Catching Up

2002-10-5 18:21:00

My Friends,

I have been working like crazy attempting to catch up to. I hope to cover your questions tonight so I can wrap this up from a broader prospective and move back to the book.

Let me go back to some of Susan's points I have not covered:

Susan
The only way we can change the majority opinions is for a SMALL group to have the guts to step out and say THIS is wrong.

JJ
You mean like the Christians who stepped forward and said Jesus was Lord and not Caesar? If you think you can best serve by getting thrown to the lions, yes, go ahead and bless you for your sacrifice, but there is a time to sacrifice and a time to retreat and wait until a day of opportunity to fight again.

George Washington could have bravely sacrificed all his men numerous times by standing up to the British, but when faced with overwhelming force he retreated again and again to the extent that many became discouraged and wondered if he knew what he was doing. Finally, one Christmas night when the enemy was drunk and sleepy he crossed the Delaware and began his time of victory.

Jesus could have stood up against slavery, but he would have been crucified before his time and his mission would have been a failure. As Blayne said, we have to choose the hill upon which we will die. Let us not choose with blind emotion, but take an intelligent action against real enemies.

Susan
It is a SMALL group who actually takes on the powers that be and fights for their freedom.

JJ
Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Sometimes it is a large group as occurred during World War II. Millions were involved there.

Most small groups who take on unjust powers with overwhelming numbers get squashed and often their cause suffers a great setback. The glory of God is intelligence and so is the glory of those who are in the image of God. To move forward we must do so intelligently. Those who do not apply this principle may be seen in history as more foolhardy than brave.

Susan
I quote JJ in Chapter 13 even: "He who does not resist a law in his mind and heart puts forth no subtle energies to assist change." Those that quietly sympathize will not dare speak out until they see that it is safe to say, think or do what the SMALL group had the guts to step out and do first. Using your logic, JJ, the Founding Fathers should have never started the revolution.

JJ
The Founding Fathers had about a hundred times more support from the general population than do the people in the Patriot movement today. Those in the movement are mostly good and decent people with good intentions, but they have little support from the general population as did the Founding Fathers. George Washington was admired by almost every person in the land, even those who strongly disagreed with him. If you think the new Patriot movement is equivalent to the Founding Fathers or the Rebels then where is your Washington?

Where is the equivalent of Franklin who was widely known and admired not by just a few rebels, but the whole nation? Where is your Jefferson who was respected by most of the governors and people in the country?

Ron Paul perhaps? Most people have never heard of him and he has little influence as Washington did.

The fact is that the modern Patriots do not have a current window of opportunity and even if they did they are not united enough to establish a new society that all would agree with. My guess is that if the power to govern were thrown over to the whole bunch there would be so much internal struggle that the strongest would assume power and likely would wind up throwing the Constitution out the window.

Susan
We do not need the majority's consent to do what we feel is right but our SOUL's consent whether we be one small David against Goliath or an unarmed people marching around the walls of Jericho. "If God is with us, who can be against us?"

JJ
No disagreement here Susan

More Later.