Meat "It all depends on what the meaning of the word is..."

[Mark C]

There's something I have long called the "Blunt Clintonian Truth." You just have to parse it VERY carefully, because, "it all depends on what the meaning of the word 'is,' is."

And it's rarely what you were supposed to think it 'is'.

And it turns out that modern politicians who put their hands on a Bible and lie didn't invent it.

But had their been television in the desert while Moses and his mixed multitude roamed around Midian, an early televangelist named "Bilaam," almost certainly would have.

And how he managed to make an 'end-run' around his promise to YHVH (not without consequence, however) has been a model for Real Biblical-level porneiea ever since.

Mark Call – Parsha “Balak” teaching from Shabbat Shalom Mesa

Most people probably remember this story based on the name of the character who talked to YHVH more than the King for whom the parsha [“Balak” (Numbers 22:2-25:9)] is named. More memora…

hebrewnationonline.com

Parsha “Balak” teaching from Shabbat Shalom Mesa | Come out of her, My people…

 

[Mark C]

There is now another thread where folks are arguing about just one 'mark' of the Whore Church - the '501c(3)' designation for State-licensed "religious organizations." Which must, of course, comply with their creator's rules instead of His.

Some refuse to believe that, having once blessed Israel, and evidently by implication, all who claim descent, He will continue to do so.

And that, in fact, is the warning of this story of Bilaam, and his Klintonian trick, and Numbers 31:16. And every conditional promise in the Book, and even places like Luke 6:46.

Just post a link to the clause in the contract. Just show us the text. Show me one thing that says “we now own your soul, you’ll play a mean blues guitar but will spend all eternity in servitude to a secret group of satanic government beuracrats.”

No, what Bilaam managed was to accomplish was get those who were blessed by YHVH to curse themselves.

 

[The Revolting Man]

There is now another thread where folks are arguing about just one 'mark' of the Whore Church - the '501c(3)' designation for State-licensed "religious organizations." Which must, of course, comply with their creator's rules instead of His.

Some refuse to believe that, having once blessed Israel, and evidently by implication, all who claim descent, He will continue to do so.

And that, in fact, is the warning of this story of Bilaam, and his Klintonian trick, and Numbers 31:16. And every conditional promise in the Book, and even places like Luke 6:46.


No, what Bilaam managed was to accomplish was get those who were blessed by YHVH to curse themselves.

So there’s no evidence that 501c3 is an accounting equivalent of 666? You just made an extraordinary claim that the IRS is more powerful than Christ but you refuse to offer any proof at all?

If the IRS can ensnare my soul without my knowledge or cooperation, simply because I attend a church the elders of which deployed a tax strategy, potentially decades before I was born, then maybe we should be worshipping the IRS. The God who’s stymied by super secret parts of the tax code is not a very powerful god.

 

[Mark C]

So there’s no evidence that 501c3 is an accounting equivalent of 666? You just made an extraordinary claim that the IRS is more powerful than Christ but you refuse to offer any proof at all?

You just made an extraordinary (and asinine) claim that I said something I never did but fail to offer any proof at all.

It's not even remotely related to anything I've ever said in my life. But, surprise.

And, to paraphrase Donald Trump, I don't even think you know what you said.

I moved that original bit of flatulence here because the point I was making was at least somewhat related to the midrash in this thread. Which you obviously are oblivious to.

 

[The Revolting Man]

You just made an extraordinary (and asinine) claim that I said something I never did but fail to offer any proof at all.

It's not even remotely related to anything I've ever said in my life. But, surprise.

And, to paraphrase Donald Trump, I don't even think you know what you said.

I moved that original bit of flatulence here because the point I was making was at least somewhat related to the midrash in this thread. Which you obviously are oblivious to.

You have asserted ad nauseum that attending a 501c3 church is a spiritual bondage that means that the attendee is worshipping a false Christ. It is the unavoidable conclusion then that if an otherwise orthodox follower of Christ can be snatched from Christ’s hand by some secret process that the IRS performs without the knowledge of the church or the believer, then the IRS must be more powerful than Christ. There is no other conclusion.

Unless you’re admitting that you were just frolicking in hyperbolic pearl clutching? Engaging in a hyperventilating moral panic devoid of reason or logic? Again? Still. Always. Predictably. Without fail. Monotonously. Mind numbingly boringly.

In short, in your normal, inimitable idiom?

 

[Mark C]

You have asserted ad nauseum that attending a 501c3 church is a spiritual bondage that means that the attendee is worshipping a false Christ.

Do you even PRETEND to read what I write? Or are you just so obsessed you make stuff up?

I contend (and not in this thread!!!!) that (as does the incorporation itself!) when a 'church' incorporates, the creator of that entity, and thus its master, is the State of Delaware. Or whatever State the 'church' chooses to subject itself to. Why you can't see that is stultifying.

There are thus "strings attached." DUH, and Double-Duh.

Give it a rest. Go find someone else to argue with. I'm sick of lipstick on a pig games.

 

[Mark C]

For those that can see through RevoltingObsession:

The point of this thread is the story of the ancient 'mostly-pagan' prophet Bilaam (Balaam in some English renderings.)

He was NOT PERMITTED by YHVH to curse the 'mixed multitude' or twelve tribes of Israel. In fact, he ended up proclaiming one of the most famous sets of blessings over their camp in all of Scripture.

But he was too clever, evidently, for his own good. It cost him. But it cost them, too.

Because he duped them (along with a lot of 'whoring women') into CURSING THEMSELVES.

My contention (whether or not some choose to hear it!:

People today have been duped into cursing themselves just as surely.

 

[MrB]

I would have taken that the problem is in submitting yourself to an organisation that says it is under god but …
501c is willingly under the rules of a state in order to get financial gain in some way shape or form.
The question of who the master is on the day, who has the last word ,who rules?

The last Church I attended changed their rules to allow alcohol on site, then got a liquor license to allow community to rent the building and bring alcohol in.
From this I learned they will compromise to get a dollar

The curse is not that the state is inherently evil or not, it’s that you willingly compromise for it.
How far can you drift before you are on a different path than the one intended.?

 

[Mark C]

It's "Choose this day Whom you will serve." And you can't serve two masters.

But, putting any other master ahead of YHVH is the essence of "idolatry."

 

[The Revolting Man]

I contend (and not in this thread!!!!) that (as does the incorporation itself!) when a 'church' incorporates, the creator of that entity, and thus its master, is the State of Delaware. Or whatever State the 'church' chooses to subject itself to. Why you can't see that is stultifying

So show it in the documents. Where is ant if this written down? Does it apply to LLCs? Are regular corporation under the spiritual control of the IRS? Is it only non profits? You still haven’t said if we can use other non-profit organizations like thrift stores or animal shelters.

Given the dire consequences of worshipping fake Christs; it seems a righteous teacher would be more forthcoming with some answers.

 

[FollowingHim]

@Mark C, you yourself were the one to raise the topic of 501c3 in this thread, in your second post. Questions about it are therefore on topic. And I too am interested in hearing an answer to the questions posed by @The Revolting Man, as it is something I have wondered about also. I appreciate that his tone is argumentative, but that's because the two of you just have a habit of arguing, and he's frustrated that you're not answering his questions (just as you are equally frustrated that he is asking them). Looking past the tone, the questions are valid.

There is now another thread where folks are arguing about just one 'mark' of the Whore Church - the '501c(3)' designation for State-licensed "religious organizations." Which must, of course, comply with their creator's rules instead of His.

Here you assert that a 501c3 church must obey the government rather than Christ. It is that statement which @The Revolting Man has questioned.

This is an important question. I expect most of us structure our personal affairs in order to pay no more tax to the state than we must, using whatever tax laws apply to us in the jurisdiction we lie in and the advice of a good accountant. We willingly use companies, trusts, and other such structures in order to organise our financial affairs, despite the fact that such structures and the tax rules around them are defined by the state. And in the same way, non-profit organisations like charities and churches take advantage of whatever tax structures are available for them.

To assert that there is a larger moral implication to using such tax structures is a claim that requires evidence. You may well be correct, I'm not saying you're wrong. But I am saying it is entirely reasonable to ask you to back up such a claim.

What is your reason for saying that a church that uses a 501c3 tax structure in the USA is now subject to the government rather than to Christ?

To remove ambiguity:

• Does this issue only apply to churches in the USA under that specific law, or to all churches anywhere in the world that use charitable tax structures provided by other governments?
• Is a private individual who sets up a company or family trust also now subject to the government rather than Christ, because the government regulates the tax structure they have used? Or is this only about churches? What is the difference?

 

[frederick]

Is a private individual who sets up a company or family trust also now subject to the government rather than Christ, because the government regulates the tax structure they have used?

Are not all taxpayers subject to government regulations and restrictions, and not just those who have set up a company or trust? In a country like NZ, the government requires the employer to deduct all the taxes and fees from the employees' wages before he or she sees any of it. While it is the employer who is deducting the taxes and fees, it is the government that has legislated the deductions, and therefore the employee who is subject to the government.

However, where I am currently there is so much corruption it doesn't seem to matter what the government regulations are, everyone does what is right in their own eyes!

 

[Mark C]

@Mark C, you yourself were the one to raise the topic of 501c3 in this thread, in your second post.

The reference was to the point of this thread. Yes, I know: neither of you can ever be bothered to listen; it shows.

Still, the point of the thread was how a people, once blessed, even by a 'prophet'
who wanted to curse them, but was specifically FORBIDDEN by YHVH to do so,
can still curse themselves.

The example was to again show that there are multiple ways, with a common denominator.

Questions about it are therefore on topic.

I which case, if I choose to answer, it will be in the thread for which it is on-topic. I have already answered to the extent that is apropos here.

And any who choose to understand the thesis, the story, and the lesson, will absolutely understand the answer.

And I too am interested in hearing an answer to the questions posed by @The Revolting Man, as it is something I have wondered about also. I appreciate that his tone is argumentative...

No, his intent is to be divisive, disruptive, and a You-Know-Very-Well-What. Nothing more than self-aggrandizement. His language, and claims to quote what I 'assert ad nauseum' but have never, ever, once said are juvenile, transparent, and (as intended) offensive. No to me, but to those with a modicum of intelligence.

I choose not to waste my time on such. The fact that he doesn't read the response is obvious.

but that's because the two of you just have a habit of arguing, and he's frustrated that you're not answering his questions (just as you are equally frustrated that he is asking them).

He doesn't "ask questions." He postures. He has no interest in any response except to enable further rancor.

======================================================

The rest is directed to your serious question. Which was, thank you, actually offered politely, and in stunning contrast to what I choose to ignore.

But it also presents a conundrum, of which you are no doubt aware. But, I will again make clear up front. (Zec, OTOH, would simply censor and cackle.)

Looking past the tone, the questions are valid.

Here you assert that a 501c3 church must obey the government rather than Christ.

I do not, and in no uncertain terms. For reasons I have outlined, and which would be censored elsewhere, but you should already know:

1) I do NOT ever use the misnomer (IMHO) "jesus christ," because neither His mother, nor any person who ever talked to Him in the flesh EVER did. Yahushua HaMashiach Himself, however, said (Matthew 24) that there'd be a whole passel of false, so-called 'christos' that would deceive many.

That is not central to this thread, or even related, but makes my initial point. I chose not to respond in an inane, obvious provocation - nothing more.

And I contend - central to any real discussion of what is the Big Difference. See II Corinthians 11:4. (and others!) IF said 'jesus christ' ever DID AWAY WITH His Own Written Instruction - even so much as a 'yod or a tiddle.' then that guy is a fake, a liar, and "the Truth is NOT in Him."

2) To enter into a binding agreement is VOLUNTARY. (So is an act of pagan sexual 'worship' described in the central story of this thread.) Acts have consequences. Blessings can be rejected, and curses achieved instead.

3) I have seen dozens, if not hundreds of incorporation documents, court cases, syllabi, and statutes which reference 'corporations,' and their legal attributes. Black's Law alone has almost FOUR PAGES of just definitions! WHO their 'creator' is is an inherent aspect of every one of those definitions. As is the resulting 'jurisdiction'.

And since Zec is just too lazy, at best, to even do a simple web search - and won't read my response anyway - I won't be his errand boy to look stuff up he should know if he intends to pontificate upon it with such Moderatorial Excellency.

But since you asked nicely - I will, this once, just a bit (indeed - already have, since I reference "4 pages." BUT I'm not gonna re-type them here for you!)

The principles, however, are clear, and beyond dispute:
- A 'corporation' - ANY - is a 'person' 'at law'.' It has a name, it has defined attributes, it has legal obligations, can sue and be sued. Oh, yeah - and it often has "infinite life" (see any connection to anything?) - but has no 'soul'. And it has a specific creator.

And those obligations (which may change over time - and it is still subject to them, and to "public policy," among other things - are NOT limited to the incorporation documents.

And "exempt" is another 'term of art.' Look it up in Black's Law. But it denotes jurisdiction!

It is that statement which @The Revolting Man has questioned.

So, no he did not. He made up a straw man, then sought to foment an argument about something utterly at odds to what I DID say. (And, I honestly doubt he'd've read this, but for the concern - now - that his malice and hubris have been publicly exposed as such.)

People make choices to enter into agreements. OFTEN, "to their own hurt." YHVH says "choose this day Whom you will serve," which I DO QUOTE, frequently. And He also says that a man (Numbers 30) must do according to what he says he will (commits to, IOW.)

When those are in conflict, guess whose fault it is?

What is your reason for saying that a church that uses a 501c3 tax structure in the USA is now subject to the government rather than to Christ?

One more time: I NEVER said "rather than." And I certainly would suggest exactly the opposite, and have - but ONLY here in the ghetto!

There is little to no real difference between "another jesus, whom we have not preached," and a 'government' ("of men, and not of law") which now amounts to a 'State Church.' Licensed, approved, regulated, controlled.

The 501c(3) explicit effects (prohibitions to speak against "gay sex," and now the Transgender Cult, feminism, et al, ad nauseum - anything that violates 'public policy' - including NOT-PC candidates for the Dictatorship) make the point. The Covid Mandate "seals the deal." And don't forget the "Clergy Response Team." I shouldn't have to document all of that to respond to a grenade-question. People here should be expected to have at least some degree of knowledge of the world they inhabit. (Yahushua says, "know the times and the seasons," and don't be caught unaware, as by a "thief in the night.")

To remove ambiguity...

If I respond further, to 'legal-specific' issues, it will be in the appropriate thread, where "Torah issues" that are at the heart of "Who we serve," aren't censored.

But I hope the major, I believe deliberate, oversights, have been addressed. And the question remains, "Who do we serve?"

===============================================

And the answer to THAT is germane to this thread, and central to the concept of "idolatry."

I contend (my definition, based on Scripture - you are free to reject it) that idolatry is "putting anyone or any THING ahead of Him in our allegience." And that includes "words from our mouths," actions of our bodies, and contacts with other masters, deliberate or in ignorance (about which Scripture has a LOT to say!)

The "men of Israel" in this story had been blessed explicitly by YHVH Himself. Had they read the contract? They agreed at Sinai, regardless, including that part which they hadn't even yet seen.

Did they "know" that by doing the Dirty Deed with the fine-looking women of Midian, they were "eating," and "bowing down," to Baal Peor? Or did they just think they wanted a POA?

It seems the Real Creator thought they "knew or SHOULD have known," and took them to task (often terminally) for their 'deal with the devil.'

And - since the question, as you note, Samuel - WAS asked - try this on for size:

Look at the end of the story (this week's parsha - I'll talk more about it today, thus this part of the response.)

Good ole Kozbi and Zimri. Just havin' a li'l nookie. Right there before God and Moses and Everybody. No harm done, right? And they were Mucky-Mucks themselves, too! As a Revolting modern-day equivalent might say, "SHOW ME the contract where it says I can't do this!"

It came in the form of a single spear, right through the both of them, right there in the Act.

And what happened to the 'murderer' who did them in, right there on the spot, is - to put it mildly - informative. Even educational.

 

[Mark C]

Are not all taxpayers subject to government regulations and restrictions, and not just those who...

In AmeriKa, "taxpayer" is another "term of art" - look it up in Black's Law - and there are any number of ways to "subject yourself to the jurisdiction thereof." Books have been written...

PS> Oh, yeah - and before some lakey points out the obvious: Many of the authors are dead.

 

[MemeFan]

Are not all taxpayers subject to government regulations and restrictions, and not just those who have set up a company or trust? In a country like NZ, the government requires the employer to deduct all the taxes and fees from the employees' wages before he or she sees any of it. While it is the employer who is deducting the taxes and fees, it is the government that has legislated the deductions, and therefore the employee who is subject to the government.

However, where I am currently there is so much corruption it doesn't seem to matter what the government regulations are, everyone does what is right in their own eyes!

You have mistaken withholding with deduction.

Deduction lowers your taxable income (basis from amount of tax is calculated), tax credits directly lowers your tax, while in withholding third party pay your tax for you.

What is Withholding?

Withholding is the income an employer taxes out of an employee’s paycheck and remits to the federal, state, and/or local government. It is calculated based on the amount of income earned, the taxpayer’s filing status, the number of allowances claimed, and any additional amount of the employee...

taxfoundation.org

What is a Tax Deduction?

A tax deduction is a provision that reduces taxable income. A standard deduction is a single deduction at a fixed amount. Itemized deductions are popular among higher-income taxpayers who often have significant deductible expenses, such as state/local taxes paid, mortgage interest, and...

taxfoundation.org

 

[Mark C]

Immaterial. Please take it back where it belongs. It doesn't even have to do with the hijack, fer cryin' out loud...

 

[The Revolting Man]

And any who choose to understand the thesis, the story, and the lesson, will absolutely understand the answer

You always say this but no one ever understands your answers.

And I read every of your very wordy answer and all I saw of any substance was a vague and repeated reference to “Black’s Law”, which I assume is a reference to “Black’s Commentary on the Laws of England”. The relevance of said work being diminished by the triple facts that it was written centuries before the invention of the category of 501c3, is not itself ever been law, and isn’t even about American law.

Now admittedly, that last fact was cleverly hidden in the title of the work where no one was prone to look for it so your confusion can be excused, but still; a book that is hundreds of years old about laws, but was never law itself, or ever even American; is a poor source for the spiritual implications of modern non-profit tax law in America. Although I have to admit that the breezy reference to four whole pages of said work was your most persuasive argument and I applaud you for making it multiple times. Stick with what you know, especially when what you know is so scant.

 

[Mark C]

You always say this but no one ever understands your answers.

That's 'cause it's obvious you didn't listen to the MIDRASH, at the top of the thread, which was the point. Which is funny, because you didn't even read that post for comprehension.

I was again talking about what the THREAD was about, not your attempted hijack. No wonder you continue to "fail to understand."

And I read every of your very wordy answer and all I saw of any substance was a vague and repeated reference to “Black’s Law”, which I assume is a reference to “Black’s Commentary on the Laws of England”.

You assume wrongly, so the rest is irrelevant.

Black's Law is Black's Law DICTIONARY, arguably the best-known (Bouvier's would be the other) in America. And here I thought "four pages of DEFINITIONS" might've been the giveaway there.

And it's BlackSTONE's Commentaries on the Common Law...

Edit: And, I add, even a quick web search of the term "Black's Law" would've spared your ego: the first full page offers links to on-line tools allowing word look-up in Black's Law. The top link I saw was an ad; offering hard used copies and vintage editions for far less than "priceless."

Stick with what you know, especially when what you know is so scant.

Arguably the only cogent thing you've said. Try it.

 

[Earth_is-]

The 501c(3) explicit effects (prohibitions to speak against "gay sex," and now the Transgender Cult, feminism, et al, ad nauseum - anything that violates 'public policy' - including NOT-PC candidates for the Dictatorship) make the point. The Covid Mandate "seals the deal." And don't forget the "Clergy Response Team." I shouldn't have to document all of that to respond to a grenade-question. People here should be expected to have at least some degree of knowledge of the world they inhabit. (Yahushua says, "know the times and the seasons," and don't be caught unaware, as by a "thief in the night.")

The "men of Israel" in this story had been blessed explicitly by YHVH Himself. Had they read the contract? They agreed at Sinai, regardless, including that part which they hadn't even yet seen.

Did they "know" that by doing the Dirty Deed with the fine-looking women of Midian, they were "eating," and "bowing down," to Baal Peor? Or did they just think they wanted a POA?

It seems the Real Creator thought they "knew or SHOULD have known," and took them to task (often terminally) for their 'deal with the devil.'

The Israelites should had known better. The adversary used a woman's beauty to get the Israelites to bow down to pagan gods. They weren't forced - they had a choice. If it was just about getting some POA with some prostitutes - I highly doubt 24,000 would had died in the plague. But there were strings attached.

Not much difference with the 501 c3 church. This time the adversary offers financial gain. No one is forced to accept. It's simply an offer. Of course - it too comes with strings attached. A 501 c3 church can not preach something that "violates fundamental public policy." So for financial gain they compromise on the Word of YAH. The Creator of Existence is the last one you want to rebel against (even the demons tremble):

Matthew 10:28 NLT
Don’t be afraid of those who want to kill your body; they cannot touch your soul. Fear only God, who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

I don't know any 501 c3 church that preaches the truth on marriage, polygyny, and headship. Polygyny is something that violates fundamental public policy, so they all do their dirty little dance with the devil. They do violence to the scriptures. When they say "we're not under the law anymore," what they really mean is that they don't like what the Creator wrote, because it offends their other master; and the fundamental public policy of this exiled land we're living in.

These places are un-holy:


So is anyone surprised these places (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox) are filled with horror stories happening behind closed doors?

Testimonies of many mainstream celebrities and musicians (Bob Dylan) confirming they made a deal with the devil. Or praising Lucifer for their success.



1 Peter 5:8
Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.

Rev. 18:4
Then I heard another voice from heaven say: “’Come out of her, my people,’ so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues.

24,000 died in that plague. How many are going to perish in the future plague?

This video has pastors talking about it. Highly recommend watching both videos.

 

[MemeFan]

You have mistaken withholding with deduction.

Deduction lowers your taxable income (basis from amount of tax is calculated), tax credits directly lowers your tax, while in withholding third party pay your tax for you.

What is Withholding?

Withholding is the income an employer taxes out of an employee’s paycheck and remits to the federal, state, and/or local government. It is calculated based on the amount of income earned, the taxpayer’s filing status, the number of allowances claimed, and any additional amount of the employee...

taxfoundation.org

What is a Tax Deduction?

A tax deduction is a provision that reduces taxable income. A standard deduction is a single deduction at a fixed amount. Itemized deductions are popular among higher-income taxpayers who often have significant deductible expenses, such as state/local taxes paid, mortgage interest, and...

taxfoundation.org

Additional thing.

For calculation of business income tax (profit tax) states allow cost of wages to deducted for this tax.