The Highway

Is the Following Legit?

Posted By: Tom

Is the Following Legit? - Sun Nov 11, 2018 7:40 AM

https://christianaction.org/city-or...wQsFmHYicUZXqYIAaQsLMUT-y5p4ep9JYa_LISTk

Tom
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Is the Following Legit? - Sun Nov 11, 2018 12:05 PM

I have no idea if this is actually true. shrug However, it is certainly possible given the inroads that the homosexual agenda has made over the past few years. I read all the comments after the article and many were very sad indeed, but again not surprising. One particular view stuck out over others that were held among those who commented, "God loves the sinner, but hates the sin."... See Gerstner's antidote to this view here: Does God Love the Sinner and Hate Only His Sin?.

It is only a matter of time before this type of issue becomes widespread. One of the comments wisely wrote that many thought that once the homosexual agenda won the legal battle over homosexual marriage that would be the end of it, but in fact, it was only the beginning and it won't end until acceptance, not just tolerance, of this abominable sin is forced upon every person.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Is the Following Legit? - Mon Nov 12, 2018 1:29 AM

Yes it is sad and it would not surprise me if it is true. This would fit right in with the left's agenda, which is basically tolerant to all but those who disagree with them. Yet, I do not want to
I have been reading the U.S. Constitution lately and I think it is quite clear that the document is not a living document like it is being interpreted today. Come to think about it, this is similar to much of so called Christianity today. They reflect the world, when it comes to the interpretation of Scripture; rather than the author intent of Scripture.

I also read the comment section and noticed the comment "God loves the sinner, but hates the sin." almost right away. However I chose to ignore it, because it is very typical in Arminian theology.

Tom
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Is the Following Legit? - Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:33 AM

1. The U.S. Constitution is NOT a "living document" which can be clearly seen from the actual text and affirmed by the various writers of the "Federalist Papers". During one of the debates for the 2016 presidential election, it was asked of both candidates; Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, what they thought of the U.S. Constitution. Clinton answered openly that she believed the Constitution was a living document and must be interpreted and applied according to contemporary social, economic, etc. views. Trump, however, said that the Constitution was not a flexible document but one that was meant to be read, understood and applied as it was originally intended by its authors. That view was the #1 basis for Trump's appointing candidates to the U.S. Supreme Court.

2. Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads:

Quote
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

a. the free exercise of religion is a guaranteed right which the Left and some of the Right desire to be and which already has been violated by the enactment of "Discrimination Laws". These new laws take precedence over both the freedom of religion clause but also the freedom of speech clause.
Although it would be prudent, IMO, for all legitimate churches to not apply for tax exempt status, which the courts have already ruled that states should provide this status to the church, because by being tax exempt, the church is thereby under government rules and regulations. However, even without being under such arbitrary government rules and regulations, this Leftist agenda to make these Discrimination Laws, or better Non-Discrimination Laws the supreme rule of the land under which all other laws are to be subject.

3. Lastly, in the past, the U.S. Supreme Court has overstepped its authority and legislated law rather than interpreting the existing law and applying it appropriately. Of course, one of the most well known instances of the SCOTUS doing this was "Roe vs. Wade" and more recently the issue of Homosexual Marriage. State courts are no less guilty of doing this as well. It is admitted by the Left, that their ultimate objective is to rid the U.S. of the Constitution and establish Socialism/Communism. This attempt will probably take many years, and may not ever succeed, although I believe it eventually will succeed. However, what they have effectively done is to reinterpret the Constitution or totally ignore it through liberal appointed judges and their rulings.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Is the Following Legit? - Mon Nov 12, 2018 6:40 PM

Pilgrim
This is exactly what I was referring to when I said the U.S. Constitution is not a living document. I appreciate you expanding on this however.

I was wondering if you would mind if I shared this with some people?

Tom
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Is the Following Legit? - Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:25 PM

Originally Posted by Tom

I was wondering if you would mind if I shared this with some people?

nope I don't mind. grin
Posted By: Meta4

Re: Is the Following Legit? - Mon Nov 12, 2018 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by Pilgrim
Although it would be prudent, IMO, for all legitimate churches to not apply for tax exempt status, which the courts have already ruled that states should provide this status to the church, because by being tax exempt, the church is thereby under government rules and regulations.

While I have long held that true churches should not seek tax exemption, your statement provides opportunity for me to ask another question which I have been wondering about.

When I visit various church services via the Internet (eg. sermonaudio), it seems that very nearly every church in the U.S. displays the U.S. flag prominently, up front. But I'm not sure whether I have ever seen a national flag displayed in any church outside the U.S. Is this a requirement (either official, or perhaps unofficially) of having tax exempt status granted?
Posted By: Tom

Re: Is the Following Legit? - Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:31 AM

Thankyou, Pilgrim
Posted By: Tom

Re: Is the Following Legit? - Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:37 AM

Meta4
I can't really speak about the flag issue, seeing I have no knowledge of that subject.
However, I have no problem with having tax exempt status, provided it doesn't regulate what a Church can and can not teach. The moment, the government starts doing that, is the moment they should give up their tax exempt status.


Tom
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Is the Following Legit? - Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:13 PM

Originally Posted by Meta4

When I visit various church services via the Internet (eg. sermonaudio), it seems that very nearly every church in the U.S. displays the U.S. flag prominently, up front. But I'm not sure whether I have ever seen a national flag displayed in any church outside the U.S. Is this a requirement (either official, or perhaps unofficially) of having tax exempt status granted?

Interesting question..... and one I cannot definitively answer. However, to my limited knowledge, there is no official nor unofficial regulation or policy that the American Flag be displayed. My guess, which is just that at best is that displaying the flag is a tradition that perhaps began after the country was founded and the flag became its symbol (of freedom). In the beginning, the government was far more amiable toward the states and territories that gave allegiance to the country and its flag. One can easily see this by reading the preamble+ to the Declaration of Independence:

Quote
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

And, as I have quoted above from the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, where the founders wrote in its Bill of Rights, that all men are to be guaranteed the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech. To guard and protect the freedoms of all citizens, and to the angst of half of the citizenry and those whom they elect to government; the Progressive Left, aka: Socialist, the founders immediately after in the Second Amendment wrote:

Quote
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Thomas Jefferson is claimed to have written or spoken the reason for the Second Amendment: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." In addition, this reason, in various forms is found in the Federalist Papers and other sources during the time of the nation's founding.
Posted By: Meta4

Re: Is the Following Legit? - Tue Nov 13, 2018 6:27 PM

Originally Posted by Tom
Meta4
I can't really speak about the flag issue, seeing I have no knowledge of that subject.
However, I have no problem with having tax exempt status, provided it doesn't regulate what a Church can and can not teach. The moment, the government starts doing that, is the moment they should give up their tax exempt status.


Tom

Tom,
When a government wishes to regulate religion, it won't be based solely upon taxes, though that indeed may be a part of it. But, even should there be no specific regulation, tax exemption implicitly ties the church and state together, and does influence the church and its membership. I know this is not a popular view; that most all in churches favor exemption status not only for, nor perhaps even primarily for, the sake of the church, but rather for their own tax deductions on what they give.

However, I don't wish to highjack this thread from its original subject.


Pilgrim, thanks for the response. I suppose the display of the flag has more behind it than tax status alone, though I suspect that could be a part of it.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Is the Following Legit? - Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:51 AM

Meta4

I know you said you did not wish to highjack this thread. However, I think this is too important not to say more.
You stated:
Quote
tax exemption implicitly ties the church and state together, and does influence the church and its membership.


Can you give examples of how this has actually caused a negative effect on what a Church is able to teach?
As I said before, if it starts effecting along those lines; the Church needs give up their tax exempt status. However, until then tax exempt status provides more positives than negatives.
I do agree with you that if the government wishes to regulate religion it will not solely be based on taxes.

Tom
Posted By: Tom

Re: Is the Following Legit? - Tue Nov 27, 2018 4:46 AM

Pilgrim

I have been sharing what you wrote. Up until now, I haven't received any feedback until the following which I am not completely sure what it really means.
Quote
As Patrick Buchanan and many others have pointed out for many years, the concept of judicial review, which began with Marbury v Madison (1803), would need to be done away with before we could ever attempt a return to the principles of the US Constitution. This, of course, will never happen. As Michael Hoffman has said, "In the religion that is directed by the Talmud, there is no legislature. All laws are made by judicial decision. It just so happens that this is how much of the supreme law of the land is made in America. Another name for “activist judge” is Talmudic judge."


Do you?

Tom
Posted By: Pilgrim

Re: Is the Following Legit? - Thu Nov 29, 2018 9:07 PM

It simply means that the SCOTUS too often legislates (creates laws) rather doing what it is supposed to do; apply the law AS IT WAS INTENDED. The Roe vs. Wade case on abortion which the Supreme Court ruled on the legitimacy of abortion was NOT Constitutional. The court made up their own law instead of applying the law. IF they had done that, then abortion would be illegal because it murders an innocent human life according to the whim(s) of a woman. Many other rulings by the SCOTUS could be given to show that the judges who sit on that bench have overstepped their authority and even ignored the Constitution which they swore to uphold.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Is the Following Legit? - Fri Nov 30, 2018 3:19 AM

Thank you
Posted By: goldenoldie

Re: Is the Following Legit? - Tue Dec 04, 2018 5:55 PM

Originally Posted by Tom
Pilgrim

I have been sharing what you wrote. Up until now, I haven't received any feedback until the following which I am not completely sure what it really means.
Quote
As Patrick Buchanan and many others have pointed out for many years, the concept of judicial review, which began with Marbury v Madison (1803), would need to be done away with before we could ever attempt a return to the principles of the US Constitution. This, of course, will never happen. As Michael Hoffman has said, "In the religion that is directed by the Talmud, there is no legislature. All laws are made by judicial decision. It just so happens that this is how much of the supreme law of the land is made in America. Another name for “activist judge” is Talmudic judge."


Do you?

Tom



The quote from Michael Hoffman is the key.

America, and Western civilization, are Christian. However, Talmudic religion (Judaism) has made significant inroads into our political, financial, academic, media, and social institutions. Much of American evangelicalism is pro-Israel, based on a faulty understanding of the Abrahamic covenant, which was made by God with Abraham and his seed, Jesus Christ (and all those in Him)—not the physical descendants of Abraham, or the proselytes who joined themselves to Judaism after the fall of Jerusalem. Many still regard Jews as "brethren of a kindred spirit" when the Apostle John clearly identifies their spirit as the spirit of antichrist, and Christ himself denies that they are Jews (Rev. 2:9, 3:9).

Judaism is based on the Talmud, and NOT the Old Testament. Michael Hoffman's book, "Judaism's Strange Gods" is a good introduction to this religion that is really the legacy of the Pharisees and Saducees.

The Christian ethic is not the Talmudic ethic. There are no Judeo-Christian ethics or values, just as there is no Judeo Christ.
Posted By: Tom

Re: Is the Following Legit? - Thu Dec 06, 2018 4:22 AM

Thankyou for that information.

I thought I would study a bit to familiarize myself with what Rabbinical Judaism believe about the Torah and the Talmud. Below are some of the basics.
The Talmud is basically a discussion of what the Torah (5 books of Moses) mean. Jews can study both the Torah and Talmud. Talmud means “instruction” in Hebrew.
Jews believe God gave the Torah and Rabbis gave the Talmud. The Talmud was canonized between 3rd and 5th century AD. They believe that the Torah is of divine origin and the Talmud is divinely inspired. So the Talmud would carry a lot more weight than a commentary in their view. “Torah is the administrator's guide, Talmud is the user's guide.” Or as someone else put it: “The Torah is like a Constitution, for instance that of the United States. It's written and it cannot be amended.
The Talmud is like the Supreme Court rulings, which show how to interpret the constitution.”
Although the Talmud is much longer that the Torah. It can be summed up as followed: “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah. The rest is commentary.” Rabbi Hillel
To a Rabbinical Jew, to study and obey the Talmud, is to obey the Torah explained in commentary.

Tom
Posted By: goldenoldie

Re: Is the Following Legit? - Thu Dec 06, 2018 3:38 PM

You're welcome, Tom!

He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. [1Jo 5:10-12]

Any religion can prescribe moral rules; Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. all do. But what makes Talmudic Judaism so reprehensible is its explicit denial of and hatred for Jesus Messiah. This is well documented in the NT, and even the OT.

As for Hillel’s quote, it is merely the negative form of the Golden Rule that even Confucius teaches, a cunning twist on the GR so that it’s possible to earn works righteousness.

The Talmud is not a godly commentary on the Torah; it is the tradition of the [Jewish] elders that overturns the Word of God, to which they pay lip service. There are numerous, well documented quotes from the Talmud that expose a shocking level of Christ-, Christian- and gentile-hatred, sexual perversion, deceit, usury and gross idolatry, but the Talmudists cleverly cover this up. It’s like the crooked businessman—there’s one set of books for private use, and another for the tax man. And when a scholarly attempt is made at uncovering this, the weapon they wield most effectively is the charge of antisemitism, by which they also control the overton window.

Michael Hoffman, Ron Unz and Israel Shahak are Jews whose eyes have been opened, and they write in order that others’ eyes may see, too. Judaism is just as antichristian as Islam, but much more dangerous because of its devious subtlety. Islam is the part of the iceberg that is visible, whereas Judaism lurks below the surface.

A good place to start is Ron Unz’s recent article, American Pravda: Oddities of the Jewish Religion
http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-oddities-of-the-jewish-religion/

Israel Shahak reveals the Zionistic mindset at the core of the modern state of Israel in his short but weighty Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years
https://ifamericaknew.org/cur_sit/shahak.html

Michael Hoffman is accessible and essential reading: Judaism’s Strange Gods
https://www.amazon.com/Judaisms-Strange-Gods-Michael-Hoffman/dp/0970378408/

For details of what’s in the Talmud, look at Johann Andreas Eisenmenger’s Rabbinical Literature: or, The traditions of the Jews, contained in their Talmud and other mystical writings
https://archive.org/details/rabinicalliterat01eise/page/n7

If you prefer audiovisual media, Hoffman’s book is summarized in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Po_cSMoCZ6w

Behold, your house is left unto you desolate: and verily I say unto you, Ye shall not see me, until the time come when ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord. [Luk 13:35]

Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. [Rev. 3:9]
Posted By: Tom

Re: Is the Following Legit? - Fri Dec 07, 2018 3:36 AM

Just to clarify, the information I provided was in no way an endorsement of Rabbinical Judaism. It had more to do with what they claim it to be.
The fact that Jesus said in John 8:39 “They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham.” KJV
Should prove that the Talmud does not accurately reflect the Torah.
Tom
Posted By: Tom

Re: Is the Following Legit? - Sat Dec 08, 2018 3:53 AM

Here is a question concerning the Talmud. The Talmud was put in written form between the years 200-400. Before that the Talmud was taught in oral form. I am not clear on the exact date of the Talmud started. However it appears that during the time of Jesus ministry on earth, it was present, seeing it is the work of Pharasees.
My question has to do with Jesus conversation with the Jews in John 8:39-47. In verse 44 Jesus said "Ye are of your father the devil,..."

.Would it be correct to say that these people followed the Talmud?

Tom
Posted By: goldenoldie

Re: Is the Following Legit? - Sun Dec 09, 2018 1:00 PM

Yes, Tom.

The "traditions of the elders" were codified later with anti-Christian invective added, after the fall of Jerusalem and the increase in the number of Christian converts. The chasm widened further, and can only be closed in the heart by the birth from above.
© 2019 The Highway