501(c) status

[MemeFan]

I don't get why some people here are so obsessed that 501(c) must be source of corruption.

Check this:

What If We Taxed Churches?

“If churches paid taxes,” runs a popular claim on social media (hashtag #taxthechurches), “everyone would only have to pay 3 percent taxes.” Whether spurred by a belief that government is improperly favoring religious institutions, an antipathy to wealthy celebrity pastors, or a hope that taxing...

taxfoundation.org

So pastor pay both income and payroll (social security) taxes. They don't practically any other special benefit. And free housing isn't special. Regular people can use deduction for mortage.

And pastor can ask to be free from social security taxes which is irreversible decision where block him from using social security in future. Amish have same deal.

Any non-profit is free from property taxes and corporate income tax (tax on profit).

And first amendment is, in general sense, wonderful protection, same as for any other non-profit.

So I don't see any special deal that church gets for "being state servant". So, no special reason why would they be forcing state ideology.

If there is any reason, way more defensible would be corruption by Rockfeller money which made pastors push more progressivism and centralization which became standard population ideology which most pastors aren't willing to rock.

 

[MeganC]

My fellowship ditched the 501(c)(3) thing and we don't have bank accounts or anything else. We tithe in other directions. But that also means we're free to discuss politics on Sunday.

The First Century Christians really knew what they were doing with their lightly organized faith.

 

[Mark C]

Real simple:


Read the statutes. See what they can, and are NOT allowed to preach. Understand "jurisdiction." And why that State can DEMAND masks, injection, fealty, and shut down its creation at its whim.

You cannot serve two masters. And a 'church' that 'incorporates' and pledges thereby to be bound by the rules of the corporate state has 'another creator'.


And it sure as hell ain't YHVH.

 

[Mark C]

Oh, so wrong:

I don't get why some people here are so obsessed thst 501(c) must be source of corruption.

"It's about Who is to be Master, that is all."

- Humpty Dumpty, to Alice in Through the Looking Glass.

"Corruption" is merely a side-effect of replacing Him.

And first amendment is, in general sense, wonderful protection, [rest immaterial - cause it it NOT!] same as for any other non-profit.

So read that. It says "Congress shall make NO law...prohibiting the free exercise [of religion.]

And here comes that jurisdiction thing:

UNLESS the 'corporate entity' - creation of the Almighty State - is STUPID ENOUGH to ASK for it, and 'cede jurisdiction' to that 'other master.'

 

[Michael Moon]

What is the immediate path forward for 501c(3) churches? Stay incorporated but become for profit? Or just destroy the corporation and (to a certain extent) de-organize?

And what about Private Christian Schools?

 

[Mark C]

Do you prefer the 'benefits' of the Almighty State? Or the ones He promises?

 

[Mark C]

What is the immediate path forward for 501c(3) churches? Stay incorporated but become for profit? Or just destroy the corporation and (to a certain extent) de-organize?

And what about Private Christian Schools?

Once the Adversary has his hooks in, he will NOT turn loose. (See "Pastor Greg Dixon, Jr. and Sr., and the Indianapolis Baptist Temple." They found out the hard way; I later interviewed the son, and our fellowship took that lesson to heart.)

 

[Michael Moon]

Once the Adversary has his hooks in, he will NOT turn loose. (See "Pastor Greg Dixon, Jr. and Sr., and the Indianapolis Baptist Temple." They found out the hard way; I later interviewed the son, and our fellowship took that lesson to heart.)

I'll look into that. Just to note, I agree with the sentiment against 501(c)3 churches (somewhat hypocritically, as I attend one).

My question is about the practical next step. Surely there is a way for an assembly to move away from this. What should they do first?

 

[Mark C]

Read the IBT story. They tried to "disincorporate" - thinking they could keep buildings, etc.
And found federal Gestapo saying violently otherwise.

DON'T make the 'deal with the devil.' The only way out is to 'come out of her.'

 

[MemeFan]

Read the statutes. See what they can, and are NOT allowed to preach. Understand "jurisdiction." And why that State can DEMAND masks, injection, fealty, and shut down its creation at its whim.

You can also provide summary.

You cannot serve two masters. And a 'church' that 'incorporates' and pledges thereby to be bound by the rules of the corporate state has 'another creator'.

Oh, please stop with two masters. Topic is why modern church is so submissive towards the state. Money isn't reason. Then what else is?

And if answer is that 501(c) status forbids political talk, why are you suprised? Off course it. If you want do political presentation start political party or debate club. This is OK and expected rule. Do you want religious or political organization?

And corporations do incorporation and nobody seem them as arm of state. So it doesn't matter.

And nobody today has ceded any jurisdiction because you can't. Literally all Enlightenment
political theories start with assumption that since you have accepted being part of group, this same group has absolute right to enforce any laws against you, including all those you disagree with.

There is no concept of voluntary laws for person, only group laws made by group/monarch. And without ability to voluntary accept/reject any law, you can't accept some else jurisdiction except by moving into another state. Why? Because group while making laws, will also have to create court system which you must use. So jurisdiction decision will be made for you.

Unless you prefer creating another legal system which will make you rebel.

 

[Mark C]

You can also provide summary.

I did. But you ignore the entire concept of 'jurisdiction'. Who do we serve?

Oh, please stop with two masters. Topic is why modern church is so submissive towards the state. Money isn't reason. Then what else is?

Tell that to the Messiah. Do you believe Him or NOT?

And I've already answered it: jurisdiction. If you can't be bothered to study a bit, why don't you just accept His Word for it?

Why did they close during covid? Why are they muzzled when they should "speak the Truth boldly!"

Try this: "If YHVH be God, serve Him. But if Baal be god, then serve him."

This is NOT hard.

And if answer is that 501(c) status forbids political talk, why are you suprised? Off course it.

Of COURSE it does. And anything that the Almighty State wants to force you to do - from funding abortion, to cutting the genitals off of pre-teens, to - well, look AROUND, man! - is "political."

Honestly, the rest of that comment is just plain stupid. It shows you really don't have a clue what the real issue is. Or why the Founders rejected a State Church (and people like William Penn came here to begin with.)

But this shows a FUNDAMENTAL ignorance:

Unless you prefer creating another legal system which will make you rebel.

The Founders DID. It was based on "self-evident Truths" that are now VERBOTTEN, especially in the Whore Church and Whore Synagogue - both of which serve 'another master.'

 

[The Revolting Man]

Why is applying the tax code, as stupid as the tax code is, a spiritual issue? I have unwillingly laid my taxes for decades and have never once yet signed anything that contained any spiritual clauses, soul binding bargains or blood rituals.

 

[Mark C]

Why is applying the tax code, as stupid as the tax code is, a spiritual issue? I have unwillingly laid my taxes for decades and have never once yet signed anything that contained any spiritual clauses, soul binding bargains or blood rituals.

How do you know?

(Everybody should know this: When you sign a document "under penalty of perjury" it is a voluntary renunciation of the Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination. Even if you have a sense that it is coerced.)

While not germane to individual situations, a 501c(3) request/incorporation is 100% VOLUNTARY - NOT required. Look at the corporate documents: See who the 'creator' of that resulting entity is!!! And thus who writes the rules for it; what it may, or may not, do.

You individual status is irrelevant.

But you still have a choice as to Who you serve. And are expected to exercise discernment.

 

[The Revolting Man]

How do you know?

(Everybody should know this: When you sign a document "under penalty of perjury" it is a voluntary renunciation of the Fifth Amendment Right against self-incrimination. Even if you have a sense that it is coerced.)

While not germane to individual situations, a 501c(3) request/incorporation is 100% VOLUNTARY - NOT required. Look at the corporate documents: See who the 'creator' of that resulting entity is!!! And thus who writes the rules for it; what it may, or may not, do.

You individual status is irrelevant.

But you still have a choice as to Who you serve. And are expected to exercise discernment.

It should be easy enough to find and publish the perpetual spiritual servitude clause of any contract. I assume all nonprofits fall under this soul ownership transfer? So crisis pregnancy centers and animal shelters are also swirling vortexes of eternal damnation? Can anyone participate in the tax code without selling their soul to a Satan?

 

[Mark C]

You've changed the subject of the thread, which was 501c(3) incorporation of corporate entities, and the jurisdiction to which they submit. Moderate yourself.

But - you obviously don't understand the legal concept called "adherent contracts," or clauses. They are LEGION, from "warranty for a specific purpose," to "you knew or should have known..."

Oh - and don't forget, "abide by ALL the laws of the State of..." - now and future. (There used to be an "ex post facto" prohibition in the Constitution. No more; ask the ATF.)

 

[MeganC]

ask the ATF.)

The ATF got spanked with the Supreme Court's bump stock decision and their reversal of Chevron Deference.

There will be no more ATF or other Deep State bureaucracies inventing and enforcing laws where none existed. Look for the EPA and Biden's EV mandates to get tossed out in short order.

 

[The Revolting Man]

You've changed the subject of the thread, which was 501c(3) incorporation of corporate entities, and the jurisdiction to which they submit. Moderate yourself.

But - you obviously don't understand the legal concept called "adherent contracts," or clauses. They are LEGION, from "warranty for a specific purpose," to "you knew or should have known..."

Oh - and don't forget, "abide by ALL the laws of the State of..." - now and future. (There used to be an "ex post facto" prohibition in the Constitution. No more; ask the ATF.)

I’m questioning the premise of the topic. Our tax code is extremely bad policy. It is not spiritually binding. And what I do know about a contract is that for any provision to be valid it actually has to be laid out in the contract. So show me the contract. This should be an easy dunk.

 

[MemeFan]

I did. But you ignore the entire concept of 'jurisdiction'. Who do we serve?

Tell that to the Messiah. Do you believe Him or NOT?

And I've already answered it: jurisdiction. If you can't be bothered to study a bit, why don't you just accept His Word for it?

Why did they close during covid? Why are they muzzled when they should "speak the Truth boldly!"

Try this: "If YHVH be God, serve Him. But if Baal be god, then serve him."

This is NOT hard.


Of COURSE it does. And anything that the Almighty State wants to force you to do - from funding abortion, to cutting the genitals off of pre-teens, to - well, look AROUND, man! - is "political."

Honestly, the rest of that comment is just plain stupid. It shows you really don't have a clue what the real issue is. Or why the Founders rejected a State Church (and people like William Penn came here to begin with.)

But this shows a FUNDAMENTAL ignorance:


The Founders DID. It was based on "self-evident Truths" that are now VERBOTTEN, especially in the Whore Church and Whore Synagogue - both of which serve 'another master.'

What jurisdiction has with this?



It's either about who is in charge or which court has right to hear matter. Unless somebody opens legal case then which court is irrelevant and who is in charge doesn't matter. Pastor isn't state employee unless evey pastor is secretly working for FBI.

So church congregation can ask state to be treated in certain way. What is that a problem because I heard Catholic priests in Croatia like to advise people how to vote on Sunday directly before election. They don't say vote for party_name, they say don't vote for party supporting election. State can't forbid cultural values sermon provided by church.

Why can't US churches can do something similar?

I remember Gary North's article how US population was actually fine with New World Order. Why? Because they had shared same beliefs as elites like faith in public schooling. Lately it's dying.

But fact is: large amount of US Christians share regime values. Proof: all churches where woman is pastor.

 

[MemeFan]

This article's first paragraf says enough:

The Collapse of the Euro and the New World Order: Both

It is now in the intensive care unit.

www.garynorth.com

Mainline churches were corrupt at start of last century, before 501(c) has arrived.

 

[Mark C]

It's either about who is in charge or which court has right to hear matter. Unless somebody opens legal case then which court is irrelevant and who is in charge doesn't matter.

"Who is in charge" is either YHVH or it is "another master."

Read the 14th Amendment, and note "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." A 'person' is a legal "term of art." A 'corporation' is a "person." (Which no doubt surprises many.) But it does not have a soul.

But a corporate creation of the state (like a 501c(3) 'church') is a 'person' "subject to the jurisdiction" of its creator. Which is NOT, repeat NOT, YHVH.

Note, if you don't otherwise understand: A "US citizen" in Texas is NOT 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the King of France - even if he still existed.

You even ignored "item 3" - "extent of authority or control." Look again:

"a family matter beyond the GOVERNMENT's jurisdiction"