[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Gunman Ambushes Border Patrol Agents In Texas Amid Anti-ICE Rhetoric From Democrats Texas Flood Why America Built A Forest From Canada To Texas Tucker Carlson Interviews President of Iran Mosoud Pezeshkian PROOF Netanyahu Wants US To Fight His Wars RAPID CRUSTAL MOVEMENT DETECTED- Are the Unusual Earthquakes TRIGGER for MORE (in Japan and Italy) ? Google Bets Big On Nuclear Fusion Iran sets a world record by deporting 300,000 illegal refugees in 14 days Brazilian Women Soccer Players (in Bikinis) Incredible Skills Watch: Mexico City Protest Against American Ex-Pat 'Invasion' Turns Viole Kazakhstan Just BETRAYED Russia - Takes gunpowder out of Putin’s Hands Why CNN & Fareed Zakaria are Wrong About Iran and Trump Something Is Going Deeply WRONG In Russia 329 Rivers in China Exceed Flood Warnings, With 75,000 Dams in Critical Condition Command Of Russian Army 'Undermined' After 16 Of Putin's Generals Killed At War, UK Says Rickards: Superintelligence Will Never Arrive Which Countries Invest In The US The Most? The History of Barbecue ‘Pathetic’: Joe Biden tells another ‘tall tale’ during rare public appearance Lawsuit Reveals CDC Has ZERO Evidence Proving Vaccines Don't Cause Autism Trumps DOJ Reportedly Quietly Looking Into Criminal Charges Against Election Officials Volcanic Risk and Phreatic (Groundwater) eruptions at Campi Flegrei in Italy Russia Upgrades AGS-17 Automatic Grenade Launcher! They told us the chickenpox vaccine was no big deal—just a routine jab to “protect” kids from a mild childhood illness Pentagon creates new military border zone in Arizona For over 200 years neurological damage from vaccines has been noted and documented The killing of cardiologist in Gaza must be Indonesia's wake-up call Marandi: Israel Prepares Proxies for Next War with Iran? "Hitler Survived WW2 And I Brought Proof" Norman Ohler STUNS Joe Rogan CIA Finally Admits a Pyschological Warfare Agent from the Agency “Came into Contact” with Lee Harvey Oswald before JFK’s Assassination

Resistance
See other Resistance Articles

Title: SAPF Update: Judge issues Stay in Enforcement of Injunction
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Dec 19, 2006
Author: SAPF
Post Date: 2006-12-19 15:21:21 by Neil McIver
Keywords: None
Views: 1866
Comments: 101

Judge Nickerson issued a stay against his own injunction order today. SAPF can disregard the order pending appeal.

I'll write up a report more fully tonight.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 68.

#1. To: All, Starwind (#0)

From SAPF:

****COURT GRANTS MOTION TO STAY INJUNCTION ORDER AGAINST SAPF***

December 19, 2006 -- Today, Judge Nickerson of the U.S. District Court granted Defendants' motion to stay the permanent injunction order against them. This motion is granted pending the Court's decisions on the Motion for a New Trial and the Motion for Modification of the Permanent Injunction Order which were also submitted to the District Court.

Therefore, there is no injunction order in effect against the Fellowship at the present time. The Fellowship will keep its members apprised of any new developments, and members will be more fully informed in the next Liberty Tree.

For the latest motions by all parties and decisions by the Court, please visit http://www.Save-a-Patriot.org and click on the link to the Complaint and then the link to the Complete Docket.

Neil McIver  posted on  2006-12-19   15:25:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Thanks for the heads up. I was tracking this.

Kotmair filed on Dec 13th: Motion to Alter/Amend Judgment and for a New Trial and filed on the 14th a Motion to Stay, and on the 15th a motion with the 4th Appellate #06-2314, but the contents of that motion has not yet been published.

December 19, 2006 -- Today, Judge Nickerson of the U.S. District Court granted Defendants' motion to stay the permanent injunction order against them. This motion is granted pending the Court's decisions on the Motion for a New Trial and the Motion for Modification of the Permanent Injunction Order which were also submitted to the District Court.

As far as it goes, the announcement is correct. What it did not disclose (from Judge Nickerson's order to stay):

Although the Court has not had the opportunity to fully consider the motion for new trial as it is not yet ripe, the Court can say with some certainty that it will be denied. Defendants raise the same arguments in that motion that were raised and fully considered in the cross motions for summary judgment. The motion for modification of the injunction order is also not yet ripe, and the government has yet to respond. This motion, however, might prove to have some merit, particularly as it relates to assisting Defendants in discerning what is protected political speech and what is prohibited false commercial speech.¹

¹That said, the Court notes that much of Defendants' "confusion" results from their own intentional ignorance and obfuscation. As noted in the memorandum resolving the cross motions for summary judgment, Defendants continue to tout their chimerical theories despite the consistent rejection of those theories by all courts to have considered them. Nov. 29, 2006 Memorandum Opinion at 12 ("just because courts have followed that course of conduct does not make it valid," quoting SAPF's Opp. to Pl.'s Mot. for Summ. J. 28 n.67).

While Defendants are unlikely to succeed on the ultimate merits of their claims, they may be entitled to some minor modifications or clarifications of this Court's injunction.

Do you not find it troubling that Kotmair is not more forthcoming with the facts on these rulings?

For the latest motions by all parties and decisions by the Court, please visit http://www.Save-a-Patriot.org and click on the link to the Complaint and then the link to the Complete Docket.

Except they haven't actually updated anything as of this post - nothing since Sept 11th.

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-19   18:11:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Westminster man told to stop running tax scheme

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-19   20:59:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I have no knowledge of this particular issue, but the real scam is the legal system and those it traps by suggesting it listens to logical, well researched, constitutional argument.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2006-12-19   21:04:51 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

but the real scam is the legal system and those it traps by suggesting it listens to logical, well researched, constitutional argument

Well, sometimes the "legal system" fails to listen to logical, well researched, constitutional argument, but most often in the case of "tax protestors" their arguments are generally unfounded, only partially researched, not constitutional, and plainly illogical.

It is the absurd illogic they (like Kotmair) repeatedly foist off as constitutional scholarship when, best case it is inexperienced legal research or understanding, and worst case deliberate obfuscation in furtherance of fraud.

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-19   21:15:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Well, sometimes the "legal system" fails to listen to logical, well researched, constitutional argument, but most often in the case of "tax protestors" their arguments are generally unfounded, only partially researched, not constitutional, and plainly illogical.

Mighty bold talk from a one-eyed fat man. ;0)

BTW, the Fellowship has an audio CD of a talk given at the headquarters by an ex-IRS revenue agent (his name escapes me just now). He outlines his progress to where he came to the point that he finally quit his job because he found out how the government is defrauding everyone, including many of the agents themselves.

He told of how there are training sessions set up where 50 agents are brought together and told A, B and C about the tax code, etc., and the training ends there. But if they had gone a step further told the agents D, it would have invalidated everything they were told previously.

These lying scum who are directing this fraud (some of your lawyer buddies perhaps?) are even deceiving their own people. They deserve a rope, and nothing more. They train all of the professional CPAs, accountants, controllers, tax attorneys and everyone else involved in this system of plunder.

Is it any wonder that the judges go along with it all when the fraud is so pervasive? Besides, they know they would end up out in the cold if they oppose the bankers, so they go along with it. They have betrayed the rest of us and one day soon the other shoe will drop. Just be careful you do not end up under that boot when it does.

It is the absurd illogic they (like Kotmair) repeatedly foist off as constitutional scholarship when, best case it is inexperienced legal research or understanding, and worst case deliberate obfuscation in furtherance of fraud.

Have you ever studied any of the positions of the Fellowship? I assure you it is based in factual reading of the law. And shows the misapplications of law by the IRS thugs and government attorneys.

I have not met Kotmair in person, but have had the pleasure of speaking to him on the phone a couple of times. I find him to be one of the most principled, honest and forthright men I've ever come in contact with. It helps, of course, to know his personal background, which I do.

John has been fighting corruption for a very long time, even since before he started the Fellowship.

Starwind, every time you make a post such as this, it exposes you as a shill for the government. I would venture to guess you are a professional pettifogger. Who else would have a Pacer account to get access to online filings of the courts? I certain do not (can't afford it anyway) and would not unless I had an interest in following certain cases or it had something to do with my work.

BTP Holdings  posted on  2006-12-20   4:08:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Starwind, every time you make a post such as this, it exposes you as a shill for the government. I would venture to guess you are a professional pettifogger.

Why is it you never have anything other than insults and unverifiable personal assurances as your argument? Where are your facts on the law? Or do you just skip over that part because no court has yet to agree with you? BTW, how are those UCC filings working out for you? Kept you out of court have they?

Who else would have a Pacer account to get access to online filings of the courts? I certain do not (can't afford it anyway) and would not unless I had an interest in following certain cases or it had something to do with my work.

Well, the PACER account is free and the cost to use it is 8 pennies per document page. If you can't afford that you have no business giving tax advice.

I assist executives of computer-tech companies perform due diligence on mergers and technology acquisitions. I also evaluate companies in which I might want to invest, or simply follow the arguments of companies suing each other (like IBM v SCO) or being sued by the SEC. All of which makes looking at public court records of company principals, patent suits, contract disputes, etc useful, and for a free PACER account at 8 pennies a page, it beats driving down to the court house and waiting in line to do the same thing with their computers.

But then, as experienced as you are, you knew all that didn't you... you were just testing me weren't you.

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-20   11:01:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Why is it you never have anything other than insults

Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

Where are your facts on the law? Or do you just skip over that part because no court has yet to agree with you?

Allow me to relate to you a personal incident of mine from about 6 years ago.

When I came here to Missouri, the first place I got a job driving a truck was a small outfit with maybe 7 trucks. I told them when I applied that I would not provide a SSN and that they would not have to take any withholdings from me nor would they have to pay in their share of taxes.

To this end I provided the proper documents to fulfill the requirements under the Code for them requesting a number and not receiving one. At that time, employers were only required to request a number. They did not actually have to get one, and there is a procedure to follow with affidavits of transmittal to the Director of Internal Revenue (in Philadelphia) so that all of the requirements of the Code are followed.

I got thos documents made up and paid for them myself, and I told the boss if ever there was a problem I would back him up on it, But, I told him to follow the instructions exactly. His daughter was doing the bookkeeping and she sent the affidavit and other paperwork to the regional office in KC. That was a mistake since it sent up a red flag with those know-nothing idiots.

The jerk agent kept calling and harrassing the daughter and sending her IRS publications and other literature (which is NOT the law) and making threats over the phone. When the boss told me of this, I told him the forms I gave him should have been sent to Philly, not KC. The main office in Philly handles international (between the several states and the USG) issues. The regional offices do not. This is where the problem arose. The clown in the regional office only knew how to bully and bluff. So, I called him on it.

I gave the boss more forms and a letter, at my expense, which he sent to this idiot agent. Funny thing is, they never heard from him again. He just plain disappeared.

Now, I am not going to cite any part of the law here for you since I am not going to take the time to dig it all up from my boxes of legal papers. This response is time consuming enough right now. Suffice it to say that the agent was shut down because he was hit with the truth, the facts and the law. I just do not have this stuff on the tip of my tongue like others might. But, when I have the chance to discuss thigns with someone who knows these issues, I am able to carry on an intelligent conversation well enough.

If you wish to be a doubting Thomas with this, fine.

And this was all done with help from SAPF staff, and the Nationsl Worker's Rights Committee. All of what they are doing is based on the facts and the law. And it works unless we run into a brainwashed tyrant, as was a former employer of mine, who stole over $5,000 from me by unlawfully withholding from my pay after the agreement was lawfully terminated unilaterally by me. That is conversion and theft, in case you didn't guess.

So you wonder why I am such a pissed off motherfucker? I'm tired of being raped and sent to the poor house by a corrupt system and the lackeys who support it, for whatever reason. You're all fair game from where I sit.

BTW, how are those UCC filings working out for you?

Fine up to now. Everything I have done so far has worked without bringing anything to court. But, we are cooking up some things which are sure to give our insolent and disobedient servants in government ulcers and sleepless nights. I have a case here now which was filed in Virgina which is going to be the template for what we are doing regarding private property rights issues. And, yes, our labor property is private until we contact it away. And we have a right to a return of that labor for something of value. It's just that those nasty FRNs are having less and less value all of the time. Would you like to buy some Liberty Dollars? LOL Didn't think so. ;0)

Well, the PACER account is free and the cost to use it is 8 pennies per document page. If you can't afford that you have no business giving tax advice.

Your first mistake is to assume I give tax advice. Your second would be that I might be a taxpayer.

I found out about Pacer when I got an info packet from the federal court earlier this year. It would not be worthwhile for me to mess with it since I have nothing to keep up with, as you seem to for your gig. Eight cents per page view would only be good if it didn't amount to much. I'm taking donations if the Lord moves you. ;0)

you were just testing me weren't you.

Life is a test. Test, 1, 2, test. Just like the sound check at the concerts. Watch out for Pyro Pete. He has got some awesome boomers and you need to stay clear when they do the pyro check. ROTFLOL!

BTP Holdings  posted on  2006-12-20   12:56:19 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

lol - I'm crushed. And I had such high expectations for your reply.

Now, I am not going to cite any part of the law here for you since I am not going to take the time to dig it all up from my boxes of legal papers.

Why am I not surprised. At least you didn't pretend the dog ate it.

If you wish to be a doubting Thomas with this, fine.

The issue is not my doubting you, but rather your hypocrisy to criticise the facts posted by others while providing none yourself. But then there's not much else you can do, is there.

Your first mistake is to assume I give tax advice.

I admit I doubted anyone actually paid for your tax advice, so I assumed it was given.

Your second would be that I might be a taxpayer.

And it works unless we run into a brainwashed tyrant, as was a former employer of mine, who stole over $5,000 from me by unlawfully withholding from my pay after the agreement was lawfully terminated unilaterally by me.

Well it would seem you are a taxpayer, however unfair you might think it. Let me know when $5,000,000 in taxes is stolen from you. Then we'll talk.

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-21   16:22:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Why am I not surprised.

Sorry, but you have no idea what I am dealing with over here. I simply do not have the time to dig out that material and find the proper references and post them here. You are lucky to get any reply at all. You should really be on the filter, but I at least give you a pass for now. :p

The fact remains that ALL of the research has been done and shown numerous times and is also available in material which may be obtained from Save-A-Patriot Fellowship.

Well it would seem you are a taxpayer

Wrong. The withholding agent is the taxpayer. I'm surprised you do not know this. Even if it is covered up by the way things are handled in every day affairs, it is still a fact.

You filing a return signifies that you are returning a portion of your earnings as an employment tax on a privelege. This would be significant if only to show that the tax is being grievously misapplied. But, of course, the sheeple volunteer to be plundered. Now, if you can figure out exactly what that privelege might be, there could be a smidgen of hope for you. ;0)

BTP Holdings  posted on  2006-12-21   20:54:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

But, of course, the sheeple volunteer to be plundered.

THAT'S the point!!! But they won't "unvolunteer" because they WANT the privileges they get from volunteering. They WANT to gamble in the stock market, and they want to work for General Motors, and they WANT to have Medicare and that monthly check to count on in their retirement years.

Now, if you can figure out exactly what that privelege might be, there could be a smidgen of hope for you. ;0)

No, there is NOT a smidgen of hope there. By his own admission he "researches companies he might want to invest in". He wants to find a way to participate in the commercial system, to make investments hoping for capital gains - AND at the same time find a way to NOT have to participate in the tax scheme... Problem is IT DON'T WORK THAT WAY... As long as he insists on keeping that SS#, bank account, stock market account, various investments in businesses, ANY type of license, etc - he just needs to quit worrying about keeping up with any "tax protester court arguments" looking for a good one that he can use because they don't exist.

Noone222 pointed out to him in another thread that his tagline reads: "The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news"; and yet he doesn't believe or practice that... If he did he might pay attention to the words of the Messiah in Luke 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26 But ye shall not be so

Either he doesn't actually believe his own tagline, or he isn't smart enough to figure out that in the SS system, the government is called the benefactor, and he is the beneficiary - or both.

People like that allow FEAR to make their decisions, and are of no use to true patriots. If the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Framers of the Constitution had allowed fear to control them instead of their conscience - this once-great nation would have never achieved what it did. And unless a hell of a lot more people find that same courage our Founding Fathers had, all their efforts were in vain...

I believe it was you that used the word traitor to describe him... You're right. Traitor to his country, AND traitor to GOD.

innieway  posted on  2006-12-21   22:02:39 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

This oft repeated canard that paying taxes and abiding by tax laws is somehow unbiblical or lacking faith needs to be addressed (FYI *Bereans* for the scripture cites).

So, what does the Bible actually say in comparison with the claims of noone222 and innieway?

Noone222 pointed out to him in another thread that his tagline reads: "The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only true good news"; and yet he doesn't believe or practice that... If he did he might pay attention to the words of the Messiah in Luke 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26 But ye shall not be so

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/ readart.cgi?ArtNum=40848&Disp=25#C25

I noticed your tagline and thought you should be more aware of the number one tax protester to ever walk the earth ! (Of course they crucified him ... and they're still at it 2000 years later.

What did Jesus tell Peter at the house after they had passed through the gate at Capernum.

[You'll recall he had Peter go get a coin out of a fishes mouth to pay the "tribute" collector, so as not to piss him off. But when Peter and Jesus arrived at the house, Jesus prevented Peter at the door, and asked him "Peter, from whom do the kings of nations collect tribute, the "children" or the "STRANGER" ... to which Peter replied, ahh yes Lord the stranger.]

Taxes are in fact a penalty applied to those receiving a government "PRIVILEGE" , and the reason for Jesus admonition to Peter was to remind him that the birthright of the children wasn't taxable while the privilege of citizenship to the stranger subjected them to taxation.

Check out Luke 22:25 where Jesus states that you shouldn't be obligated to a benefactor ... exactly what SS does to you ... it makes the govt. your benefactor ... so who you gonna believe, Jesus or Uncle Sambo ???

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/ readart.cgi?ArtNum=40848&Disp=26#C26

I'm mystified when someone has a tagline that implies faith in Christ's truth but when it comes down to the nut cuttin that person shit cans Christ and resorts to lawyers and weasel worded statutory fraud. Hypocrisy !

http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/ readart.cgi?ArtNum=40848&Disp=29#C29

When Jesus said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" ... Most people thought "EVERYTHING" belonged to him, and Jesus was disputing that notion, much like today, when the government would have us believe that every dollar and every transaction is to be taxed.

So, here is Luke 22:25-27, full passages in context:

Luk 22:24-27 And there arose also a dispute among them as to which one of them was regarded to be greatest. (25) And He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called 'Benefactors.'^G2110 (26) "But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant. (27) "For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at the table? But I am among you as the one who serves.

Strong's G2110:
euergetes; from G2095 and the same as G2041; a doer of good, i.e. a benefactor: - benefactors (1).

The disciples were frequently engaged in petty arguments over which of them was greatest in heaven:

• Mat 18:1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and said, "Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
• Mar 9:34 But they kept silent, for on the way they had discussed with one another which of them was the greatest.
• Luk 9:46 An argument started among them as to which of them might be the greatest.
• Luk 22:24 And there arose also a dispute among them as to which one of them was regarded to be greatest.
  

This last time (Luk 22) Jesus drew a contrast between His kingdom and that of Gentiles, specifically those Ptolemaic kings who were known as "Euergetes" or 'Benefactor'. Note above that 'Benefactor' is translated from the Greek "euergetes" (Strongs G2110) in Luke 22:25.:

Ptolemy III Euergetes

... king of Egypt, son of Ptolemy II ... succeeded Ptolemy II ... as the Benefactor Gods ... usually known as Euergetes ("Beneficient").

Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II

He is commonly distinguished today as Euergetes II or as Physcon. The epithet Euergetes ("Benefactor"), which he shared with and probably modelled on Ptolemy III

Jesus contrasts the Gentile "Benefactors" (i.e., Ptolemaic rulers) who were greatest and held authority over others who served them, with the reverse concept in Christ's kingdom that the greatest are those who serve and are under authority, and Jesus cites himself as serving though (implicitly) having all authority: This is the same "lesson" He taught in the other disputes about whom would be greatest:

• Mat 23:11 "But the greatest among you shall be your servant."
• Mat 18:4 "Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven."
• Mar 9:35 ... "If anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all."
• Luk 9:48 "... for the one who is least among all of you, this is the one who is great."
  

Jesus was not teaching that earthly Christians (His disciples) were not obligated to "Benefactors". Rather, Jesus was teaching that those who would be greatest in His kingdom were least on earth and served under authority.

Regarding paying the "tribute", here is Mat 17:27 complete and in context:

Mat 17:24-27 When they came to Capernaum, those who collected the two- drachma tax came to Peter and said, "Does your teacher not pay the two- drachma tax?" (25) He said, "Yes." And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?" (26) When Peter said, "From strangers," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are exempt. (27) "However, so that we do not offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me."

Note carefully there are two different taxes being discussed:

• the "two-drachma tax" requested in Mat 17:24 is an ecclesiastical tax for the temple (see Exo 30:13-14; 2Ch 24:6, 2Ch 24:9 for its origin),
• but the "customs or poll- tax" Jesus references in Mat 17:25 is a civil tax levied by kings upon strangers (or subjects) and not their sons.

Jesus' point to Peter is that because they are not strangers to the temple but are the sons of God, they hence are exempt from the temple tax as asked, but regardless they do pay it so as to not offend. But it is this ecclesiastical temple tax which Jesus voluntarily pays.

Jesus does *not* teach in any manner that a civil tax is likewise voluntary or that Christians ought not to pay civil taxes.

And the oft misconstrued "render to Caesar" teaching:

Mat 22:17-21 "Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?" (18) But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, "Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites? (19) "Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax." And they brought Him a denarius. (20) And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?" (21) They said to Him, "Caesar's." Then He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's."

Jesus specifically distinguishes between that which is Caesar's and that which is God's. Jesus said to pay both Caesar's tax (in Roman coins) and tithes and offerings (in temple coins).

No where does the Bible or historical record imply that "Most people thought "EVERYTHING" belonged to [Caesar]", that is a false premise, and no where does Jesus dispute paying taxes to Rome.

Further, if today "every dollar and every transaction is to be taxed", there'd be no "loop holes", no "non- profits", no deductions, exemptions, gradations, and a vastly smaller and simpler tax code. In fact, much (but not all) of the complexity and unfairness of the existing tax code is due to the myriad exemptions from taxation.

And what does the Bible actually teach about Christians being subject to civil authority?

Exo 22:28 "You shall not curse God, nor curse a ruler of your people.

Ecc 8:2-5 I say, "Keep the command of the king because of the oath before God. (3) "Do not be in a hurry to leave him. Do not join in an evil matter, for he will do whatever he pleases." (4) Since the word of the king is authoritative, who will say to him, "What are you doing?" (5) He who keeps a royal command experiences no trouble, for a wise heart knows the proper time and procedure.

Mat 5:25 "Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.

Luk 7:8-9 "For I also am a man placed under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, 'Go!' and he goes, and to another, 'Come!' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this!' and he does it." (9) Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled at him, and turned and said to the crowd that was following Him, "I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such great faith."

Note, the point here is Jesus did not rebuke the soldier for being under and having Roman military authority, rather Jesus commended him for acknowledging and having faith in (and not requiring proof of) Jesus' authority, unlike the Jews to whom Jesus was spreading His message. i.e. a Roman authoritarian had more understanding of Jesus authority than did Jesus' country men.

Rom 13:1-2 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. (2) Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

1Ti 2:1-2 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, (2) for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.

Tit 3:1-2 Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed, (2) to malign no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing every consideration for all men.

1Pe 2:13-14 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, (14) or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.

1Pe 2:18-19 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. (19) For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly.

Jesus, Paul and Peter all make it plainly clear, repeatedly, that the followers of Jesus, Christians, are to voluntarily be subject under the civil authorities and to disobey those authorities is to disobey God. Only when there is a genuine conflict between God's law and civil law, are Christians are to uphold God's law even when the consequences are dire:

Ecc 10:4,20 (4) If the ruler's temper rises against you, do not abandon your position, because composure allays great offenses. (20) Furthermore, in your bedchamber do not curse a king, and in your sleeping rooms do not curse a rich man, for a bird of the heavens will carry the sound and the winged creature will make the matter known.

Act 5:28-29 saying, "We gave you strict orders not to continue teaching in this name, and yet, you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and intend to bring this man's blood upon us." (29) But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men.

Paul suffered numerous beatings. Stephen allowed himself to be stoned. When civil authority is unjust (such as under many of the Old Testament kings, Gentile kings, etc.) the Christian is to willingly bear the unjust treatment and trust in God for deliverance and leave all vengeance up to God, as did Daniel in the lion's den, and Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego who were cast into the fiery furnace, David who was pursued by Saul, Job, Joseph, etc.

But that does not mean that Christians can not lawfully, peacefully work for better laws or rely upon the law, as did Paul when he declared his Roman citizenship (Act 22:25) to seek due process and a hearing from Caesar (Acts 25).

By his own admission he "researches companies he might want to invest in". He wants to find a way to participate in the commercial system, to make investments hoping for capital gains - AND at the same time find a way to NOT have to participate in the tax scheme...

Indeed, the Bible even instructs Christians to be wise stewards of whatever God has entrusted to us:

Mat 10:16 "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves.

We are to know what the worldly and schemers know without being worldly and scheming in return.

Mat 25:14-30 "For it is just like a man about to go on a journey, who called his own slaves and entrusted his possessions to them. (15) "To one he gave five talents, to another, two, and to another, one, each according to his own ability; and he went on his journey. (16) "Immediately the one who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and gained five more talents. (17) "In the same manner the one who had received the two talents gained two more. (18) "But he who received the one talent went away, and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money. (19) "Now after a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. (20) "The one who had received the five talents came up and brought five more talents, saying, 'Master, you entrusted five talents to me. See, I have gained five more talents.' (21) "His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.' (22) "Also the one who had received the two talents came up and said, 'Master, you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more talents.' (23) "His master said to him, 'Well done, good and faithful slave. You were faithful with a few things, I will put you in charge of many things; enter into the joy of your master.' (24) "And the one also who had received the one talent came up and said, 'Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you scattered no seed. (25) 'And I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.' (26) "But his master answered and said to him, 'You wicked, lazy slave, you knew that I reap where I did not sow and gather where I scattered no seed. (27) 'Then you ought to have put my money in the bank, and on my arrival I would have received my money back with interest. (28) 'Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents.' (29) "For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but from the one who does not have, even what he does have shall be taken away. (30) "Throw out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

The parable of the talents is not specifically about investment per se, but is about generic stewardship of whatever has been entrusted to us. Each of us have giftings and responsibilities in commensurate measure. A person given the gifting to steward two talents could not handle the responsibility of stewarding five talents, but they can learn and be faithful with the two. A person who is irresponsible and fails to steward what has been entrusted (even one talent) is faithless.

Some of us are entrusted with wealth and expected to faithfully steward it and apply it to kingdom purposes. Some are entrusted with administration skills, teaching skills, etc. Whatever skills/gifts we have been given are to be stewarded to their fullest in accordance with God's kingdom purposes. That includes managing wealth and using it as tithes and offerings to fund 'kingdom projects', like building churches, giving bibles, sending missionaries, feeding the poor and homeless, funding hospitals, etc. It can also include managing the assets and budgets of Christian institutions like churches, foundations, colleges, broadcasters, etc.

But to manage and distribute (steward) wealth, one must of necessity understand the tax laws at a minimum, how to safeguard assets while not being spent, and how to operate lawfully.

Luk 16:8-13 "And his master praised the unrighteous manager because he had acted shrewdly; for the sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own kind than the sons of light. (9) "And I say to you, make friends for yourselves by means of the wealth of unrighteousness, so that when it fails, they will receive you into the eternal dwellings. (10) "He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much. (11) "Therefore if you have not been faithful in the use of unrighteous wealth, who will entrust the true riches to you? (12) "And if you have not been faithful in the use of that which is another's, who will give you that which is your own? (13) "No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth."

Jesus is not praising unrighteous manager for being unrighteous, but is citing his shrewdness as an example of that manager's "thinking outside the box" to form useful relationships. Jesus advocates that we Christians ought to likewise learn to "think outside the box" to use the wealth of the unrighteous to bring people to the Lord so that they may be a treasure laid up in heaven and will welcome us when we meet them in eternity.

The lesson is to be sharp-witted Christian managers (who are just as savvy if not more so than their unrighteous counterparts) who lawfully redirect wealth into righteous kingdom purposes, e.g., trading/investing and then tithing/offering the profit to a Christian church to be used in mission work or church plants, or to quietly demonstrate and set a Christian example for the world to observe of honest lawful investing (i.e. walk the walk). But only to the extent that "talents" (gifts and responsibilities) have been entrusted from God, i.e. a "calling".

The Christian serves God and wealth is a tool that serves the Christian, no different than any other tool employed to achieve God's purposes.

The Bible does not teach that paying taxes is wrong, or taxation authority is to be disobeyed, or that investing is wrong. Only by ignoring what the text of the Bible plainly and repeatedly says can one argue otherwise.

Problem is IT DON'T WORK THAT WAY... As long as he insists on keeping that SS#, bank account, stock market account, various investments in businesses, ANY type of license, etc - he just needs to quit worrying about keeping up with any "tax protester court arguments" looking for a good one that he can use because they don't exist.

What I insist on regarding taxes is being lawful, accurate, and honest. No more, no less.

It behooves any Christian who wants to be "as wise as serpents", faithful in the use of whatever has been entrusted to them, obedient under every human institution and governing authority, and avoid creating opponents at law, to investigate and know the facts of these matters whether promulgated by the IRS, accountants, lawyers, tax protesters, tax shelters, banks, brokers, companies, legislatures and courts, to evaluate and integrate their varying interpretations and ultimately know the truth of the matter as best it can be ascertained.

There may not be any good tax protester arguments, but one wouldn't know that until having looked at the published arguments and any court rulings. Subsequently, one can learn how the courts and government cope with differing arguments; studying how favorable rulings were argued through the court system and how frivolous arguments are dispatched. Learning what to do and what not to do.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Worse, those who repeat the same failed arguments yet always expect different results, defy rationality and demonstrate a troubling dysfunction (see Irwin Schiff's transcript).

But the incessant flawed cherry-picking and proof-texting is why tax protesters persistently fail to persuade courts or the citizenry at large. You ignore history, context, facts, and plain meanings that everyone else understands. You position yourselves for defeat because of your insistence to impute into a text what you want it to mean instead of reading out of a text what it actually says, whether that text is in the Constitution, the law, or the Bible.

And when I point that out, you label me; for proposing a lawful constitutional convention as provided by the framers, a "traitor"; for knowing and citing the law in opposition to your vapid legal scholarship, a "shill" and "pettifogger"; and "boot- licking, scum guzzling, govt. toadie" who ought to be hung by a rope , and taunts like "You cling to fraud like bubble gum to a shoe !" Your responses are long on handwaving, short on fact, but mainly just personal insults.

Such juvenile antics would be laughable if the subject weren't so serious. And yet you style yourselves 'Christian patriots' who advocate an "insurance-like" scheme which is legally indefensible and fiscally and actuarially unsound, and when that fails, you expect to further play Russian Roulette with the courts and treat the inevitable consequent IRS summons as an act of war to be met with armed resistance.

You post rant after rant raging against the machine without once posting any proof of the legal basis that underlies your tax arguments you all claim to have researched so thoroughly (except for one SSA form), but when pressed for the factual details that underly your otherwise unsubstantiated legal theories, we're told:

• Now, I am not going to cite any part of the law here for you since I am not going to take the time to dig it all up from my boxes of legal papers.
• You can't find the case because like so many it was too embarrassing to leave published.

Good grief, no one in their right mind would participate in your self-destructive tantrums and get caught-up in your crossfire. You blame the media, the courts, the sheeple, employers, bankers, Jews, Christians, ad nauseum; you blame everyone except yourselves for stepping alone in front of the train that repeatedly runs you down.

Take a long hard look at yourselves. You ought to be embarrassed.

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-23   12:52:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

[Your submission of Biblical Text]

Luk 22:(25) And He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called 'Benefactors.

[King James Version]

Luk 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

[Your submission of Biblical Text]

(26) "But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant.

[King James Version]

Luk 22:26 But ye [shall] not [be] so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

I'm sure you can see the difference in these translations. I think the translation you have used is more casual and at Luke 22:26 appears to simply recognize an existing situation (but it is not this way with you) rather than observing an "order" [But ye shall not be so;]

I'll have to go back to your original post to continue:

noone222  posted on  2006-12-23   14:19:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I'm sure you can see the difference in these translations.

I think the translation you have used is more casual

I use the NASB. It is a more literal translation than the KJV.

and at Luke 22:26 appears to simply recognize an existing situation (but it is not this way with you) rather than observing an "order" [But ye shall not be so;]

No, Jesus is not giving or observing an order or command. He is contrasting the Ptolemaic "benefactors" who are deemed greatest because they are being served, with greatest in Christ's kingdom being deemed those who serve (or are humblest). Jesus' point is that greatness is not measured by authority but instead is measured by humility and servitude in spite of having authority.

Your own KJV translation cite notes: "But ye [shall] not [be] so" wherein [shall] and [be] are inserted words endeavoring make the english grammar more sensible.

The NASB translation is: "But [it is] not this way with you" wherein [it is] are again inserted words endeavoring make the english grammar more sensible. I apologize for having negelected to italicize or shade inserted words in my cites.

So while there are those differences in the translations of those 6-7 words, taking the entire passages in context, Jesus is teaching that *unlike* the Gentiles and their "benefactors" who measure greatness by being served, Jesus measures greatness by serving - standing human tradition and thought on its head, as He often does.

None of Jesus' words teach that His followers do not have "obligations" to those in authority. Rather submission to civil authority is what Jesus and the Apostles taught, repeatedly (NASB cites already provided above in post #25).

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-23   16:48:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

None of Jesus' words teach that His followers do not have "obligations" to those in authority. Rather submission to civil authority is what Jesus and the Apostles taught, repeatedly (NASB cites already provided above in post #25).

I had written two very long posts that got wiped out once because I inadvertantly clicked on a link you had posted while trying to copy it, and a second time because I walked away from my computer for a minute and when I returned I was asked to "sign in" ... when I hit "preview". (Oh well.)

Maybe it's God's will.

I had addressed the name calling, and admitted it wasn't necessary, but note that it hasn't been a one sided love fest. All parties should strive for a less argumentative dialogue ... even though at times it's difficult.

You're "IN THE WORLD" and have a "WORLD" friendly attitude. You think it's ok to pay for bombs, rockets, machine guns and tanks that kill little kids, I don't and won't. You think God gives blessings dependent upon how you manage your finances. You're delirious.

Your focus has at times been directed towards the stupidity of people that fight the system by using antiquated or rehashed arguments, ultimately going to jail. Yet, while maintaining a tagline that suggests you're a follower of Jesus, you have yet to even mention the heinous acts of killing little kids orchestrated by the "authorities" you claim we should obey and FUND. I recall Jesus saying most emphatically what should be done to those that would hurt "one" of these little ones.

I am finding it difficult to be civil towards you because I think you epitomize hypocrisy and man's self-inflated wisdom, which is the foolishness that serves murderers and tyrants.

When judgment day rolls around show God Title 26, I'm sure he'll be understanding. When you pay your tithes to Uncle Satan, just attach a note and say ... not to be used for bombs, tanks and guns, please.

And search your soul with this scripture:

Mat 7:21 ¶ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Mat 7:24 ¶ Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

And maybe this too:

Rev 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his (the man's) name.

Rev 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive [his] mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

Rev 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

noone222  posted on  2006-12-23   18:28:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I am finding it difficult to be civil towards you because I think you epitomize hypocrisy and man's self-inflated wisdom, which is the foolishness that serves murderers and tyrants.

No doubt because you read my posts about as well as you read tax law or the bible.

I had addressed the name calling, and admitted it wasn't necessary, but note that it hasn't been a one sided love fest. All parties should strive for a less argumentative dialogue ... even though at times it's difficult.

Agreed.

Your focus has at times been directed towards the stupidity of people that fight the system by using antiquated or rehashed arguments, ultimately going to jail.

My focus is directed towards people who fight stupidly using stupid arguments that have a track record of getting them ultimately tossed in jail, stupidly.

But what provokes me on threads like this is when those same people deride me for not being as willfully stupid as they are. Misery indeed loves company.

Yet, while maintaining a tagline that suggests you're a follower of Jesus, you have yet to even mention the heinous acts of killing little kids orchestrated by the "authorities" you claim we should obey and FUND.

I never said we should FUND heinous acts, but you already new that.

As you just demonstrated again, and I said, the problem is in your reading my posts. No where have I condoned the heinous acts of killing little kids orchestrated by the "authorities" of any country or party. No where have I said I supported them or voted for them.

I recall Jesus saying most emphatically what should be done to those that would hurt "one" of these little ones.

I have no doubt Jesus will deal justly with them for their sin. And what evil they have committed with my lawfully paid taxes is on their head. When given a choice, I don't pay people to bomb children.

But you, OTOH, would happily have people join you in meeting IRS summons' with a gunfight, wouldn't you. The mote is always in the other guy's eye isn't it?

When judgment day rolls around show God Title 26, I'm sure he'll be understanding. When you pay your tithes to Uncle Satan, just attach a note and say ... not to be used for bombs, tanks and guns, please.

I'll be able to at least say I didn't vote them and I obeyed the authorities over me as scripture commands. And my taxes are not tithes (though you take every opportunity to continue your taunts), rather my tithes are in fact "first fruits" - 10% and greater of my gross, off-the-top before I pay any taxes.

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-23   18:58:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

And what evil they have committed with my lawfully paid taxes is on their head. When given a choice, I don't pay people to bomb children.

This is passing the buck, it's your money and you send it to people that bomb kids. End of story ! Although a tough choice, it's yours to make.

No where have I condoned the heinous acts of killing little kids orchestrated by the "authorities" of any country or party. No where have I said I supported them or voted for them.

You vote with your money. The word worship is a compound word derived from "worth" (value) and "ship" (to transfer) or to transfer value.

It's none of my business but if you make Tax Deductible Donations ... you haven't tithed at all, you've simply offset your tax liability.

I'll be able to at least say I didn't vote them and I obeyed the authorities over me as scripture commands.

And I'll be able to say, I screwed up for awhile Lord, but once I understood the deal I told satan to take a flying fucking leap, no more money for murdering thugs.

Who do you think Jesus was talking about when he said "you're all clean on the outside, but inside you're full of dead men's bones" ... he could have said you're full of dead babies bones, but that would have been too harsh wouldn't it ? He was talking to hypocrits. Self approving pretenders that rationalize their donations to continue the never ending murder of God's other children.

Love thy neighbor ... buy war bonds !!! Gimme a break !

And finally, But you, OTOH, would happily have people join you in meeting IRS summons' with a gunfight, wouldn't you.

Geez, I hadn't ever thought of that ... but since you brought it up maybe we should be democrapic and take a vote ! [This Starwind suggestion was brought you by the friendly people at the Department of Entrapment a subsidiary department of HOMO-LAND SECURITY and the Catholic Church].

noone222  posted on  2006-12-23   20:33:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

And what evil they have committed with my lawfully paid taxes is on their head. When given a choice, I don't pay people to bomb children.

This is passing the buck,

(lol) Hardly:

Eze 18:20 "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.

it's your money and you send it to people that bomb kids. ... You vote with your money. The word worship is a compound word derived from "worth" (value) and "ship" (to transfer) or to transfer value.

Jesus voluntarily paid the Temple tax, and out of the collected Temple taxes came the 30 pieces of silver used to bribe Judas to betray Jesus. So, by your application then, you would likewise have Jesus "voting with His money" to betray the Son of God.

And Jesus commanded that taxes owed to Caesar be paid to Caesar, even though Caesar declared himself a god and the Roman army was spreading "peace" all over the known world. So, again by your application, you would now have Jesus telling everyone else to "vote with their money" in support of idol worship and Roman soldiers murdering kids.

... if you make Tax Deductible Donations ... you haven't tithed at all, you've simply offset your tax liability.

You're going need some remedial math as well as remedial reading.

I'll be able to at least say I didn't vote them and I obeyed the authorities over me as scripture commands.

And I'll be able to say, I screwed up for awhile Lord, but once I understood the deal I told satan to take a flying fucking leap, no more money for murdering thugs.

No, you don't understand. You previously were, and still are, very mistaken about the Biblical basis for paying taxes:

Applying your "voting with one's money" argument (in my examples above) to Jesus, demonstrates the fallacy that sins of the rulers are conferred upon the taxpayer. Jesus neither sinned nor caused 'renderers to Caesar' to sin, though obviously in both cases the taxes were put to sinful purposes. Taxpayers are not accountable for their rulers' immoral use of lawfully required taxes.

Further, even in your recent posts, you were incorrect in that Jesus did not "dispute the notion that EVERYTHING belonged to Caesar " as you argued here, nor did Jesus teach that Christians "shouldn't be obligated to a benefactor", nor that the "birthright of the children wasn't taxable" as you first argued and then repeated here and here.

And your continuing misunderstanding stems in part from reading into the text what you want it to say, and in part from not knowing what else the Bible does teach about Christians being submitted to authority and paying civil taxes, as I explained to you here and here and here.

The Bible is quite clear and specific on requiring your submission to authority and rendering civil taxes:

Rom 13:1-2 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. (2) Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

Every person includes you, and your disobedience brings condemnation upon you.

Rom 13:5-8 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. (6) For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. (7) Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. (8) Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.

You are to render all taxes that are due.

1Pe 2:13-14 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution,

And no, you don't get to pretend zero taxes are due because you allegedly withdrew from income taxation. You are to submit to every human institution, not just the ones you like.

Rom 12:19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord.

Heb 10:30 For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE."

Rom 2:1-3 Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. (2) And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. (3) But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?

And finally, deciding for yourself that they are "murdering thugs" is neither your judgment to make nor your vengeance to take, especially when vengeance is indiscriminately applied (because not all of them are "murdering thugs" and not all tax dollars result in "murder") and places additional burden on others (because their taxes make up for yours, while you still benefit directly or indirectly from public facilities and services).

So, however much you misunderstood before, you still misunderstand most of it.

Every Christian is to be submitted to governing authority, to all human institutions, and render all taxes due. But whatever semantic games you're about to respond with, know that God will not be mocked; not by your arguments, and not by our rulers' misuse of our taxes.

Maybe this debate has outlived its usefulness.

As far as you and I are concerned, it has. Here's a final thought:

Mat 12:36-37 "But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment. (37) "For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

Starwind  posted on  2006-12-24   14:45:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The Bible is quite clear and specific on requiring your submission to authority and rendering civil taxes:

Rom 13:1-2 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. (2) Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
Every person includes you, and your disobedience brings condemnation upon you.

Rom 13:5-8 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. (6) For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. (7) Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. (8) Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.

You are to render all taxes that are due.

1Pe 2:13-14 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution,

And no, you don't get to pretend zero taxes are due because you allegedly withdrew from income taxation. You are to submit to every human institution, not just the ones you like.

Starwind, you betray this nation clear back to its Christian roots and the teachings of the Founders and the preachers of the Revolutionary and colonial period.

Your brand of Judeo-Christianity is an affront to all right thinking Christian Americans. You WILL burn in Hell for your treason against your fellow citizens.

http://reformed- >http://theology.org/html/ c_duty.htm

 

Christian Duty Under Corrupt Government
by Ted R. Weiland

 

Ted Weiland is a former rodeo bull rider, current evangelist, and writer who has permitted us to reprint excerpts from his book, "Christian Duty Under Corrupt Government." This book offers an alternative analysis (primarily) of Romans 13:1-7 which is so strong that his work should be studied by anyone who seriously supports or rejects the Religious Right's political activism. [Note: Mr. Weiland prefers to use the Hebrew translation "Yhshua" rather than the name "Jesus" used by most Americans. He also uses the Tetragrammaton, "YHWH" (God's name in the Old Testament name; pronounced "Yahweh"), wherever he believes "it has been incorrectly replaced with the words 'the LORD' or 'GOD'."]

The first seven verses of the 13th chapter of the Apostle Paul's epistle to the Romans are often abused and misused by today's average clergyman. This has resulted in one of the most destructive doctrines that has come out of "Judeo- Christianity" (that segment of Christendom that is heavily influenced by the Talmudic religion of Judaism) 52; the false teaching of total submission to all government authority. This theological mistake has probably contributed more to the loss of Christian dominion than any other false doctrine. Judeo- Christianity relies on the following three passages for its Scriptural basis for this doctrinal error:

Titus 3:1-2: Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to do every good work, to speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

1 Peter 2:13-15: Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him .... For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men.

Romans 13:1-7: Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation .... Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom;fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Much of Judeo-Christianity has interpreted these passages to mean that God sanctions all existing government authority and that we are therefore to submit completely to any authority that happens to rule over us. Further, they teach that resistance to civil authority is rebellion against God Himself (except in the rare instance when someone might be ordered by government to deny Yhshua the Christ) and that God will punish those who rebel.

In fact, the Bible does teach submission to government. However, it teaches a limited submission which is not rendered indiscriminately to any and all who rule. Support for this view can be found from a careful reevaluation of Romans 13:1-7 where we discover Scriptural justification for the type of authority to which Christians are and are not obliged to submit:

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers [governing authorities, New American Standard Version; NASV]. For there is no power [authority, NASV] but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. (Romans 13:1)

This verse is currently interpreted by most clergymen and government officials to mean: "God has established every civil or government authority, and thus Christians are bound to submit totally to whichever government God has placed over them at any given time."

Every authority?

It is remarkable how the teachings of the majority of modem preachers contrast with the views many of our predecessors held concerning submission to government authority. In 1603, speaking before Parliament, even King James I recognized that a ruler's authority has limits: "A king ceases to be a king, and degenerates into a tyrant, as soon as he leaves off to rule according to his laws."¹

In 1643 Pastor Samuel Rutherford wrote Lex, Rex ( The Law and the Prince) in which he explained: "...God hath given no absolute and unlimited power to a king above the law [of God]... ²

"When the magistrate doth anything by violence, and without [outside of] law, in so far doing against his office, he is not a magistrate. Then, say I, that power by which he doth, is not of God. None doth, then, resist the ordinance of God who resist the king in tyrannous acts.³

"Therefore an unjust king, as unjust, is not that genuine ordinance of God .... So we may resist the injustice of the king, and not resist the king. If, then, any cast off the nature of a king, and become habitually a tyrant... he is not from God... If the office of a tyrant... be contrary to a king's office, it is not from God, and so neither is the power from God."⁴

The proper perspective on authority was also introduced by the English philosopher, John Locke: "Where-soever the authority ceases, the king ceases too, and becomes like other men who have no authority."⁵

Many of America's early preachers and founders concurred with Mr. Locke. In a message preached just thirty-six days prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Pastor Samuel West emphatically proclaimed: "In order . . . that we may form a right judgment of the duty enjoined in our text [Titus 3:1, supra], I shall consider the nature and design of civil government, and shall show that the same principles which oblige us to submit to government do equally oblige us to resist tyranny; or that tyranny and magistracy are so opposed to each other that where the one begins the other ends."⁶

Pastor Samuel Cooke, preaching at Cambridge, Massachusetts, on May 30, 1770, declared: "Justice also requires of rulers, in their legislative capacity, that they attend to the operation of their own acts, and repeal whatever laws, upon an impartial review, they find to be inconsistent with the laws of God, the rights of men, and the general benefit to society. This the community hath a right to expect."⁷

In 1765, British jurist Sir William Blackstone put it similarly in his commentaries on English law: "No human laws are of any validity if contrary to [God's Law]."⁸

In 1860, John Wingate Thornton developed this thought further: "We may very safely assert these two things in general without undermining government: One is, that no civil rulers are to be obeyed when they enjoin things that are inconsistent with the commands of God. All such disobedience is lawful and glorious . . . All commands running counter to the declared will of [YHWH] the Supreme Legislator of heaven and earth are null and void, and therefore disobedience to them is a duty, not a crime."⁹

The wrong-headed teaching of many of today's clergy is at odds not only with our founding fathers, but more importantly, with Scripture itself. Consider the words of the Prophet Hosea: "Set the trumpet to thy mouth. He shall come as an eagle against the house of YHWH because they have transgressed my covenant, and trespassed against my law . . . They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not. (Hosea 8:14)

In this passage, disobedient Israelites are described as those who "rebelled against [God's] law;' and "set up kings, but not by [God]." Are we to believe that the omniscient sovereign God actually did not know what these rebellious Israelites were up to? Of course not! Hosea is simply telling us that these rulers were set in positions of authority without God's favor.

No government can exist without God allowing it to do so. However, we must understand that there are two different types of government for two different types of people. A people who have submitted themselves to YHWH's Word are blessed with just and righteous rulers. But those who have willfully rebelled against YHWH's Word are visited with an oppressive government for the purpose of bringing them back into submission to God. Hosea 11:5 provides a graphic example: "... the Assyrian shall be his king, because they [Israel] refused to return [to YHWH]."

While this is true for the wicked, in Romans 13 Paul is addressing a body of believers who have submitted themselves to Yhshua as King, and is instructing them in the concepts of a Christian civil body politic. John Milton, in his book Defense of the People of England, commented on Paul's intent:

"It being very certain that the doctrine of the gospel is neither contrary to reason nor the law of nations, man is truly subject to the higher powers who obey the laws and the magistrates so far as they govern according to law. So that St. Paul does not only command the people, but princes themselves, to be in subjection; who are not above the laws, but bound by them . . . but whatever power enables a man, or whatsoever magistrate takes upon him, to act contrary to what St. Paul makes the duty of those that are in authority, neither is that power nor that magistrate ordained of God. And consequently to such a magistrate no subjection is commanded, nor is any due, nor are the people forbidden to resist such authority; for in so doing they do not resist the power nor the magistracy, as they are here excellently well described, but they resist a robber, a tyrant, an enemy."¹⁰

Theologian Adam Clarke expressed similar sentiments: "Nothing can justify the opposition of the subjects to the ruler but overt attempts on [the ruler's] part to change the constitution, or to rule contrary to law. When the ruler acts thus he dissolves the compact between him and his people; his authority is no longer binding . . . . This conduct justifies opposition to his government."¹¹

Pastor West preached: "Unlimited submission and obedience is due to none but God alone . . . and to suppose that He has given to any particular set of men a power to require obedience to that which is unreasonable, cruel, and unjust is robbing the deity [YHWH] of His justice and goodness."¹²

In 1749 Pastor Jonathan Mayhew argued lucidly against unqualified compliance to civil authority:

"Children are commanded to obey their parents, and servants their masters, in as absolute and unlimited terms as subjects are here commanded to obey their civil rulers . . . . Thus, also wives are commanded to be obedient to their husbands . . . . In all these cases, submission is required in terms at least as absolute and universal as are ever used with respect to rulers and subjects. But who supposes that the apostle ever intended to teach that children, servants, and wives, should, in all cases whatever, obey their parents, masters, and husbands respectively, never making any opposition to their will, even although they should require them to break the commandments of God, or should causelessly make an attempt upon their lives? No one puts such a sense upon these expressions, however absolute and unlimited.

"Why, then, should it be supposed that the apostle designed to teach universal obedience, whether active or passive to the higher powers, merely because his precepts are delivered in absolute and unlimited terms? And if this be a good argument in one case, why is it not in others also? If it be said that resistance and disobedience to the higher powers is here said positively to be a sin, so also is the disobedience of children to parents, servants to masters, and wives to husbands, in other places of Scripture.

"But the question still remains, whether, in all these cases, there be not some exceptions. In the three latter it is allowed there are; and from hence it follows, that... the use of absolute expressions is no proof that obedience to civil rulers is in all cases a duty, or resistance in all cases is a sin."¹³

Pastor Rutherford joined in demonstrating the foolishness of arguing that Christians are to blindly submit to authority under all circumstances: "It is true, so long as kings remain kings, subjection is due to them because [they are] kings; but that is not the question. The question is, if subjection be due to them, when they use their power unlawfully and tyrannically. Whatever David did, though he was a king, he did it not as king; he deflowered not Bathsheba as king, and Bathsheba might with bodily resistance and violence lawfully have resisted king David . . . . "¹⁴

David was a minister of God, and was beloved of God, but was he never to be resisted, simply because he was king? Of course not!

Pastor Cooke pointed out the relationship between those in authority and the laws of God: "Rulers of every degree... are, equally with others, under the restraints of the divine [YHWH's] law. The Almighty has not divested Himself of his own absolute authority by permitting subordinate government among men . . . without true fear of God, justice will be found to be but an empty name."¹⁵

Further, if Christians are required to submit to every authority 52; to which authority would God require them to submit in the midst of a revolution? At such times there would be two competing authorities, and Christians who attempted to conform to the present-day Judeo-Christian interpretation of Romans 13 would find themselves in an impossible position. Common sense tells us there must be something wrong with such a doctrine.

The second clause of Romans 13:1 reads: "For there is no power [authority, NASV] but of God." The literal translation of the original Greek words is not "but" 52; it's "if not."¹⁶ If we replace the word "but," as found in the KJV, with the literal translation, this verse would read: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power if not of God . . . ."

In other words, any civil authority not set up and sanctioned by God and not enforcing His laws is not a legitimate authority, at least not over Christians who have submitted themselves to the Kingship of Yhshua. J.B. Rotherham arrived at the same conclusion in the Emphasized New Testament, when he translated verse 1: "for there is no authority save by God."

Even the Encyclopaedia Britannica reports under the heading "Messiah," that this was the understanding of the early Hebrews: "In the period of the Hebrew monarchy the thought that Yahweh is the divine king of Israel was associated with the conception that the human king reigned by right only if he reigns by commission or 'unction' from him [YHWH]."¹⁷

The latter part of Romans 13:1 reads: ". . . those [authorities] which exist are established by God." To put it another way: "Legitimate authorities are only those established by God." J.B. Phillips obviously understood this when he translated verse 1 in The New Testament in Modern English: "Everyone ought to obey civil authorities, for all legitimate authority is derived from God's authority."

Apparently our early American forefathers' interpretation of verse 1 was much more Scriptural than the one advanced in many churches today.

In his book, Mr. Weiland analyzes the other six verses (Romans 13:2-7), offers a Conclusion which includes the following excerpts:

We can be thankful that many of our early preachers and founding fathers were not encumbered by the false theology so widespread today. They properly understood the question of submission to government and preached and wrote extensively on the subject. Had they followed modern Judeo-Christian notions, the United States of America simply would not exist.

America's Christian forefathers and patriotic citizens were courageous and stood upon the Word of God. They knew they must not surrender to tyrants. In 1773 the following famous proclamation was heralded by the men of Marlborough, Connecticut: "Death is more eligible [at least for some] than slavery. A freeborn people are not required by the religion of Jesus Christ to submit to tyranny. . . . [We] implore the ruler above the skies, that He would bare His arm in defense of His church and people, and let Israel go."⁶⁰ Preachers like West, Cooke, and Mayhew accurately taught early Americans what the Apostle Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write. Consequently, they felt no inhibition for resisting ungodly authority and establishing in its stead an American civil body politic that more closely resembled God's design. Pastor Mayhew answered all of his previous questions with the following ringing declaration:

"It is blasphemy to call tyrants and oppressors God's ministers. They are more properly 'The Messengers of Satan to buffet us.' No rulers are properly God's ministers, but such as are 'just, ruling in the fear of God.' When once magistrates act contrary to their office, and the end of their institution 52; when they rob and ruin the public, instead of being guardians of its peace and welfare 52; they immediately cease to be the ordinance and ministers of God, and no more deserve that glorious character than common pirates and highwaymen."⁶¹

"Thus, upon a careful review of the apostle's reasoning in this passage, it appears that [Paul's] arguments to enforce submission are of such a nature as to conelude only in favor of submission to such rulers as he himself describes; i.e., such as rule for the good of society, which is the only end of their institution. Common tyrants and public oppressors are not entitled to obedience from their subjects by virtue of anything here laid down by the inspired apostle."⁶²

Christians can serve only one master. The consequence of Judeo- Christianity's ambivalence is clearly seen in the John 19:14-15 account of the trial and crucifixion of Yhshua: "and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar."

This is a far cry from the disposition of the first-century Hebrew zealots and the eighteenth-century Christian patriots. The watchword of the zealots was: "No God but Yahweh, no tax but to the Temple ...!"⁶³ The rallying cry of America's early Christian patriots was: "No king but King Jesus;"⁶⁴

If Paul and Peter had lived what modern preachers say they wrote i.e., 52; unconditional submission to King Nero's government 52; then Nero would have never have put them to death. Instead, Paul and Peter would have been lauded and honored as loyal citizens. Caesar put them to death because they preached and lived unconditional submission to King Yhshua and taught disobedience to all antichrist authority. Consider the following unmistakable proof of Acts 17:6-8: "And when they [the Thessalonian Jews] found them [Paul and Silas] not, they drew Jason and certain brethren unto the rulers of the city, crying, These that have turned the world upside down [effecting a change in government by what they were preaching] are come hither also... and these all do [act, NASV] contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, one Yhshua."

Was Yhshua another current king? Yes, definitely! Were these first-century disciples preaching only a future king? If so, the rulers of their day would not have troubled themselves about Him. Christians looked to Yhshua as a reigning King who alone deserved their allegiance. . . .

It is any wonder that the authorities were disturbed in the Apostle Paul's day? They and their system of government were being toppled by this "new" King and by what first-century Christendom was preaching and practicing. Whether modern Christendom understands it or not, the Thessalonian authorities understood that proclaiming Yhshua as Lord and King required unconditional submission only to YHWH and His laws.

Modem Judeo- Christianity calls resistance to tyranny sin against God; whereas true Christianity understands that such resistance is obedience to God. Christians who understand the Apostle Paul's intent in Romans 13 are today's point men. They, as the "salt of the earth" and the "light of the world," are once again "turning the world [order] upside down" for their Lord and King, Yhshua the Christ. May our banner forever be: Obedience To God Rather Than To Men!

[Editor's note: Wieland's fiery book ends with a more moderate "Epilogue" by Pastor James Bruggeman: ]

America has been enslaved economically if not (yet) militarily. The process of enslavement has been so gradual and so subtle that most Americans still have not recognized their bondage-captivity...

Recently, however, many more Americans are being awakened to the true state of affairs, namely their bondage .... But those who understand Romans 13 properly, along with understanding the whole counsel of God in relation to government, are confronted with a dilemma: At what point of government oppression is civil disobedience and/or resistance in order?

Since the possible scenarios are myriad, we cannot give any more than general guidelines. We must look to Scriptural examples. At what point did the Hebrew midwives practice civil disobedience? At what point did Daniel defy King Nebuchadnezzar? When did Daniel's three friends rebel against this same king? Upon reflection of these incidents, it becomes apparent that just because our present government may be increasingly oppressive, that does not give carte blanche to any and all citizens to refuse to obey whatever laws and regulations they choose.

To cite one case history from the Scriptures, we can be certain that many laws, rules, and regulations in Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon galled Daniel severely. For example, if Babylon required a license for one to drive a chariot, our guess is that Daniel had one. Remember, Daniel was not only "in the system," he was a very high government official in Babylon. His was an Old Testament example of "being in the world, but not of the world." Daniel recognized that his people's captivity was a God-sent chastisement. Yet, he drew the line when a "federal law" prohibited him from praying to his God. We would do well to study this and other such Biblical examples.

In summary, while there may be some who are called to fight the present, ungodly system via court challenges, common law, the Constitution, etc., we do not believe nor expect that everyone who comes to the proper understanding of Romans 13 must therefore revoke his driver's license, marriage license, Social Security number, insurance policies, etc., and "fight the system." Each person must by much' prayer, Scripture study, counsel from others, and study of current conditions, come to the conclusion for himself concerning what God is calling him to do at this critical time in history. "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

Pastor Bruggeman's moderating Epilogue implies that even the Religious Right and Fundamentalist communities are reluctant to release the passions of faith into the body politic. The lessons of history 52; especially the first American Revolution 52; make it clear that an unbridled Christianity can be an awesome political force. Instead of calling for a revolution, author Weiland seems only to warn that if the principles of the Religious Right concerning issues like school prayer and abortion are not given enough political space to survive, another American revolution fueled by religion may in fact occur.

 

Footnotes:

¹ King James I, quoted by John Wingate Thornton. The Pulpit of the American Revolution Political Sermons of the Period of 1776 (New York: Da Capo Press, 1970) p.74.

² Pastor Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex, or The Law and the Prince (Originally printed in London for John Field, October 7, 1644) (Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1982) p. 101.

³ Rutherford, p.103.

⁴ Rutherford, p.117.

⁵ John Locke, quoted by Thornton, supra p.74.

⁶ Pastor Samuel West quoted by Thornton, supra p.270.

⁷ Pastor Samuel Cooke quoted by Thornton, supra p. 167.

⁸ Sir William Blackstone, Blackstone's Commentaries (Philadelphia: George W. Childs Publisher, 1870) Vol. l, p.41.

⁹ Thornton, supra p.86.

¹⁰ John Milton, quoted by Thornton, supra pp. 67- 68.

¹¹ Adam Clarke, Commentary and Critical Notes (Nashville, New York: Abingdon Press, 1831 ) Vol. VI, p. 145.

¹² Pastor Samuel West quoted by Thornton, supra p.283.

¹³ Pastor Jonathan Mayhew quoted by Thornton, supra pp.65-66.

¹⁴ Rutherford, p. 149.

¹⁵ Cooke, quoted by Thornton, p. 168.

¹⁶ Wesley J. Perschbacher, The New Analytical Greek Lexicon (Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1990) p.119.

¹⁷ "Messiah," Encyclopaedia Britannica 11th Ed. (Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1910-1911) Vol. 18, p.192.

⁶⁰ The Men of Marlborough, Connecticut, quoted by George Bancroft, History of the United States (Boston: Little Brown and Co., 1854) Vol. VI, p.442.

⁶¹ Mayhew quoted by Thornton, supra, pp73-74.

⁶² Mayhew, quoted by Thornton, supra p.78.

⁶³ Quoted by Abram Leon Sachar, A History of the Jews (Alfred A. Knopf, 1968) p.I 17.

⁶⁴ Committees of Correspondence, quoted by Cushing Strout in The New Heavens and the New Earth (Harper & Row Publishers, 1974) p.59. l

More results for Christian Duty Under Corrupt Government

BTP Holdings  posted on  2006-12-24   18:28:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

To cite one case history from the Scriptures, we can be certain that many laws, rules, and regulations in Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon galled Daniel severely. For example, if Babylon required a license for one to drive a chariot, our guess is that Daniel had one. Remember, Daniel was not only "in the system," he was a very high government official in Babylon. His was an Old Testament example of "being in the world, but not of the world." Daniel recognized that his people's captivity was a God-sent chastisement. Yet, he drew the line when a "federal law" prohibited him from praying to his God. We would do well to study this and other such Biblical examples.

The very first chapter of the Book of Daniel is very telling. The time period is long after the "House of Israel" (10 Northern Tribes) had been taken captive to Assyria never to return to Jerusalem.

There we are informed that the Judahites have been taken to Babylon and the most promising youth (royals) were to be trained in the [Talmudic] ways of the Babylonians by one "Ashpenaz" [Looks a little like "Ashkenaz" and I'd bet there is an ethnic relationship]. (I added the word Talmudic, but these are the traditions of men, or sometimes described as the traditions of the elders, which Jesus is said to have railed against because he said "your laws make my Father's laws of no effect".

The Talmud is the codified version of these laws that were previously handed down orally. These "laws" were and are similar in many ways to the codes, statutes, case-law, regulations, rules and procedures etc., ad nauseum that permeate the complex system of ridiculous regulation managed and monitored by pettifogging perverts of truth in our country today. This is why many Bible believers think we're living in a virtual Babylon complete with the number of the beast, bowing to baal, etc., and the reason we are instructed by Scripture to "come out of her my children".

The Judahites and their descendants that brought this belief (legal) system back with them to Jerusalem (and the 1st Synagogues too) we call JEWS. The 10 Tribes of Israel were never "JEWS" in the strictest sense of the word, never were taught Babylonian Talmudic philosophy, nor did they ever have a synagogue, only 2 Tribes Judahites and a very small portion of Benjamites can be called JEWS.

Modern Christians focus their learning on the New Testament and the writings of Paul to the exclusion of the Old Testament and even to a degree the teachings of Christ. I have a hunch that the Old Testament Manuscripts/Transcripts had been around, reprinted, copied and read for so many centuries that the general knowledge of them was too well known for them to be changed much, but what we call the New Testament didn't exist at the time of Jesus, was developed as we know it by a Pagan named Constantine in 325 A.D. in my opinion to unify the Roman Empire. Most of the New Testament (75-80%) consists of Pauls writings, which Peter described as difficult (hard), and which neither Paul or Peter were around to verify their validity.

Suffice it to say that many scholars find it difficult to justify the Old Testament and New Testament regarding consistencies, while others go so far as to claim two different Gods inspired the two Testaments. My point is not to argue these opinions but rather to ask that people have an open mind to the possibility that politics may have played a more significant part in establishing the content of the New Testament than the Old Testament.

Many modern Churches and their leaders admit that the church as we know it might not even exist without the writings of Paul, and I agree. In many instances I think they should rename their faith as "Paulianity". A pattern or trend has developed especially concerning the support for government supremecy or blind obedience to so-called leaders that arises relative to scriptural support for it.

This argument usually doesn't exist among the general "Christian Community" because they aren't studied enough to even develop the pertinent questions because they are casual in their faith and allow seminary trained theologians to instruct them without verifying what they're being taught.

I know that one Scripture claims that God is not the author of confusion (then who is ?) but some confusion must be admitted. The word Babel means "confusion" and the word Babylon comes from the word Babel. [I believe that all of the major Empires were and are heavily influenced by Babylonian [Talmudic] philosophy, especially with respect to controlling the masses through legal codes, rhetoric, propaganda and disputations that keep the people from unifying in their own best interests.] I should note here that Jesus never had a good word for the lawyers of his day, only the "Woes" (woe unto you etc.), which was the equivalent of fuck you in His day, and was probably made to sound more civil by the English translators of Scripture.

This forum has a lot of well informed and learned participants. Those that are students of history, laws, and Scriptural writings will have to admit at some point that every major Empire including the current NWO scum have the Babylonian fingerprint, and their M.O. seems to never change.

The debate rages on this particular thread between knowledgeable people that are so far apart in their determinations of "right and wrong" that it's almost funny ... except that we will suffer the same destruction experienced by every former empire or culture unless we can unify against those ruling our people with total disregard for us, our children, them, whomever they choose to be our current enemy, their children, and even the earth itself. They rule through chaos and destruction, murder and mayhem ... the inherent characteristics of satan.

Having differing views relative to Scriptural writings is nothing new, and I would admit that better minds than mine that have studied longer, harder and better than me, on any given issue can disagree.

So, I think we can afford to have different opinions easy enough but we can't afford to be divided. This country, more than any of its predecessors, had a stubborn bunch involved in its beginnings that tried their best to put certain things above the reach of others present at the same time that wanted a new Roman Empire or New Atlantis ... or in other words a fascist state. And while they did their best, we (including our recent ancestors) have fallen asleep only to realize that fascists never sleep, have all the money, guns, laws, and toadies for terrorism.

The pettiness of tax arguments, or religious opinions that really become ego contests serve no good purpose. We have a real fucking problem that can only be solved by sober adults ... not a bunch of self-absorbed ego-maniac brats.

We can do better, and we should if only for our posterity.

Jesus said to his apostles, "How can I teach you heavenly things when you can't even undertsand earthly things" ? I think we deserve that remark as much as they did if not more, and we should give it some serious consideration.

noone222  posted on  2006-12-25   7:31:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Excellent. The idea that we should do nothing but go to the camps and wait until we die for God to do something is BS.

IndieTX  posted on  2006-12-26   2:02:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#69. To: IndieTX (#68)

Irrespective of religious beliefs most people in the U.S. know things are happening that are counter to our cultural past. The insidious spy camera network, road blocks, internment camps, Homeland Security, high-level corruption in government, destruction or debauchery of the currency, unwieldy debt, outsourcing jobs and insourcing the unemployed, S.W.A.T. military styled goon units designed to attack civilian populations ... it all adds up to nothing good that most people are capable of noticing to some degree.

Those that are keenly aware of the negatives and willing to openly discuss them are considered hyper-paranoid by others that are undergoing deep seated cognitive dissonance similar to that experienced by rape and incest victims unable to deal with the truth of their circumstance.

The movie "V" for Vendetta demonstrates the only power we have, and that is us, "ALL" of us. If we are to have any ability to radically change the direction we're headed it will take a mass awareness/eductional program, and a willingness on the part of everyone to at least agree to remain free, or get free again depending on how one views our current situation.

25 years I have watched the so-called Patriot community approach unity only to let meaningless argument and stubbornness divide people. Getting past this obstacle may require "a catalyzing event" or the implementation of some law that everyone finds abhorrent ...

Life without freedom doesn't appeal to me. I wonder if the revolutionaries of 18th century America were hindered by as much apathy as we are in the 21st.

noone222  posted on  2006-12-26 06:12:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]