@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.")
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.