     And these fiat currencies would all work fine but for one 
fatal bug in the bank's computers' programming. 
 
>Let me state, John Turmel, that your ideas for a collateral-based 
>economy are not original, and certainly not new.  
>
     That's my whole point. But the Masters of the World who own 
the publishing houses have pushed the successful examples down 
the memory hole or falsely denigrated their efficacity. 
     How many studies of British Tallies have you heard of? How 
many times have you heard of bankers calling government 
currencies "funny money" or have you heard the denigration "not 
worth a Continental" even though Benjamin Franklin found that 
pre-revolutionary "Continentals" worked admirably until British 
counterfeiting sabotaged their value? 
     All I know is that collateral-based Poker chips are a 
perfect liquidity medium and anytime I hear that a government was 
using a collateral-based currency (not necessarily gold), I know 
that it had to work as well as poker chips and the bankers' 
laughter only reinforces my belief that they're conning us. 
 
>I first read 
>about a system such as you espouse for governing money, interest, 
>et. al. well over ten years ago, in a publication from 1951 -- 
>more precisely, it is contained in an anthology of SCIENCE 
>FICTION stories ("And Then There Were None" by Eric Frank 
>Russell). The economy was based on "obs" (obligations), basically 
>IOU's based on the contributions of the members of the society, 
>which were tradeable for other goods/services provided by other 
>members of that same society.  Yes, the idea has merit, 
>
     YES THE IDEA HAS MERIT. What you have described is "exactly" 
how LETS Greendollars work. Everyone gets a Greendollar account 
starting at zero and the purchaser goes negative while the 
provider goes positive. In the LETS system, they're called 
"commitments" which is perfectly analogous to "obligations." 
 
>but it is 
>also based on the universal acceptibility of these "obs", which 
>are identical to your "poker chip" analogy you are so fond of 
>using. 
>
     You are absolutely correct. The monetary tokens are based on 
people's time whether measured in services or goods. 
 
>Without a central unit of conversion (dollars, for an 
>example), these units are still completely interchangeable except 
>at the discretion of the users, basing them on the "cost" of 
>other goods and services which they will want to acquire.  
>
     They don't need a central unit of conversion as "obs" or 
"Greendollars" are the unit of conversion just as Poker chips 
don't need any central unit of conversion. 
 
>This 
>is the same problem which arose from the basic BARTERING system 
>which was used before the introduction of hard currency.
>
     I don't see any problem and neither did those in antiquity 
who accepted a man's leather disc which promised one cow. 
 
>John Turmel --  All your "program" does is keep track of the 
>value of the bartered goods and services, and serves as a "bank" 
>for unredeemed credits.  
>
     Right you are again. 
 
>Now, how does this get translated into 
>dollars for Revenue Canada and/or provincial finance departments, 
>so that the legal taxes may be paid on this income? Do you feel 
>that since your system doesn't use actual "dollars" that it is 
>exempt from taxation?  Do you relay this obligation to the users 
>of your system, so that they may pay the proper taxes due?  (To 
>not do so is to encourage tax fraud/tax avoidance.)
>
     As soon as the Government starts accepting Greendollars in 
taxes and then uses them to pay for things government needs, 
there is no problem. Until then, payment of the taxes in federal 
is still no barrier to the major advantage. 
     Example: 
     A school teacher earns $25,000 a year which is deposited to 
his bank account. He spends it all on his family's upkeep. 
     If that teacher earns an extra $5,000 doing extra work for 
Greendollars and if he uses the $5,000 Greendollars instead of 
$5,000 from his bank account to maintain the same level of 
purchases, he has $5,000 in federal cash left in his account with 
which to pay his taxes on $30,000 income. 
     After the extra taxes are paid, the remainder of the cash in 
his bank account can be spent or used to pay down his federal 
cash debts. 
     So this is not a tax-avoidance system, it's an interest 
avoidance system though it would work best when the government 
has it's own Greendollar account and accepts Green in taxes. 
     This is not being lobbied for in countries like Australia, 
New Zealand and Great Britain.  
 
>The moment you bring quasi-believable religious interpretations 
>to your debate over your proposed monetary policies, you 
>discredit yourself immensely (not that you havn't done so 
>already).  
>
     That's a problem I've always faced. If I stick to only 
scientific argument, many religious people can't follow and may 
not be impressed. 
     If I stick to only religious argument for the same thing, 
many scientific people adopt your attitude. "If religion says 
it's good, I won't take it seriously." 
     And of course, economists always state that I've discredited 
myself without once stating how. 
     You say I've been discredited. If my using religious 
instruction to bolster my argument is all you have to fall back 
on, I find that is discrediting you, not me. 
 
>"Biblical" interpretations have been used as the 
>justification for many, many injustices throughout the centuries, 
>
     And because they've been used to justify injustices, does 
that mean to you that they are only used to justify injustices 
and never justice. What about where it says "Love Thy Neighbor?" 
Is that telling you to do an injustice against your neighbor? 
 
>and by hitching yourself to this bandwagon you immediately bring 
>your ideas and philosophies under extreme scrutiny, 
>
     I don't mind my ideas being brought under extreme scrutiny 
though you've expressed your disfavor before even hearing them. 
That's kind of prejudiced, isn't it? 
 
>without having to resort to the economic realities which seem so 
>far beyond your grasp 
>
     I think that having participated in the creation of the 
Greendollar system which is being hailed around the world as an 
economic life-boat implies I have a greater grasp of the economic 
realities than you do. 
     What you really mean is that if I had your grasp of the 
economic realities, I, like you, would bow down and agree with 
the economists that the problem is too big to handle. 
     Fortunately, an engineering background far better prepares 
one to deal with realities than an economics background. 
 
>that you leave us laughing at your attempts to 
>construct a *real* argument for your case.
>
     Laughing before you even hear the argument. Typical. Why 
don't you wait until I publish the answer on the week-end before 
you start laughing. 
     By the way, I'd just like to note that you haven't been able 
to derive the differential equation so I think that the laughing 
should be left to me. He who laughs last, laughs best. And as 
long as you can't figure out what we're talking about, I'm 
laughing too. 
     What's saddest is that you seem to understand the story on 
"obs" and state that "YES THE IDEA HAS MERIT" and yet you still 
don't see the link to Christ's differential equation. I guess 
you'll forever be seeing without seeing and hearing without 
hearing. 
     You have to admit, Christ came up with quite a relevant 
insult for guys like you who not only can't see but are too busy 
laughing at an IDEA WHICH HAS MERIT to try to see either. 
     
John "The Engineer" Turmel

---

From: [email-masked] (Frank Ch. Eigler)
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 1995 16:47:06 GMT

John Turmel ([email-masked]) wrote:
: [...]
: >Religion is based on faith, mathematics on true science.
:      Who says religion can't be based on true science too?

I do for example.  Religion is by definition irrational,
while science is by definition rational.  There seems to me
to be quite a difference.

-- 
Frank Ch. Eigler // [email-masked]
                // [email-masked]
               // [email-masked]