|
Post by eric on Nov 18, 2006 19:06:46 GMT -5
I watched from Freedom to Fascism... very interesting. I have to talk to my dad tonight to verify the truth to it. (He has been an accountant for decades). If this is true that no law exists that we have to pay taxes, then Kent Hovind has done no wrong.
I would encourage others to watch at least the video trailer to this film before responding. Maybe Kent knew this all along... He did get rid of his SSN. The government wants more control and we are giving into so many things that are unconstitutional.
I am not saying taxes are unconstitutional, but they must be allocated according to that which the constitution requires.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Nov 18, 2006 19:15:57 GMT -5
Eric Said: If this is true that no law exists that we have to pay taxes, then Kent Hovind has done no wrong.
Open your eyes brother; Kent's problems aren;t about taxes; the man is violent, a name calling hateful false convert and was charged for a FELONY for assault and battery due to smashing his MINISTRY secretary.
Kent Hovind is being chastised by God.
|
|
|
Post by eric on Nov 18, 2006 23:14:39 GMT -5
Ok then, Dan... Forget Hovind and watch this documentary. I am not sure how I feel about it yet, but I know I am against the implanting of chips into people, national ID cards and even SSN's. The government has too much control, plain and simple.
Dan, can you please not use say things such as "Open your eyes." I am not denying Hovind's abuse of others, I am simply talking about the income tax situation. My concern isn't just about Hovind, it is about whether or not income tax is legal.
|
|
|
Post by mahatma on Nov 19, 2006 1:01:43 GMT -5
Paying taxes sure does suck. But it would suck even more to not have highways, the best army in the world, national parks, public schools, or fire departments. I don't mind paying my share, and I think most other people don't either. It's when a wealthy person who claims to be virtuous attepts to skirt their own bit of responsibility that people get pissed.
|
|
|
Post by eric on Nov 19, 2006 8:20:46 GMT -5
mahatma, I agree totally. The problem is the gov't is required to provide proof of how the income tax is apportioned. There is no evidence that this tax goes to pay for any of the things you mentioned. Property tax pays for local schools and corporate tax is enough to pay for the military. I would encourage you to watch this film, which explains why income tax is different than other taxes and how no law exists that requires Americans to pay it. Also, ask yourself how did the country survive from 1776 to 1913 with no income tax?
|
|
|
Post by Doc H on Nov 19, 2006 19:12:37 GMT -5
biblethumper,
I recently met a Street Preacher from Tennessee.
We have been fellowshipping together and he has really encouraged Jonathan and I with our street ministry.
He spent the last four years working with Kent Hovind and although he doesn't agree with everything that Kent says or does, he does see him as a dear brother in Christ.
I would rather believe someone who has spent time getting to know the man than believe some news report.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Nov 19, 2006 21:32:16 GMT -5
I think it's Kent Hovinds fault. He did so much. And if he just paid his taxes, he would be able to continue his ministry. He also kicked the lights out of his secretary in 2002 (not to mention is burglary charges etc etc) Martinez, Greg. "A Journey to Hovind's Dinosaur Adventure Land" Skeptical Inquirer, November 2004. 205.152.130.14/cv_web_1b.asp?ucase_id=12619523I was under the impression that all charges were dropped. This link was just a transcript of some court records. As far as I can tell Hovind is not guilty of those things.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Nov 19, 2006 22:22:10 GMT -5
Yeah! You're right! All three charges were dripped; so he's innocent.
If you believe that then that's certainly your choice, brother; I had many charges dropped and was myself aquitted of assault charges just before trial; remember, I was saved in a cell.
If you believe that the fraudster himself never really smashed his secretary's lights out because a court dropped the case, then of course you have free choice to believe such; I, however, don't believe satan is out to get him and that he's just being persecuted... the man is a criminal.
The secretary didn't just wake up and say, "Gee! Today I'm going to make up a total fabrication about my employer and friend!"
Seriously, let's be real here; why defend a con man?
That's like defending Ruben Isn't-Real...
Both show wilful blindness.
ASSAULT NOLLE PROSEQUI BATTERY-TOUCH OR STRIKE NOLLE PROSEQUI BURGL-WITH ASSAULT OR BATTERY NOLLE PROSEQUI
|
|
|
Post by bullhornbob on Nov 19, 2006 22:50:37 GMT -5
remember, I was saved in a cell. What exactly were you saved from, Dan?
|
|
|
Post by mahatma on Nov 19, 2006 23:17:00 GMT -5
BT's right...charges being dropped might mean legally not guilty, but I don't think it's the same thing as morally innocent. As an off-topic illustration, anyone who thinks OJ Simpson isn't a murderer, raise your hand.
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Nov 19, 2006 23:28:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Nov 19, 2006 23:55:10 GMT -5
remember, I was saved in a cell. What exactly were you saved from, Dan? I was saved from: 1- Sin 2- False Brethren 3- False Doctrine
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Nov 19, 2006 23:55:40 GMT -5
BT's right...charges being dropped might mean legally not guilty, but I don't think it's the same thing as morally innocent. As an off-topic illustration, anyone who thinks OJ Simpson isn't a murderer, raise your hand. Two hands up! haha
|
|
|
Post by bullhornbob on Nov 20, 2006 12:40:32 GMT -5
What exactly were you saved from, Dan? I was saved from: 1- Sin 2- False Brethren 3- False Doctrine But, you say that you still sin? I thought you were saved from sin? I have to admit that it seems as though you are contradicting yourself. You say you still sin, but are at the same time saved from sin. Is Christ not powerful enough to take away sin? I am being totally sincere, and I hope you do not read any "tone or inflection" into my posts. Thanks in advance ;D
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Nov 20, 2006 12:51:38 GMT -5
I was saved from: 1- Sin 2- False Brethren 3- False Doctrine But, you say that you still sin? I thought you were saved from sin? I have to admit that it seems as though you are contradicting yourself. You say you still sin, but are at the same time saved from sin. Is Christ not powerful enough to take away sin? I am being totally sincere, and I hope you do not read any "tone or inflection" into my posts. Thanks in advance ;D 1- Can you show me where I said I practice sin? 2- Can you openly state before all here that you do not at any time ever for any reason whatsoever sin? Thank you in advance for your reply
|
|
|
Post by mahatma on Nov 20, 2006 12:55:34 GMT -5
How would it be contradictory to say that you are saved from sin even while sinning? If I am wearing a parachute won't I be saved from hitting the ground in a deadly fasion even if I am falling from a great height? I thought the whole point of Jesus dying on the cross was supposed to be that a person's sins could be absolved through him, not that a person would never sin at all.
|
|
|
Post by alan4jc on Nov 20, 2006 13:09:57 GMT -5
No longer a slave to sin, no longer without power over sin. The issue should never be are we sinning because then we have taken our eyes off of Jesus. I think a study on Galations would be a great idea! I'm not trying to be argumentative just encouraging a through look at the word.
|
|
|
Post by alan4jc on Nov 20, 2006 13:10:36 GMT -5
True statement Mahatma
|
|
|
Post by alan4jc on Nov 20, 2006 13:51:06 GMT -5
The Bible says that a Christian is the righteousness of God. Is that true even when I'm yelling at my wife? I believe it is. Christ saved me, changed me, created me anew. I'm kept by the power of God.
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Nov 20, 2006 13:53:47 GMT -5
No longer a slave to sin, no longer without power over sin. The issue should never be are we sinning because then we have taken our eyes off of Jesus. I think a study on Galations would be a great idea! I'm not trying to be argumentative just encouraging a through look at the word. Amen! good word!
|
|
|
Post by Doc H on Nov 20, 2006 18:30:23 GMT -5
biblethumper,
If you believe that the fraudster himself never really smashed his secretary's lights out because a court dropped the case, then of course you have free choice to believe such; I, however, don't believe satan is out to get him and that he's just being persecuted... the man is a criminal.
I believe you underestimate the power of the god of this world who goes about like a lion trying to devour the saints.
Kent Hovind has made great inroads into exposing the lie of evolution which is from the pit of hell.
Do you really think that the father of all lies is going to just sit there and not fight back?
I'll let you make the decision.
|
|
|
Post by mahatma on Nov 20, 2006 18:57:17 GMT -5
The lie of evolution that is from the pit of hell? Do you have any evidence that evolution isn't accurate, or is that just your personal belief?
By this same standard wouldn't every christian missionary or leader who has ever been shown to be a fraud or a cheat or some other kind of sinner also just be persecuted by Satan?
|
|
|
Post by bullhornbob on Nov 21, 2006 0:51:04 GMT -5
But, you say that you still sin? I thought you were saved from sin? I have to admit that it seems as though you are contradicting yourself. You say you still sin, but are at the same time saved from sin. Is Christ not powerful enough to take away sin? I am being totally sincere, and I hope you do not read any "tone or inflection" into my posts. Thanks in advance ;D 1- Can you show me where I said I practice sin? 2- Can you openly state before all here that you do not at any time ever for any reason whatsoever sin? Thank you in advance for your reply I never said practice sin. I said sin. Period. You openly confessed that you still sin, but yet are saved from sin. This, again, seems contradictory. Maybe you can elaborate a little bit on exactly how one chooses to sin even after being saved from sin. I might add that most do not want to accept responsibility for choosing to sin willfully after coming to the knowledge of the truth, ie, being saved from sin. Thanks Dan!
|
|
|
Post by tbxi on Nov 21, 2006 0:57:14 GMT -5
Kent Hovind has made great inroads into exposing the lie of evolution which is from the pit of hell. Do you really think that the father of all lies is going to just sit there and not fight back? I'll let you make the decision. I do not think it is correct to equivocate those who would support the just legal conviction of Kent Hovind's tax fraud with demons. The fact that a young-earth creationist is getting sent to jail because he broke the law does not mean it is all being driven by evil forces. It means that in all probability, he broke the law a multitude of times and in a clear way. That isn't to say that at least some people involved in the prosecution aren't hitting him with the book and making an example out of him, for the fact that they dislike him or what he does. That is possible. But it doesn't change the bottom line that he's been convicted of many, many counts of fraud, which is sin.
|
|
|
Post by alan4jc on Nov 21, 2006 1:08:06 GMT -5
As Christians we are to obey those in authority period. If they say pay taxes then we pay. No doubt satan would love to stop anyone from preaching Christ, but he hasn't anything to do with someone choosing to not pay taxes. Is kent Hovind a brother? Absolutely!! Did he choose to disobey God? willful sin! Is he forgiven? Christ died to set him free from sin, He became sin for all of us. Galations 6:1 Brethren, even if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted. What is the prerequisite here?
|
|
|
Post by Peter Fox on Nov 21, 2006 6:15:48 GMT -5
Constitutionally speaking, we are not obligated to pay income taxes. This point can be factually verified through a very brief look into the past history of America and the immediate times leading to the implementation of the income tax. Hence, the income tax laws that we now have are unconstitutional. Said another way, they are not LEGAL in the sense in which the founding fathers of this nation originally drafted the Constitution. I understand that our leaders have passed the income tax laws into LAW (arguably, they did it without due regard to the Constitution itself). But, what I believe Dr. Hovind is expressing, and I could be wrong, is that our "Final Authority" in America, God not withstanding, is THE CONSTITUTION... hence, the reason our leaders in this country all take oaths to uphold the Constitution. Therefore, it would logically follow that Dr. Hovind sees himself as obeying "...the higher powers..." ala Romans 13. I hope this makes sense. In my view, the bottom line is not one of "supporting criminal activity" Biblically, that is sort of an oxymoron The true question here is who, or what, is our "...higher powers...". My view, and I believe Dr. Hovind's view, is that we are to obey the Constitution. Yes we are to obey those in authority over us, but our founding fathers of this nation recognized our sinful nature and our inability to consistently govern ourselves by God's standard, so they came up with a "document" (the Constitution) to safeguard the people from such corruption.
|
|
|
Post by mahatma on Nov 21, 2006 13:04:45 GMT -5
Peter,
That argument does make sense. However, if that is the case then the man clearly had a choice between fighting to uphold the Constitution of a worldly nation or to continue his work in the service of God. If he chose to make an ethical stand on the former at the expense of the latter, then even in the best case scenario that you describe, didn't he still basically abandon his spiritual calling for a worldly one?
|
|
|
Post by Peter Fox on Nov 21, 2006 18:57:51 GMT -5
mahatma,
You make an interesting observation. I think I can retort only by giving you an absolute, unequivocal...... I don't know.
I don't pretend to assume what is in the mind of another. We can only go on the facts that we have.
I will have to think more on your observations.
|
|
|
Post by Doc H on Nov 21, 2006 19:44:52 GMT -5
The lie of evolution that is from the pit of hell? Do you have any evidence that evolution isn't accurate, or is that just your personal belief? By this same standard wouldn't every christian missionary or leader who has ever been shown to be a fraud or a cheat or some other kind of sinner also just be persecuted by Satan? How is this for starter's: "Our williingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science IN SPITE of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs...in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a poor commitment, a commitment to materialism... Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regulariries of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen" [emphasis in original] Evolutionist Richard Lewontin, Harvard genetics professor. Friend there is NO scientific evidence for MACROevolution nor will there ever be. Reputable palaentologists admit that in order for evolution to be true there should be thousands of transitional fossils. Guess what there ain't any. Even 'Father' Charles Darwin admitted that the lack of transitional forms cast great doubt on his theory. That was 150 years ago and still NO transitional forms have been found. Strange that you would believe in kidergarten that the frog changing into a prince was a fairy tale and yet at high school/university you would believe it to be true. Talk about 'blind' faith.
|
|
|
Post by mahatma on Nov 21, 2006 20:07:39 GMT -5
Doc,
The first thing you posted appears to be "an opinion from a guy." A learned guy no doubt, but I don't see anything in there that looks either like a fact or a statement that evolution is from Hell.
Second, you claim that there's no evidence for macro-evolution. Well, I say that there is no evidence for Young Earth theory. You can, of course, claim that I am ignoring evidence right before my eyes, but I could do exactly the same in response.
I think your statement about "reputable palaentologists" is a bit confusing in its wording. Are you suggesting that all reputable palaentologists agree that there should have been thousands of transitional fossils found? If so, then you are mistaken. Fossils are recognized as forming relatively rarely in nature, and it is most likely that there will be whole species and evolutionary steps that will not be accounted for in the fossil record. Most reputable palaentologists hold to this view. If however you were stating that there exist reputable palaentologists who think there should be many more fossils than there are, then I'm sure that's true. But I don't think their opinions outweigh or negate the opinions of their colleagues.
Your argument that no transitional fossils have been found in the last hundred and fifty years seems off, but you may just be defining "transitional fossil" differently than what I am used to? If you are arguing that no fossils or remains have been found showing basal traits of homo sapiens, then you are mistaken. If you are arguing that gaps remain in the fossil record, then of course you are correct, but again the relative rarity of fossils does not guarantee our knowledge of every mutation and adaptation through the ages.
People spend so much energy claiming that evolution is false, but I still haven't seen anyone produce one lick of proof of it. I'm not even sure why people bother. I am not familiar with the Bible, but in which book did God say that evolution was from Hell?
|
|