Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [CreationTalk] Re: [Fwd: (AB) Hovind is Halfway There]

Expand Messages
  • steelville
    ... I mean after having followed the events of this ongoing process, and it s a V for Vendetta against a creation science evangelist who is wildly successful
    Message 1 of 55 , Oct 2, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      >
      > > Well I read it and said what it looks like to me.> They refused to
      > treat him "equally under the law",> thereby violating a few other
      > clauses outside of> the First Amendment.
      >
      > Could you be more specific as to what you mean hear?
      ---
      I mean after having followed the events of this ongoing process, and
      it's a V for Vendetta against a creation science evangelist who is
      wildly successful at his presentations, debates, and Q&A. The
      motivations of these pagan operatives of an establishment that has
      proven itself hostile to Christianity in general and especially
      creationism in particular are suspect. It's obvious to me that they did
      not care so much about enforcing the law as much as the glee they got in
      stopping his successful creationist ministry, or trying to, and showing
      who is boss.

      It's amazing to me that it's not obvious to everyone else.

      And ICR is now next, with its own legal troubles in Texas. Hello?

      > It’s not a question of not caring, but like it or not he did not go
      > about things the right way. Even assuming Hovind’s main approach is
      > correct, he still did some inappropriate things such as those large
      > cash withdraws. There were other ways they could have done things (I’m
      > not talking 501c3) that would not have gotten him in trouble.
      ---
      Maybe so, Second-guess him all you want, you're missing the point and
      missing the forest for the trees. It IS part of a bigger picture. Kent
      Ham had problems --you think they were because he too mishandled them?--
      and ICR is having troubles.

      The ire of Christians and their voices should be heard exposing the
      ungodly who frame injustice by a law. Jesus said pay them so they don't
      bother us, and CSE did the same thing. It's like the tax collector going
      to Jesus and saying, No, I'm not taking that money from a fish, I want
      Jesus to go and do carpentry. Or whatever..

      > I agree, but they would not have been able to use that anti-drug
      > traffickers law against him if Hovind had been not made such large
      > cash withdraws. As the Bible says “Be ye wise as serpents and harm
      > less as doves,” well like it or not Hovind was not being wise when he
      > made those cash withdraws.
      --
      I already explained about that, the laborer is worthy of his hire, and
      the prosecuters threw out the history that would show it was NOT
      structuring, can't you see? Why blame the victim?

      There's no law against stupidity anyway! But there is against UN-equal
      treatment under the law, and Christians are not getting it, and
      creationists especially are the ones who most lose rights in
      government-controlled areas. And it's only a matter of time before they
      come after your "church".

      Do you think he INTENTIONALLY wanted to go to prison? It was a shock to
      him. Gullible for sure, in my opinion, no argument there. Of course
      maybe it's a Joseph thing, "God meant it for good", because he's winning
      souls there too.

      By they way, he got so successful in his Bible ministry at the first
      prison the federals got mad and sent him to another one!

      > > If you want technicalities, everybody has technicalities.
      >
      > > The laws are ruckloads.
      >
      > True but that does not give us the right to disobey those laws with
      > out expecting to pay the consequences.
      ---
      Why do I have to repeat this so much?! He did not "disobey those laws"!

      Contrary to pagan press reports, he did NOT flagrantly flount the law,
      blah blah. Please!

      > > And yet case law from 200 years were specifically cited
      > > in Peter Kershaw's book that most emphatically included
      > > para-churches within the recognized sovereignty of
      > > churches under the First Amendment. "..The free exercise
      > > thereof..." does not say it has to be in a building with
      >
      > > an auditorium!
      >
      > Probably because the IRS uses the term integrated auxiliaries of a church
      > instead of para church. Peter Kershaw; who ever he is; should up date his
      > book to include current terms.
      --
      And since I have read material dated very recently, maybe you should
      research his material from decades of doing what he does as a full-time
      ministry with successful history of consultations with specific churches
      and ministries, instead of assuming in a two-week looksee that you know
      what he's talking about. Take it up with him, and like the Bereans, "see
      if these things be so". That's my suggestion.

      > > Acts 2:46 And they, continuing *daily* with one accord> in the
      > temple, and breaking bread from house to house,> did eat their meat
      > with gladness and singleness of heart,
      >
      > > 47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people.> And the
      > Lord added to the church daily such as should be> saved.
      >
      > My point was: were these devotions open to the public in a church like
      > fashion? Such as putting a sign out front that tells people about
      > them. My point is simply having devotions as a private group does not
      > legally a church make. There are plenty of Christian owned small
      > business that have daily employee devotions and they don’t qualify as
      > churches. What is at question is what is what legally constitutes a
      > church. Not your personal opinion of what it should be.
      --
      My point was that the home-churches of the earliest days would not
      qualify according to the general idea of Christians today of what a
      "church" is. Plus do you know for a fact that they refused guests at
      their devotions? I doubt that.

      He offered devotions as an evangelist and leader, and pastor, to those
      who worked with him.

      He did invite guests for devotions, I've met a few on the Net.

      His church was open every day for people to come and look at the
      testimony to God's creation and have a chance for eternal salvation on
      the spot.

      He had a roaring creationism-evangelism ministry, and souls being saved
      constantly through his witness.

      If you're a home church, you don't willy-nilly bring anybody and
      everybody (although we used to do that in a particular ministry I worked
      with once). Most of Jesus' teachings

      > > Hello? I have repeatedly said that the case for the> non-taxable
      > status of churches and religious> organizations did and
      > constitutionally does not> depend on either the 501c3 nor the 508 nor
      > the> 123 blah blah.
      >
      > I never said that for the non-taxable status of churches and religious
      > organizations does depend on these, but these codes are what by the
      > IRS uses to determine whether or not and organization is taxable or
      > not. If it doesn’t pay taxes and does not qualify as non-taxable under
      > these codes; which a church does but apparently CSE does not; then
      > they can and will come after you.
      ---
      As I have shared in previous posts, there are plenty of cases of
      churches that are thriving today as non-taxable and they are outside
      those clauses. That is not the end of it.

      Jerry Fallwell's church did not have "exemption" under those sections of
      the tax law, but his church and his parachurch ministries were still
      non-taxable, until a judge named "Moon" decreed that Virginia had to
      accept religious institutions as "corporations":
      http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16084

      An irony indeed, because the suit and the decree was based on the First
      Amendment.. But it was Thomas Jefferson's insistence that incorporations
      of religious groups was an attack on religious freedom, and a */trap/*.
      Here, kitty kitty, here, kitty kitty --Gotcha!

      Also another irony, because instead of suing against unconstitutional
      laws limiting church property in the state of Virginia that made things
      difficult for him, he chose to sue to get incorporated.

      But then he has a lot of lawyers and accountants who get paid to "be
      safe", and they don't teach freedom in colleges anymore..especially
      religious freedom...let alone creationism.

      The back and forth has gotten a little long, but I'll leave it this last
      thought.

      Before you talk about the IRS this and that, find the churches that are
      not incorporated and that are independent and thriving outside what you
      probably think are the norms. You seem to have a skewed idea of it like
      I used to before I learned about the issues, and that there really ARE
      such churches and ministries legally going about their Father's business
      outside of what you think.

      They probably have done things different in some ways than Hovind but
      nonetheless had they been as successful as Hovind some other ungodly
      pagan would abuse the power of his position to gain career points and
      put them down.

      --Alan
    • Chuck
      ... Is there any indication as to whether or not she knew of the reward in advance? If she knew about it then her motives for reporting Hovind are suspect. ...
      Message 55 of 55 , Oct 15, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        > By the way, the Christian who reported him, I just found out,
        > collected $40,000 under IRS rules.

        Is there any indication as to whether or not she knew of the reward in
        advance? If she knew about it then her motives for reporting Hovind are
        suspect.



        > Maybe it will make up for the fines she paid out of the school's
        > tuition money to the IRS for not witholding taxes from the
        > employees...



        You mean they once had a similar problem. That explains their vendetta
        against Hovind.

        > By the way, looks like in the first prison he organized a church,
        > body of believers, 17 of them, and they kept going strong as
        > ever after he left, and some of them where they took him to
        > recognized him and it started all over again...



        Good for ken. He's a good lesion as to what to do if your unfairly
        imprisoned by Christian hating government officials.


        > We all know God has a book..



        How true. I would not want my record to included turning a fellow beleiver
        over to persecuters.



        ----- Charles Creager Jr.



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.