In God We Trust
jetgraphics
give thanks to God for withholding His Wrath upon all those in the
administration, who gave orders, aided and abetted, or otherwise were
involved in turning America into the premier aggressor nation on this
planet, guilty of mass murder of innocent men, women, and children, and the
destruction of foreign nations.
Excuse me for not "supporting our troops", but I have seen no evidence of an
injury inflicted upon the person or property of an American, on American
soil, by persons under orders of the (former) governments of Afghanistan, or
Iraq.
So far, neither has the administration.
To my simple reason, the administration has committed an act of
piracy, waging undeclared war upon innocents, destroying
their persons and property without any moral, legal, or sane reason.
All those who were actively involved, obeying orders, have as much moral
fiber as any other uniformed mass murderer who "just obeyed orders".
Even if "weapons of mass destruction" existed, were primed, and aimed at the
United States of America, that is no excuse. There is no moral, legal or
sane reason that pre-emptive strikes are merited in peacetime. That is a
horrible concept. Everyone should be ashamed who approved, condoned or
ratified the monstrous acts of the United States government.
There can NEVER be a "legitimate" attack for an act that has not yet
occurred. That would be an open door to the most heinous oppression and
tyranny.
Is it a coincidence that the USA is becoming a police state to combat
"terrorism" that it inspired by its lawless acts outside its borders?
If America really wants to know why the terrorists attack them, consider WHY
terrorists are attacking innocent civilians.
Is there a real issue of contention between those "crazed terrorists" and
their victims? No.
But it's an indirect attack on the victim's government, and seeking
to eliminate the "public consent" behind the criminal actions of their
government.
That's right, folks, you're giving silent permission, by not objecting,
protesting, and denouncing the crimes done in the name of the American
people. You're paying your taxes, giving your support, and conspiring with
them to engage in acts that are, let's say, not likely to be approved by the
God in which they claim they trust.
If Americans want a simple solution to terrorist attacks, strongly suggest
to the current administration to STOP - Stop their own attack upon foreign
soil, withdraw ALL troops, apologize to the American people, for using
American lives and property in attacking innocent people who had not waged
war upon us. Then this administration should apologize to every nation and
their people for the unwarranted, unconstitutional, and illegal attacks
upon their persons and property. Then the administration should RESIGN, en
masse. All those officials and officers who were guilty of ordering,
aiding, or otherwise acting to slaughter innocent people in foreign lands,
should immediately surrender themselves to the representative of those
respective people, and rely upon THEIR mercy.
It would be refreshing to see the government's victims show their superior
moral fiber by forgiving them - or not. It's not our concern how criminals
face justice in the lands where their acts were done. If you feel that such
a response is shameful, consider your own shame for what has already been
done to date. For those who are too afraid to surrender themselves into the
justice system of their victims, they should be summarily arrested,
prosecuted and convicted for their crimes. Piracy ashore is a crime,
according to American law. It's punishable with a life sentence, without
parole.
It's shameful, but no less shameful than what the U.S. administration has
done to every man, woman and child in this nation. Every silent pulpit is
shamed for not condemning the murder and destruction done in our collective
names. Every waving flag is smeared with the blood of innocents, and the
dust from the destruction of property. Every puffed chest, blazoned with
medals, is an insult to those forebears who fought, and died, in defense of
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Make no mistake, there's no
"freedom" behind this incursion into another people's land. It's deliberate
piracy ashore.
It makes perfect sense why the "Ten Commandments" should be stricken from
every public building, courthouse, and government office. It's an insult to
the TEN COMMANDMENTS for them to hang upon blood soaked walls! The only
"god" that would be approving of this administration's handiwork would have
two horns, a pitchfork, and a tail.
I, for one, do not consent to this evil. I denounce those criminals who have
acted outside the specific delegation of authority in the organic documents
that created the American government. And I hope and pray that someday,
America's victims can forgive the American people for their cowardice,
their arrogance, and their amoral disregard for the person and property of
other people.
bckwrds
will you turn to then? Who will support your right to live a
life of freedom?
you have it all so backwards
"jetgraphics" <jetgraphics@no_spamcharter.net> wrote in message
news:sS%nd.97$_l3...@newsfe03.lga.highwinds-media.com...
jetgraphics
> and when they come after you and your loved ones....who
> will you turn to then?
"They" being the government terrorists? Or the victims of government
terrorism?
> Who will support your right to live a
> life of freedom?
Very good point. Since the "right to life" is useless unless defended, one
must accept that duty. The government never promised to secure "everyone",
but merely "help secure" (Declaration of Independence). So, ultimately, it
is your own responsibility to defend your right to life.
Now, I must ask, is there any evidence that American lives or property were
deliberately injured by agents or officers of the governments of
Afghanistan or Iraq?
No.
Then one must conclude that the evildoers are the current administration and
its supporters, and not those who respond in kind.
Think "Pearl Harbor" - and Americans are the Japanese.
Living in "freedom" is a bad joke. If you will please check your local
county court house law library for corroboration, you shall find that
liberty is divided into four parts: natural, personal, civil and political.
Natural liberty is absolute freedom to act, restrained only by natural law
(law of gravity, law of thermodynamics, etc).
Personal liberty is the right of locomotion, freedom to travel upon the
public highways and waterways.
Civil liberty is the permission (license) from government to do that which
would otherwise be a trespass, a tort, or otherwise not allowed by law.
Political liberty is the permission (license) from government to vote and
hold office.
Natural liberty is only exercised upon private property, owned absolutely by
an individual. Since 1935, and the start of national socialism, private
property rights were abolished. All that remained was qualified ownership
of estate (real and personal property), subject to confiscation.
Personal liberty being the RIGHT to travel, is not subject to licensure. So
one must ask what a "Driver's license" is permission to do? Apparently good
socialists don't have the "right of locomotion" upon public roads anymore.
The remaining liberties aren't freedom, but permission, and aren't germane
to the subject. If you accepted the "number of the beast", you're excluded
from the birthright your forebears fought and died for.
> you have it all so backwards
I may have it backwards. But the data supports my conclusion. If "god" is
the one with horns and tail (euphemistically speaking), then I am not on
"his side". I reject doing evil to innocent people who have not harmed me.
And this nation should've rejected the same.
Shame on America.
Shame on Americans.
bckwrds
And, yes, help secure freedom with the people being responsibile
in the end. But how does one get that help in the first place?
You still have it backwards as the USA is helping the innocent
even though they are not on American soil. President Bush is
right on....how many free democrated societies have attacked
other countries?
History will be very kind indeed.
bckwrds
media.com...
jetgraphics
> and what form of freedom belongs to the average Iraqi people?
I don't know what documents you read, but there is NOTHING in the organic
documents that formed these united states wherein the American people
accept the duty to fight and die, pay taxes, and suffer for the benefit of
other people who aren't Americans, nor have a treaty with us.
America is not in the business of world policeman. In fact, the record shows
quite the opposite. We have intruded in more nations, militarily, than we
should.
For example, Russia never invaded the U.S.A., but our marines fought in the
Russian Civil War (1918-20) against the Red Army. In the 20th century, our
propaganda ministry was successful in distracting us from paying attention
to the mayhem done under old Glory.
A short list of the abuses by the United States of America -
Philippine Insurgency, 1899-1902 [Samuel Clemens wrote powerful pieces about
this debacle]
China / Boxer Rebellion, 1899-1901
Mexican Revolution, 1910-20
*World War I, 1917-18 [FDR + Churchill violated America's neutrality law, to
get Americans killed on the Lusitania. Bogus war.]
Haiti, 1918-20
Russian Civil War, 1918-20 [And you wondered why the REDS distrusted our
claims of "peace"!]
Nicaragua, 1926-33 [Sandinistas didn't sprout from nothing]
*World War II, 1941-45 [FDR violated neutrality law again, by trade
warfare.]
Korean War, 1950-53
Dominican Republic, 1965
Vietnam War, 1965-73 [Gulf of Tonkin resolution was bogus]
Lebanon, 1983
Grenada, 1983
Panama, 1989
Gulf War, 1990-91
Kosovo, 1998
War on Terrorism, 1993-
Afghanistan, 2001-
Iraq, 2003-
*Declared wars. The rest are unconstitutional.
> And, yes, help secure freedom with the people being responsibile
> in the end. But how does one get that help in the first place?
If you're speaking of the Iraqi people, you're off base. But if you're
talking about the American people, it's called "filing a complaint" for
redress of grievance. The exception is when there's a dead body. That gives
tacit consent to the government to prosecute.
However, you can't sue the government for failure to protect. They never
promised that.
> You still have it backwards as the USA is helping the innocent
> even though they are not on American soil. President Bush is
> right on....how many free democrated societies have attacked
> other countries?
Oh my, have you got it wrong. I don't see the bloodshed, destroyed property,
and mayhem as "helping the innocent". It's looting and pillage, perhaps.
But it's no help. May I "help you" by bombing your home, killing your
relatives?
> History will be very kind indeed.
Depends on who writes it. Right?
Future entertainment may feature the evil Americans, with their eagles and
striped flag, being mowed down by the freedom fighters, saving their
homeland from the U.S.A.
Look at the multitude of movies where NAZIs are villified. That's where
we'll be in "their eyes".
bckwrds
>
> > and what form of freedom belongs to the average Iraqi people?
>
> I don't know what documents you read, but there is NOTHING in the organic
> documents that formed these united states wherein the American people
> accept the duty to fight and die, pay taxes, and suffer for the benefit of
> other people who aren't Americans, nor have a treaty with us.
Yes, let's all turn our backs and look the other way. They aren't
Americans?
So that means they have no right to live in a free society? How do people
become Americans? Why do people from all over the world STILL come
to the great land of opportunity? Why don't they just stay home? Would
they just stay home if they lived in a free society where there were
opportunities not only for themselves but for their children, their
grandchildren?
Are Americans the only people who want a better life for their future
loved ones? Or is it the land of the free that brings people here? Why
do people from all over the world come to America?
try reading some books that state other outcomes of these wars.
Anyone can take a few sentences here and there and make any
thing wrong and evil. Horrible shit happens in a war but a lot of
good happens as well. Open your mind. Read. Talk to people
who have been there. Listen. If one only reads lies, then one
will only believe lies. One should take in everything that is
possible before stating and spreading more lies. You call so
many wars unnecessary. Others call them a way to peace and
freedom. Are you truly always right? Is it that hard to stop
and say "hey, maybe I'm wrong here and need to learn more."
>
> > And, yes, help secure freedom with the people being responsibile
> > in the end. But how does one get that help in the first place?
>
> If you're speaking of the Iraqi people, you're off base. But if you're
> talking about the American people, it's called "filing a complaint" for
> redress of grievance. The exception is when there's a dead body. That
gives
> tacit consent to the government to prosecute.
> However, you can't sue the government for failure to protect. They never
> promised that.
>
> > You still have it backwards as the USA is helping the innocent
> > even though they are not on American soil. President Bush is
> > right on....how many free democrated societies have attacked
> > other countries?
>
> Oh my, have you got it wrong. I don't see the bloodshed, destroyed
property,
> and mayhem as "helping the innocent". It's looting and pillage, perhaps.
> But it's no help. May I "help you" by bombing your home, killing your
> relatives?
If I have been surrounded by the enemy, if the enemy is going to kill
me anyway, if I must live by the enemies way of life, then yes, please
come and bomb my home if that's what it takes to stop them. I may
die; some of my relatives, loved ones and neighbors will die. But we
will die fighting for the right to live in freedom. I know what freedom
is all about. The Iraqi people do not. Some of them are learning.
Many of them are fighting. Many of them are dying for the home
land, for their freedom, for their future.
OmegaTime
We assume God to be the same God to everyone. I've talked to a few AA
members who believe God to be gravity (or a power greater than us).
Remove "In God we Trust" by all means, what you identify God as is what
is important.
Actually I have no problem with the removal of the Ten Commandments
either. We are set free from the Mosaic Laws through Christ Jesus (Yoshua).
But your post really seems to be off base from the title. George Bush is
not God. I don't place my faith in George Bush or his administration. I
have no choice but to pay taxes. Actually between Bush and Kerry, to me
it was a toss up between dumb and dumber. That's why Bush won, lack of
choice, not picking the best man for the job.
I am a "religious right" winger or "conservative" if you prefer. I am
very much against the sin of active homosexuals, abortion, and sexual
promiscuity. But I am a sinner also, so therefore I am against these
sins because I care for the people it affects, cause I am no better than
them.
As far as the premier agression, well tell that to the families of the
9/11 attacks. Bush has stated his intent since 9/11. Nobody stood
against him then. He clearly named the four axes of evil as he saw them.
Nobody jumped up and said, whoa there Mr. Bush - what does Iraq have to
do with 9/11? Instead the afore mentioned "dumber" agreed.
jetgraphics
>>
>> > and what form of freedom belongs to the average Iraqi people?
>>
>> I don't know what documents you read, but there is NOTHING in the organic
>> documents that formed these united states wherein the American people
>> accept the duty to fight and die, pay taxes, and suffer for the benefit
>> of other people who aren't Americans, nor have a treaty with us.
>
> Yes, let's all turn our backs and look the other way.
Turning away is not the opposite of dropping bombs and shooting people.
> They aren't Americans?
Yes. They aren't. And we have no duty to depose their leader, kill their
soldiers, blow up their bridges, communications, and structures, take their
oil wealth - for their own good...
> So that means they have no right to live in a free society?
They have all the rights they are willing to defend. They have no "right" to
have us fund, fight, and die for their "rights".
And what about the rights of the people who are "accidentally" mowed down?
Collateral damage?
How tragic it is, that you would excuse murder (killing innocent people)
with such lofty idealism.
You would fit in well with the NAZIs. They were very religious, and
idealistic, too. But most people agree that their idea of liberation was
EVIL.
> How do people become Americans?
Born or naturalized, the last time I looked. And, no, Americans have no
expectation that France, Britain, or Germany should invade us to "help us"
defeat the evil tyrant, because a minority in America says so.
To think it is moral to unilaterally intervene is EVIL.
Because EVERY nation will have a minority that feels oppressed. And if you
authorize an invasion of a foreign nation to depose another government
because a minority "says so", you are EVIL. In fact, one could conclude
that the illegal attack makes the aggressor MORE EVIL than the evil
government deposed.
> Why do people from all over the world STILL come
> to the great land of opportunity?
And this means it's YOUR job to kill their leaders?
> Why don't they just stay home?
And this means it's YOUR job to kill their soldiers?
> Would
> they just stay home if they lived in a free society where there were
> opportunities not only for themselves but for their children, their
> grandchildren?
And this means that ALL those people who choose to stay in their Islamic
nations are misinformed because they are opposed to the importation of
"Western" culture into their lands?
And it's YOUR job to liberate them from their ignorance?
Arrogant, aren't you.
> Are Americans the only people who want a better life for their future
> loved ones?
Wanting a better life is great. Ending other people's lives is not a way to
provide a better future. Compelling them to accept "your way" is not
freedom. Threatening them with death and destruction is not going to make
friends.
> Or is it the land of the free that brings people here?
Usually, it's to get richer than they were. But in lands where folks are
doing well, you don't see them emigrating. Where's the great emigration
from overcrowded Japan? Or from Germany (suffering from an influx of
immigrants)? Or from France (ditto)?
> Why
> do people from all over the world come to America?
Asked and answered.
But emigration is not a legitimate reason to obliterate another nation's
government, army or people. Emigration is not a legitimate reason to
impoverish a nation by destroying its infrastructure, roads and buildings.
>> America is not in the business of world policeman.
<snipped>
> try reading some books that state other outcomes of these wars.
If I understand your objection, it is that the end justifies the means.
I think you have it backwards.
Let's take a philosophical turn - One cannot enter paradise by lying,
cheating, stealing or murdering other people - for a "good cause". And the
U.S.A. is not a moral nation when its leaders lie, cheat, and steal other
people's property, and kill them when they object. You do realize that the
"government" is manipulated by private interests, whose lucrative contracts
are the means whereby the "people" pay for the damages, while others reap
fortunes.
> Anyone can take a few sentences here and there and make any
> thing wrong and evil.
Let me rephrase it - destroying other people's property and killing them is
bad.
War is either defending against piracy or piracy.
Who started it?
Which 20th century "wars" were fought because of an attack on the U.S.A.?
WWI, WWII.
Which wars were instigated by actions of the U.S. or covert actions of
government officers:
WWI, WWII.
No, God doesn't "bless" America.
There is no other way to slant it so that "God will bless us all".
Inflicting pain and suffering on a people, because you think they deserve
freedom is insane.
Oh, and before you leap to the staggering rebuttal that we had to "defend
democracy", the U.S. constitution doesn't guarantee a democracy, but a
republican form of government (Art 4, Sec 4).
And, no, we weren't fighting "World Communism".
Even the USSR admitted that it had only reached socialism.
In WWII, USA was socialist. Great Britain was socialist. Italy was
socialist. Germany was socialist (NAZI is the German acronym for the
National Socialist Workers Party). It was a slug fest between competing
socialist nations, seeking world domination - not some moral crusade for
"freedom" and "democracy".
> Horrible shit happens in a war but a lot of
> good happens as well. Open your mind. Read. Talk to people
> who have been there. Listen. If one only reads lies, then one
> will only believe lies. One should take in everything that is
> possible before stating and spreading more lies. You call so
> many wars unnecessary. Others call them a way to peace and
> freedom. Are you truly always right? Is it that hard to stop
> and say "hey, maybe I'm wrong here and need to learn more."
You could easily apply that prescription to yourself.
But if you examine the life of Christ (since this IS a Christian group),
there's nothing reported that would lead one to believe that he would
preach: "Blessed are the mercenaries, that kill everyone so God can sort
them out..."
And many non-Christians are on the right track. Consider Mohandas (Mahatma)
Gandhi's non-violence movement for political change.
> If I have been surrounded by the enemy, if the enemy is going to kill
> me anyway, if I must live by the enemies way of life, then yes, please
> come and bomb my home if that's what it takes to stop them.
Can you provide evidence in support of that?
What Afghanis or Iraqis publically told YOU that they wanted to be "killed"
and "dispossessed" for freedom?
Frankly, you have persuaded yourself that being evil is justified as long as
one is fighting evil. Unfortunately, that doesn't work.
Either you are good or you are evil.
You cannot "fight" the devil with devil's tools.
As Jesus reminds us, it's a win for the "other team" to win the world, and
lose one's soul.
Or as he put it, "no greater love than to lay down one's life for another."
That does not mean "kill your brother's assailant, making him lay down his
life first"!
jetgraphics
> ... your post really seems to be off base from the title. George Bush is
> not God. I don't place my faith in George Bush or his administration. I
> have no choice but to pay taxes. Actually between Bush and Kerry, to me
> it was a toss up between dumb and dumber. That's why Bush won, lack of
> choice, not picking the best man for the job.
The reference was to the motto, "In God We Trust", that the government uses,
while it engages in less than moral activities. That you have no choice to
pay taxes, is not accurate.
The individual income tax and social security wage tax are based upon
voluntary participation in national socialism. One who has never enrolled
cannot "willfully fail to file" since the IRS will not accept a Form 1040
without a number. There is no law requiring participation in national
socialism, nor is there a law punishing those who do not participate. It's
100% voluntary. This is not to be confused with the legitimate corporate
income tax (uniform rate) which is an excise on the privilege.
If you don't believe me write to the Social Security administration for a
copy of the law that requires enrollment. And contact the IRS and ask them
if a person who has not enrolled in social security can file a tax form.
They will respond that one can ASK for a taxpayer identification number.
No law requires one to have a TIN/SSN. 100% voluntary.
> I am a "religious right" winger or "conservative" if you prefer. I am
> very much against the sin of active homosexuals, abortion, and sexual
> promiscuity. But I am a sinner also, so therefore I am against these
> sins because I care for the people it affects, cause I am no better than
> them.
I concur that homosexuality is contrasurvival in that members who don't
reproduce go extinct. I concur that fetucide is still a crime, while
"abortion" has been concocted as a means to deal with "supercargo" under
admiralty/maritime jurisdiction of the State. Sexual promiscuity, I presume
to mean activities for pleasure between consenting adults not married to
each other. That might be hard to support, since the Bible doesn't condemn
relations between consenting adults who aren't married to each other
[Abraham comes to mind]. It does condemn adulterating a blood line of
inheritance. But that requires the woman to have been party to a marriage
compact. A woman who is not married but accepts food, clothing and shelter
is a concubine. A woman who accepts money is a prostitute.
> As far as the premier agression, well tell that to the families of the
> 9/11 attacks.
Since the attacks have been used as an excuse for wasting resources, lives
and time, they are more a tragedy today. And isn't it ODD, that government
funds were disbursed to the families of the victims? Where is it stated
that governments are instituted among men to indemnify people with public
funds? Oh - right, that's national socialism... sorry.
But the presumption that the attacks came out of nowhere is false and
misleading. The abuses of the U.S. government in other lands is well known,
if not in the U.S.A. itself. Desperate people resort to desperate measures.
Suicide attacks are an indication of desperation. The question you should
consider is what drove them to desperation?
What American property or person was injured to instigate a military
invasion in the following?
Gulf War, 1990-91
Kosovo, 1998
War on Terrorism, 1993-
Afghanistan, 2001-
To many in the Islamic faith, infidels (our troops) in Saudi Arabia
represent a dire threat. It is like cooking a hamburger at a vegetarian
picnic - not acceptable, at the least; a provocation at worst.
The overthrow of the government in Afghanistan was blatant piracy. And to
muslims, an attack on one muslim by an infidel is an attack on them all.
> Bush has stated his intent since 9/11. Nobody stood
> against him then.
How would anyone know? If the mass media doesn't cover it, the protests are
ignored. What about churches? Did any duly registered Churches dare preach
against the violence that was committed by the U.S. government? I doubt it.
I heard "support our troops"!
> He clearly named the four axes of evil as he saw them.
> Nobody jumped up and said, whoa there Mr. Bush - what does Iraq have to
> do with 9/11?
Many protested. But you can't find their stories reported on the news. When
was the last time you heard about the folks who are known to be
anti-violence like Amish, Mennonites, Society of Friends, etc., etc?
> Instead the afore mentioned "dumber" agreed.
Bush stated that if we're not "with him" we're against him. Well, I'm not
"with him" and his evil ways.
I can't say what other "Christians" would do, but that's their choice.
bckwrds
> Frankly, you have persuaded yourself that being evil is justified as long
as
> one is fighting evil. Unfortunately, that doesn't work.
> Either you are good or you are evil.
How did America become a free country? Didn't we fight for
that right? Should we have? Should we have stayed under
England's rule? How many people fought and died for their
rights that have been passed on now to you, me and into the
future?
Let's assume you have a child. A bigger child comes up to
your much younger and weaker child and slugs the holy heck
out of them. How do you react? What do you tell your child?
Do you go to the bigger childs parents and tell them to make
their child behave? And what if their child doesn't....and never
does. And now that bigger child is really upset not only with
your smaller and weaker child but also with you. So this
child takes a gun and wipes you all out. Now what?
And if this whole situation was happening to someone else
in your family (like a brother or sister) what would you do?
Nothing? Would you just truly sit and take it all....telling yourself
that it's all ok for this bully to hurt and perhaps even kill?
Now the bully is 30 years old. Is it still evil for me or you to
protect yourselves, your family, your friends, your neighbors
from this evil bully? Or do you just do ask the bully not to do
it again....or better yet, promise that he won't to it again.
And then he DOES do it again. Why do we even have laws
in the first place if just wishful thinking and talking does the trick?
Where do you live anyway????
> You cannot "fight" the devil with devil's tools.
> As Jesus reminds us, it's a win for the "other team" to win the world, and
> lose one's soul.
one should really understand and take in the entire Bible. It also says in
there that there is a time for war and a time for peace. It's unfortuante,
but there truly are bad, evil people in this world that have no right to
hurt anyone.
>
> Or as he put it, "no greater love than to lay down one's life for
another."
Yes, if jumping in front of a car to push someone into safety means that
I could possibly die....so be it. I would do that.
> That does not mean "kill your brother's assailant, making him lay down his
> life first"!
If your brother's assailant comes after you next or a child, then what?
Kindly ask him to stop?
OmegaTime
We have dumb to deal with for the next four years, by my decision dumb
is better than dumber. Morality aside, that's where we are.
jetgraphics wrote:
> OmegaTime wrote:
>
>>... your post really seems to be off base from the title. George Bush is
>>not God. I don't place my faith in George Bush or his administration. I
>>have no choice but to pay taxes. Actually between Bush and Kerry, to me
>>it was a toss up between dumb and dumber. That's why Bush won, lack of
>>choice, not picking the best man for the job.
>
>
> The reference was to the motto, "In God We Trust", that the government uses,
> while it engages in less than moral activities. That you have no choice to
> pay taxes, is not accurate.
>
> The individual income tax and social security wage tax are based upon
> voluntary participation in national socialism. One who has never enrolled
> cannot "willfully fail to file" since the IRS will not accept a Form 1040
> without a number. There is no law requiring participation in national
> socialism, nor is there a law punishing those who do not participate. It's
> 100% voluntary. This is not to be confused with the legitimate corporate
> income tax (uniform rate) which is an excise on the privilege.
>
> If you don't believe me write to the Social Security administration for a
> copy of the law that requires enrollment. And contact the IRS and ask them
> if a person who has not enrolled in social security can file a tax form.
> They will respond that one can ASK for a taxpayer identification number.
> No law requires one to have a TIN/SSN. 100% voluntary.
I read your post to lead us is to not financially support our government
based on immoral decisions. Maybe you have the money to fight the IRS
from collecting taxes from you, I don't. I'm a working class blue collar
worker doing the best I can to survive. I've already got a SSN and have
paid taxes. I pay an federal income tax, a state income tax, a city
income tax, social security tax, a county income tax, and a school
income tax along with all the sales taxes / property taxes that most
everyone pays. So where is it exactly you are suggesting I have the
ability to change this?
You are right, we are not the world police. Yet we appreciate the
freedoms afforded to us by this Government. We are not 100% free, but we
are in a better position than many other countries. Yet, as a theif robs
a man in the alley, do we stand by and watch while this action takes
place? Do we allow a theif to get away with their crime without a call
for help to the police? If so, soon everyone decides it's easier to be a
theif because there is no accountability.
The UN failed to back up it's own resolutions. Is that our problem only?
I don't feel it is, but when the U.N. tried to limit the U.S. ability to
stand against the intelligence we acted upon, George Bush said, 'No way,
we are a sovereign nation. As a sovereign nation, we have the ability to
make war.' Yelling foul without a penalty is just a yell.
Where are our priorities though? We have all kinds of people committing
fouls within our own borders. So, in a way I conceed that you are correct.
No doubt the U.S. has made enemies. And actually we are a nation being
led to it's doom. Therefore, I think it's far more important to be right
with Yahweh, than to worry about lil George or our enemies.
> What American property or person was injured to instigate a military
> invasion in the following?
> Gulf War, 1990-91
> Kosovo, 1998
> War on Terrorism, 1993-
> Afghanistan, 2001-
>
> To many in the Islamic faith, infidels (our troops) in Saudi Arabia
> represent a dire threat. It is like cooking a hamburger at a vegetarian
> picnic - not acceptable, at the least; a provocation at worst.
>
> The overthrow of the government in Afghanistan was blatant piracy. And to
> muslims, an attack on one muslim by an infidel is an attack on them all.
I agree that in no way were the U.S. citizens threatened immediately by
any of these actions. And truly in hindsight, I agree our Government was
rash in Iraq. But the result of Afghanistan and Kosovo was good for
human rights. Bosnia was good for human rights. And if we cave to the
demands of terrorists, we will truly be a nation on it's knees. Was the
Gulf War and Iraq about WMD, or oil? I don't know even in hindsight. I'm
paying more for oil now than I ever have. Sadaam Hussein pushed our
buttons on a touch of all these. 50,000 dead from one chemical attack on
his own people, terrorist plots offered on the open market to suicide
bombers in Israel, and failing to comply by U.N. resolutions were
examples of how he accomplished this. Did that make it right for war? I
can't say it did in hindsight, but at the moment it seemed right.
>>Bush has stated his intent since 9/11. Nobody stood
>>against him then.
>
>
> How would anyone know? If the mass media doesn't cover it, the protests are
> ignored. What about churches? Did any duly registered Churches dare preach
> against the violence that was committed by the U.S. government? I doubt it.
> I heard "support our troops"!
>
>
>>He clearly named the four axes of evil as he saw them.
>>Nobody jumped up and said, whoa there Mr. Bush - what does Iraq have to
>>do with 9/11?
>
>
> Many protested. But you can't find their stories reported on the news. When
> was the last time you heard about the folks who are known to be
> anti-violence like Amish, Mennonites, Society of Friends, etc., etc?
>
>
>>Instead the afore mentioned "dumber" agreed.
>
>
> Bush stated that if we're not "with him" we're against him. Well, I'm not
> "with him" and his evil ways.
> I can't say what other "Christians" would do, but that's their choice.
I live in an area that the media is tainted to the liberal belief.
Actually I think we all were in so much shock after 9/11, that some
choices should have been different. Kind of like the raped woman, we
wanted justice and Sadaam was the nearest rapist.
I respect your opinion, but I would try to stop the theif. I would
attack the nearest offender I could identify if I were a woman and had
been raped. One thing is certain, God will sort this out soon.
jetgraphics
>> Frankly, you have persuaded yourself that being evil is justified as long
> as
>> one is fighting evil. Unfortunately, that doesn't work.
>> Either you are good or you are evil.
>
> How did America become a free country?
Define "Free"?
> Didn't we fight for
> that right?
You may not quite understand the nature of the terms you use. Let me direct
your attention to your county courthouse law library. There you should find
many authorities to help settle the confusion about law and freedom.
What you call "Freedom" is not correct.
You should look into sovereignty.
"The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are
entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own
prerogative."
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)
"At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are
truly the sovereigns of the country."
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463
DOMINION - Generally accepted definition of "dominion" is perfect control in
right of ownership. The word implies both title and possession and appears
to require a complete retention of control over disposition. -Sovereignty;
as the dominion of the seas or over a territory.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p.486
SOVEREIGN - "...Having undisputed right to make decisions and act
accordingly".
New Webster's Dictionary And Thesaurus, p. 950.
SOVEREIGN - A person, body or state in which independent and supreme
authority is vested...
Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1395.
SOVEREIGNTY - ...By "Sovereignty", in its largest sense is meant supreme,
absolute, uncontrollable power, the absolute right to govern.
Black's Law Dictionary Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1396.
The reason I stress sovereignty, is to illustrate the difference between
natural, personal, civil and political liberty. Sovereign Americans have
natural and personal liberty protected by government. Civil and political
liberty are permissions granted by government.
I presume you heard of the "American Civil Liberties Union". They have no
mandate to support natural nor personal liberty.
You probably are unaware that since 1935, and the beginning of national
socialism, natural and personal liberty were surrendered, as well as
sovereignty, in exchange for access to entitlements.
So it is incorrect to presume that Americans are "free".
They are not.
And, no, "all Americans" did not fight the British soldiers (nor Hessian
mercenaries).
Interesting point - King George didn't surrender to the United States of
America, but to the PEOPLE. For the majority of the Revolution (or
Rebellion), there was no government in charge. So the King didn't surrender
to the USA, but to the people. That's why no other nation on this planet
has a republican form of government. But that's too advanced for this
discussion.
> Let's assume you have a child. A bigger child comes up to
> your much younger and weaker child and slugs the holy heck
> out of them. How do you react? What do you tell your child?
> Do you go to the bigger childs parents and tell them to make
> their child behave? And what if their child doesn't....and never
> does. And now that bigger child is really upset not only with
> your smaller and weaker child but also with you. So this
> child takes a gun and wipes you all out. Now what?
Are you seeking legal advice?
Or are you seeking spiritual counsel?
Jesus preached that you could act to defend another, laying down your own
life. But he didn't preach violence.
Gandhi's non-violent disobedience is a good example of what a Christian
might do. His followers marched up to armed soldiers and policemen, and
were beaten, without replying with violence. In time, even the hard hearts
of the military and police were shamed by their own evil.
>> You cannot "fight" the devil with devil's tools.
>> As Jesus reminds us, it's a win for the "other team" to win the world,
>> and lose one's soul.
>
> one should really understand and take in the entire Bible. It also says
> in there that there is a time for war and a time for peace.
If you want to follow the old Testament, that's your choice. However, Jesus
gave a different set of rules that superseded the old. And no, he never
taught that warfare was a suitable response to evil.
>> Or as he put it, "no greater love than to lay down one's life for
> another."
>
> Yes, if jumping in front of a car to push someone into safety means that
> I could possibly die....so be it. I would do that.
>> That does not mean "kill your brother's assailant, making him lay down
>> his life first"!
>
> If your brother's assailant comes after you next or a child, then what?
> Kindly ask him to stop?
I think you know better than that. Laying down one's life isn't meekly
asking for him to stop. It's the courage to stand up to him, without regard
for the pains he might inflict, while not replying with violence of any
sort.
jetgraphics
> I read your post to lead us is to not financially support our government
> based on immoral decisions.
Not exactly. I reported that the socialist taxes (not constitutional) are
based upon one's consent to be a socialist. If one had not enrolled, no
social security or wage tax would apply. However, other taxes (excises,
imposts, and duties) would be legitimate. Of course, the lion's share of
the revenue come from the levies based on "voluntary taxation".
> Maybe you have the money to fight the IRS
> from collecting taxes from you, I don't. I'm a working class blue collar
> worker doing the best I can to survive. I've already got a SSN and have
> paid taxes. I pay an federal income tax, a state income tax, a city
> income tax, social security tax, a county income tax, and a school
> income tax along with all the sales taxes / property taxes that most
> everyone pays. So where is it exactly you are suggesting I have the
> ability to change this?
The short answer is "you volunteered".
The long answer is found by some research into "private property" and
"sovereignty". Apparently, for three generations, we have been "dumbed"
down to the point that there's few alive that know what it was like before
national socialism.
In a nutshell, the government NEVER EVER taxed, regulated or impaired
"private property". However, estate is not private property.
No law compels the recording of private property. No law compels enrollment
into national socialism.
Socialism, by definition, abolishes private property. All the current abuses
we suffer stem from a gradual implementation of socialism enacted in the
1930s.
Until a majority of Americans leave national socialism, there's little hope
of meaningful change to our demise, economically and politically.
> You are right, we are not the world police. Yet we appreciate the
> freedoms afforded to us by this Government. We are not 100% free, but we
> are in a better position than many other countries.
Actually, if you read the Articles of Confederation (1777), you'll discover
that "Free inhabitants" are superior to the "Free citizens". Citizenship
has always been a step DOWN in status. Unfortunately, few Americans know
the difference between an American national and a U.S. citizen. However,
the State department knows. I wrote to them, and they admitted that they
will issue passports to American nationals who are not citizens.
If you're interested in sovereignty, check out:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NASP/message/29
> Yet, as a theif robs
> a man in the alley, do we stand by and watch while this action takes
> place? Do we allow a theif to get away with their crime without a call
> for help to the police? If so, soon everyone decides it's easier to be a
> theif because there is no accountability.
All law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy and policy
requires consent. Under the common law, a landowner had the absolute power
to inflict capital punishment upon a trespasser. And it's no surprise that
the government admits that the common law is too harsh for a democracy.
Frankly, the government has no sovereign prerogatives.
"Government is not Sovereignty. Government is the machinery or expedient for
expressing the will of the sovereign power." City of Bisbee v. Cochise
County, 78 P. 2d 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1
So, it would follow that a sovereign American, domiciled upon private
property, would have the right and power to shoo or shoot a trespasser.
If he needed more help, he would petition the "machinery" of government for
more assistance - such as calling the sheriff.
> The UN failed to back up it's own resolutions. Is that our problem only?
> I don't feel it is, but when the U.N. tried to limit the U.S. ability to
> stand against the intelligence we acted upon, George Bush said, 'No way,
> we are a sovereign nation. As a sovereign nation, we have the ability to
> make war.' Yelling foul without a penalty is just a yell.
You might be surprised to learn that the fiduciary agent of the U.N. is none
other than the Federal Reserve corporation, a private bank. And the
Secretary of Treasury, who is Governor of the Bank and Fund, is not paid by
the U.S. government. He's paid by the Fed. [Title 22 United States Code].
> No doubt the U.S. has made enemies. And actually we are a nation being
> led to it's doom. Therefore, I think it's far more important to be right
> with Yahweh, than to worry about lil George or our enemies.
I agree that we should get "right with that which you believe is Supreme".
However, since the majority of institutional religions are teaching
falsehoods, it's pretty tough.
For example, Ezekiel 18:13 (KJV) explicitly states that usury is an
abomination and a capital offense.
In Matthew 25, the parable of the three servants illustrate the evils of
usury.
And the sole report of Jesus getting violent, is when he whips the usurers
out of the temple. The modern "reinterpretation" has changed the identity
from usurers to "money changers".
Every religion that relies on the old testament teachings and accepts usury
is abominable.
Never trust a preacher with an open interest bearing bank account.
And furthermore, what could excuse the abomination of the "Vatican Bank!"
> I agree that in no way were the U.S. citizens threatened immediately by
> any of these actions. And truly in hindsight, I agree our Government was
> rash in Iraq. But the result of Afghanistan and Kosovo was good for
> human rights.
I know of no "human right" that is good for the innocent dead and
dispossessed.
There is a "right to life" that if undefended, is useless.
But the spin doctors have made "human rights" a euphemism for socialism.
That's what you should be wary of.
Socialism, by definition, abolishes private property rights. That's also
known as the absolute ownership of land, houses and chattels. Socialists
don't even own their children.
> I respect your opinion, but I would try to stop the theif. I would
> attack the nearest offender I could identify if I were a woman and had
> been raped. One thing is certain, God will sort this out soon.
If you believe you're a spirit living in a body, it's true that nothing
physical can harm your spirit. But what you do, does have consequences that
harm your spiritual attunement. In essence, if you are "one with the
Father", you wouldn't be expressing actions that are perceived as evil,
immoral or injurious to others.
jetgraphics
> one should really understand and take in
> the entire Bible.
"Reader's Digest" of Christianity
In Jesus' words (paraphrased):
1. Greatest commandment: Love God, love neighbor as yourself [Matt
22:37]
2. Jesus proclaimed he was one with the Father [Matt 29:30]
3. He said we, too, could become one with the Father [Matt 29:34;
John 21:1]
4. He said we, too, could do greater things than Himself. [John
14:12]
5. Forgive trespasses. [Matt 6:14, 15; 18:21; 18:35; Mark 11:25;
Luke 17:4]
So, if I understand Jesus correctly, he's telling me to
unequivocally love God, love my neighbor as myself, forgive all
trespasses, so that we can become one with Him and God, and in his
manner (Aramaic "in his name"), do even greater things, here on
Earth.
On obedience to ten commandments:
When a property right law conflicts with policy law, the property
right law supersedes policy law.
Property right commandments (prohibitions)
DO NOT:
1 kill,
2 bear false witness,
3 steal,
4 adulterate (a blood line of inheritance)
Policy commandments (requiring consent):
5 no other gods,
6 no profanity,
7 no graven images,
8 keep Sabbath,
9 honor parents,
10 no coveting.
Policy commandments are based on one's consent, such as
participation "in" the religion. In some cases, they're advice - as
is "don't covet". They aren't violations of property right law. If
there's a conflict, the property right law supersedes the policy
law.
No matter what rite, sect or dogmatic tradition you follow, there is
no situation when it is moral to:
[] steal from someone,
[] injure (and/or kill) an innocent person,
[] bear false witness (causing injury to their person or property),
[] violate a marriage compact, and sire a child outside of that
marriage.
In short, the property right laws of Christianity are in harmony
with secular law that protects property rights.
If you believe the Bible supports actions that injure the property rights of
innocent people, I would suggest that you review them.
OmegaTime
> Not exactly. I reported that the socialist taxes (not constitutional) are
> based upon one's consent to be a socialist. If one had not enrolled, no
> social security or wage tax would apply. However, other taxes (excises,
> imposts, and duties) would be legitimate. Of course, the lion's share of
> the revenue come from the levies based on "voluntary taxation".
I concur.
> The short answer is "you volunteered".
Not exactly. My parents made this choice for me. But I see what you are
saying.
> The long answer is found by some research into "private property" and
> "sovereignty". Apparently, for three generations, we have been "dumbed"
> down to the point that there's few alive that know what it was like before
> national socialism.
>
> In a nutshell, the government NEVER EVER taxed, regulated or impaired
> "private property". However, estate is not private property.
> No law compels the recording of private property. No law compels enrollment
> into national socialism.
>
> Socialism, by definition, abolishes private property. All the current abuses
> we suffer stem from a gradual implementation of socialism enacted in the
> 1930s.
>
> Until a majority of Americans leave national socialism, there's little hope
> of meaningful change to our demise, economically and politically.
Ok, so my parents messed up. As did I, when I got my children a SSN.
What do I do about it? How do I correct my mistake or the mistake of my
parents? I guess I'm looking at this as "what's your point" other than
pointing out the mistakes of many and possibly preventing future
mistakes? Problems that have no solution are out of my control. Are you
saying it's too late for me and I am doomed to a government that
promotes national socialism? How do I leave national socialism without a
hugh legal fund?
> Actually, if you read the Articles of Confederation (1777), you'll discover
> that "Free inhabitants" are superior to the "Free citizens". Citizenship
> has always been a step DOWN in status. Unfortunately, few Americans know
> the difference between an American national and a U.S. citizen. However,
> the State department knows. I wrote to them, and they admitted that they
> will issue passports to American nationals who are not citizens.
>
> If you're interested in sovereignty, check out:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NASP/message/29
And you realize this is a lot to take in, give me some time to read it
and understand it. Let's say for the moment I am completely convinced. I
guess I really want to hear from you, how do I on a limited budget
change the things you propose?
> All law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy and policy
> requires consent. Under the common law, a landowner had the absolute power
> to inflict capital punishment upon a trespasser. And it's no surprise that
> the government admits that the common law is too harsh for a democracy.
> Frankly, the government has no sovereign prerogatives.
>
> "Government is not Sovereignty. Government is the machinery or expedient for
> expressing the will of the sovereign power." City of Bisbee v. Cochise
> County, 78 P. 2d 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1
>
> So, it would follow that a sovereign American, domiciled upon private
> property, would have the right and power to shoo or shoot a trespasser.
> If he needed more help, he would petition the "machinery" of government for
> more assistance - such as calling the sheriff.
Yes, yet in accordance with the media in Iraq (if you choose to
recognize them as credible) we did so with consent and annouced intent.
The Iraqi people as a majority were crying out for help according to the
news media. Regardless of the news media's credibility, I am certain
Sadaam Hussein was well aware the U.S. had every intent to invade.
You stated "All law is the protection of property rights, all else is
policy and policy requires consent." I disagree, law encompasses much
more. Laws reflect morality, and governs policies, and govern property
rights. If our law provided for the marriage of men to sheep, then our
policy reflects that we accept sheep as acceptable mates of men. Laws
are fallible, because not everyone lives by the law - thus we have
criminals. And we are all criminals in some fashion, either with intent
or not.
I concur that "Government is not Sovereign". Bush stated, "We are a
sovereign nation". And as the leader of our nation, our government chose
to make war with Iraq and others. Not that this made it right, but that
if we choose to do so, we can. I applaud any action that removes us from
the U.N., else where is our freedom? Otherwise, why not make this the
United States of the United Nations?
> You might be surprised to learn that the fiduciary agent of the U.N. is none
> other than the Federal Reserve corporation, a private bank. And the
> Secretary of Treasury, who is Governor of the Bank and Fund, is not paid by
> the U.S. government. He's paid by the Fed. [Title 22 United States Code].
So we agree? We should not be in the U.N.? I remember as a child passing
by the billboards that said, "Get us out of the U.N.". I remember
wondering then the significance of such a sign. Now I know that
significance.
> I agree that we should get "right with that which you believe is Supreme".
> However, since the majority of institutional religions are teaching
> falsehoods, it's pretty tough.
> For example, Ezekiel 18:13 (KJV) explicitly states that usury is an
> abomination and a capital offense.
> In Matthew 25, the parable of the three servants illustrate the evils of
> usury.
> And the sole report of Jesus getting violent, is when he whips the usurers
> out of the temple. The modern "reinterpretation" has changed the identity
> from usurers to "money changers".
Profiteers at unreasonable rates for the exchange of currency. Check N
Go ($50 to borrow $200 of money for two weeks) is a usurer then by this
definition, right? I'm sorry, sounds like "money changer" to me also,
but most assume at a even rate of exchange. But what infuriated Jesus
was the sin and that the temple was not the place for sin. Before
Jesus's ressurection, God could not be with the unholy people. And the
Temple being the House of God, God could not coexist with His people. I
am not making light of the term "Usury" as sin. Only that I sin usually
without intent everyday, and my sin is equal, but I am forgiven through
Jesus Christ and the grace of God.
> Every religion that relies on the old testament teachings and accepts usury
> is abominable.
> Never trust a preacher with an open interest bearing bank account.
> And furthermore, what could excuse the abomination of the "Vatican Bank!"
I trust in no man, even my own flesh fails me if I turn my attention is
diverted from Yahweh. Only Yahweh knows the evil within a man's heart.
Jehovah (Yahweh) is the only "Supreme" being. The Trinity of God is the
offspring of God. Jesus Christ (Yoshua) referred to Jehovah as God the
Father. And Jesus Christ is the only man who professed to be the Son of
God. The Holy Spirit is that Spirit of God which is completely Holy.
Therefore, without God the Holy Spirit of God could not exist.
I hate to recant other posts of mine (broken record syndrome), but if
you find a perfect church - don't go in there. You'll ruin it as would
I. The church has man in it. And since man is imperfect, imperfection
exists in the church organization. Whereas Yahweh to which most churches
that profess Yoshua as Lord and Savior, is whom we seek to please in
worship regardless of the imperfections of the organization.
> I know of no "human right" that is good for the innocent dead and
> dispossessed.
> There is a "right to life" that if undefended, is useless.
> But the spin doctors have made "human rights" a euphemism for socialism.
> That's what you should be wary of.
And if people have bought into what the "Spin Doctors" say, then maybe
those people would choose to live by socialist ideals. I think not, I
agree that it is the "dumbing down" of our society. We live in a country
where majority rules in some cases and political power rules in others.
If the majority of people were protesting the Iraqi invasion, then
political power overruled the majority.
Educating people (which is what I read you to be doing) is the way to
avoid the fears of the socialist ideals. With this educative
information, I can choose to validate your position by researching for
myself, accept you as an authority on these subjects, or do nothing and
follow the flow. As children we accept others as the authority. As
responsible adults we validate information. As the "dumbed down", we
choose to follow the flow.
God wills that all should live. If I step off the New River bridge and
fall to my death, God did not choose that I would die. As a majority,
God would not will that even soldiers would die. Yet a voluntary soldier
chose to join with a body whose purpose is to make war or defend against
it. Soldiers don't have an option of which battles to engage in.
Therefore, they've chose to become an extension of another's will.
Innocence is how you perceive it, is the point I'm getting at. The
people who remained in Fallujah when the U.S. was ready to level that
city with announced intent, are they innocent? My answer is they were
stupid. If my house was the target of an invasion of military proportion
with announced intent, I'm getting out of it and going somewhere else.
This is the very core of terrorism. It's a military action without
announced intent. This is the killing of innocence to me. Attacking the
defenseless or people with no other option than to accept their death is
the killing of innocence.
> If you believe you're a spirit living in a body, it's true that nothing
> physical can harm your spirit. But what you do, does have consequences that
> harm your spiritual attunement. In essence, if you are "one with the
> Father", you wouldn't be expressing actions that are perceived as evil,
> immoral or injurious to others.
No sir or maam, you misunderstand. I am using a metaphor to modern day
crimes. "One with the Father" does not imply the lack of periphial
vision. Jesus was "One with the Father" and referred repetitively to the
modern day crimes of that time. Please don't question my devotion to
Yahweh. I don't question your belief in God or devotion to God.
To expand, I am not afraid to die. I know my eternal destination. And I
have love for the souls which suffer tyranny of evil, I would count
myself lucky to "fight the good fight" for. Where you and I may not
agree is what the "good fight" is. The Apostle Paul's definition is not
my inference here at all, he refers to the spreading of the gospel
although I gladly accept that challenge also.
Yes, there are evils in the U.S. Government. I was listening to your
opinion about what I can do as an individual. You seem very educated in
this area. There are evils in every form of Government, until Christ
returns and gathers his own.
OmegaTime
> [1] Learn and pass on the information
And of course you would expect me to find this stuff to be true.
Yet I am obligated to investigate for myself.
> [2] At this time, so few understand the nature of the problem, that "public
> opinion" is impaired. After education, free choice may offer a solution.
I understand your position as best as I can. I agree anything
born out of deceipt cannot be for the better.
> [3] Until we all know the facts, we can't make good decisions - or know what
> we're opposing. For example, anti-war activists of the 1960s burned draft
> cards, and some protested by not paying taxes. If they knew that only
> socialist citizen/residents were liable, then more would have chosen to be
> free inhabitants. [See Title 50, USC, about the parties obligated to
> selectively serve]
So then you have done a good job at expressing yourself.
> [4] At this point in time, the government acts as if national socialism is
> 100% voluntary. But they won't admit that one can volunteer out. Anecdotal
> material - those who have NO open interest bearing accounts and DORMANT
> social security account (no benefits) seem to be left alone by the IRS.
> Those who DO have bank accounts and active ssn ARE severely penalized.
> Any active entitlement or compact with federal reserve (school loans,
> mortgages, loans, grants, etc., etc.) is evidence of participation. Those
> who never signed up for national socialism cannot open personal bank
> accounts, nor receive "entitlements" (aka charity from the public
> treasury).
> [5] The starting point is inner change. Once the concepts of law and
> property percolate through the prior programming, it is easier to perceive
> the traps laid before you.
> [6] There is no compact that I know of that obligates free American people
> to fund, fight, and die for Iraqis, or for any other nation. However,
> national socialists may be obligated to fight in support of "socialist
> democracy". But the socialists consented.
> [7] I challenge you to find one property right law that is superseded by a
> policy law (requiring consent). In the Bible, for example, it's ADULTERY
> for a woman to marry her husband's brother. HOWEVER, if the husband dies
> without siring children, the surviving brother MUST marry the widow, and
> sire children in the dead brother's name. So in one case, "the law of God"
> condemns it, and in another, it promotes it.
> The underlying property right law is the paramount importance of a blood
> line of inheritance. Property is passed to the future generation, via
> marriage. Property that becomes unclaimed because the owner died without an
> heir was considered very very bad. An "evil foreigner" might just squat and
> claim it!
> [8] If you re-examine what you think are laws, and look for the underlying
> property right (or consent), I think you'll find that I am correct. Even
> the most despotic tyrant or evil monarch makes law to protect property
> rights - especially his own.
So I read your other post in the other thread. I think you
missed that I include that our laws reflect our morality.
> [9] Well, you are combining several concepts, but I get the gist of the
> idea. Of course, "bestiality" is already a crime. Is it policy law or
> property right law?
Sodomy is also illegal by law in many states, yet many states
have already recognized sexually active homosexuals as married
couples.
Don't mistake, I would not make an argument that beastiality is
permissible under any circumstance. My point is it is immoral,
yet could be allowed at some time in the future with advocates
such as the homosexual advocates.
> And marriage, contrary to modern spin, is not for love. Two people who love
> each other don't need an oath (and related laws) to compel them to be
> together. The bonds of matrimony were to TIE UP two adults who weren't
> quite sure what they were getting into... ;-)
Except for the legal situation under the National Socialist
system in which we discuss.
> More precisely, marriage was the way two families merged property rights for
> the benefit of their progeny's progeny. That's why arranged marriages were
> the norm for millenia of civilized life. Two families chose their child's
> spouse, endowed them, so at joining, the grandchildren would have an
> inheritance. Bible says pretty much the same thing.
> [10] No, law is not fallible. Policy is fallible. For example, if it is
> immoral, illegal, unwise to lie, cheat, steal and kill, how would law that
> allows redress of grievance would be fallible?
>
> The APPLICATION of law is fallible, not the law, itself.
>
> More precisely, a forbidden act because it is evil (injures the person or
> property of an innocent) is "against the law". However, policy may
> determine the punishment FOR that offense. And that policy may very well be
> flawed, inequitable, or unjust.
>
> Another way of looking at it, when one deliberately injures another, one can
> either submit to the judgment of law, or become outlawed. Civilized
> societies didn't tolerate outlaws.
> [11] What Bush stated and what the law says, are two distinctly different
> things. Since 1933, the U.S. government has operated in a state of
> emergency due to bankruptcy to foreign financial powers. The U.S.
> government lost its ability to serve the sovereignty in lieu of the wishes
> of the creditor.
> [12] It would be more accurate to say, "Get out of usury". Without usury,
> the international monetary powers would be powerless and destitute. One of
> the major reasons why Islam is under attack, is due to their religious
> conviction prohibiting usury. No banker can gain control over an Islamic
> nation that forbids usury.
>
> The U.N., being a creature obedient to usurers, is something quite evil.
> [13] Usury is not unreasonable rate of interest. Usury is ANY gain, in
> money, for the use of money. The reason behind it is simple - money is a
> dead thing. It doesn't have natural increase, as living things. A farmer
> invests seed, and harvests a crop. A herdsman invests in his flock, and it
> reproduces. The idea of a return on investment is sound. But substituting
> dead money into the equation is dead wrong.
>
> Or more accurately, the formula for calculating interest is exponential,
> with time as a factor. That means that no matter what rate is chosen, there
> will come a time when the outstanding debt (principle and interest) can
> exceed the total amount of money tokens in existance. That's why usury is
> impossible to pay in a finite money token system. It is especially insane
> when the money token (Federal Reserve Note) is borrowed, at interest, into
> existance.
>
> Money is an abstraction, a medium of exchange, and an accounting symbol for
> the whole set of real goods and services. When one makes a money token FROM
> something out of the whole set, there is a serious error. Because money
> must have a proportional value to the whole set, or it can't function.
> [14] The point is that those who are responsible for teaching scripture
> aren't complying with it. Ergo, the teacher corrupts the student.
> [15] We are speaking of spirit, correct?
If you are asking if I see a physical God, no.
> [16] I thought we're all children of God? Jesus was the only begotten son.
Concede.
> [17] Even if the majority of people were protesting, unless they left
> national socialism, the government would not necessarily obey their wishes.
> It goes back to the excluded classes enumerated in Article IV of the
> Confederation (also known as status criminals).
Yes, this is what I was saying. Either political power or
majority support is the motivation for any Government action.
> [18] I believe in free choice. If people freely chose socialism, that's
> fine. But since fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation was used to induce
> participation, I have a problem with "the System". And the consequences of
> the deceit have born bitter fruit.
> [19] God is spirit. I think we all agree that we are spirits inhabiting
> bodies, temporarily. And nothing in this world can harm spirit. However,
> our actions can have consequences that our spirits will experience. Since
> God gave us "Free Will", I don't believe he has a specific "will" for us,
> other than that we, as humans, should live in a harmless manner, supporting
> our right to life without injuring the person and property of another.
Oh no my friend, Yahweh has a will for you. You may be
fulfilling that as we converse. I will no longer exist in the
physical world when I have fulfilled the will of God.
> Unfortunately, Christians who follow the "law of love" are confronted by
> another population of people who follow a different law - "law of the
> jungle". They believe that supporting their right to life supersedes
> everyone else's rights to person and property.
It's my opinion that you've substituted the word "Liberals" with
"Christian". I am a Christian, yet I accept the law of the
jungle. Do I follow a God who loves mankind? Of course. Am I
compelled to impose my will on others, nobody except my kids.
> For convenience, let's call them predators. These human predators disguise
> themselves in every way, hiding amongst their prey. To discover a predator
> is quite easy - they will not honor property rights of another.
I guess that's why I'm posting in alt.christian.religion is to
disguise myself. ;-o I am no predator, I am merely a servant. I
am being as opened with you as possible in an open forum.
> Right now, many good hearted, well meaning Americans have been misled to act
> as predators or support predators, in their bloodthirsty harvest.
Again, American does not equal Christian. Christian does not
equal liberal. In fact, Christian usually means conservative.
> [20] No challenge was intended. What I am trying to illustrate is that
> religion (and scripture) were hijacked by predators who manipulated hordes
> of people to engage in "holy wars" or other abominations that were in
> direct contravention to the law of love.
> [21] Technically, one can't "Fight in the Lord's Army" and follow the law of
> love. Remember, Jesus taught that the greatest love was laying down one's
> own life for another. It didn't mean to lay down your brother's life for
> your benefit! Or in other words, when you use devilish tools to beat the
> devil, he wins.
Oh no, I mean I would lay my life on the line, and have done so
on prior incident. I expect nothing in return, nor anyone to do
the same for me.
> [22] Since enemy #1 is looking back at me in the mirror, I am fighting
> myself ;-)
> It took me a long time to realize that I had no idea what morality was.
> Despite years of training in religious schools and studying scriptures of
> many faiths, it was clear that someone had twisted the underlying morality.
> [23] If you believe Jesus is in spirit, and he promised that he would be
> with us till the end of time, then there's no return necessary. He's always
> around, unperceived by mortal senses.
Sure there is, because it will fulfill the Word of God as
spelled out in the NT. Also, this world is destine to fail.
There really is no hope for this world, except in Christ. I'm
only 43 years old. The world is a worst place today than when I
was a child.
jetgraphics
>> Until a majority of Americans leave national socialism, there's little
>> hope of meaningful change to our demise, economically and politically.
>
> Ok, so my parents messed up. As did I, when I got my children a SSN.
> What do I do about it?
[1] Learn and pass on the information
> How do I correct my mistake or the mistake of my
> parents?
[2] At this time, so few understand the nature of the problem, that "public
opinion" is impaired. After education, free choice may offer a solution.
> I guess I'm looking at this as "what's your point" other than
> pointing out the mistakes of many and possibly preventing future
> mistakes?
[3] Until we all know the facts, we can't make good decisions - or know what
we're opposing. For example, anti-war activists of the 1960s burned draft
cards, and some protested by not paying taxes. If they knew that only
socialist citizen/residents were liable, then more would have chosen to be
free inhabitants. [See Title 50, USC, about the parties obligated to
selectively serve]
> Problems that have no solution are out of my control. Are you
> saying it's too late for me and I am doomed to a government that
> promotes national socialism? How do I leave national socialism without a
> hugh legal fund?
[4] At this point in time, the government acts as if national socialism is
100% voluntary. But they won't admit that one can volunteer out. Anecdotal
material - those who have NO open interest bearing accounts and DORMANT
social security account (no benefits) seem to be left alone by the IRS.
Those who DO have bank accounts and active ssn ARE severely penalized.
Any active entitlement or compact with federal reserve (school loans,
mortgages, loans, grants, etc., etc.) is evidence of participation. Those
who never signed up for national socialism cannot open personal bank
accounts, nor receive "entitlements" (aka charity from the public
treasury).
>> Actually, if you read the Articles of Confederation (1777), you'll
>> discover that "Free inhabitants" are superior to the "Free citizens".
>> Citizenship has always been a step DOWN in status. Unfortunately, few
>> Americans know the difference between an American national and a U.S.
>> citizen. However, the State department knows. I wrote to them, and they
>> admitted that they will issue passports to American nationals who are not
>> citizens.
>>
>> If you're interested in sovereignty, check out:
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NASP/message/29
>
> And you realize this is a lot to take in, give me some time to read it
> and understand it. Let's say for the moment I am completely convinced. I
> guess I really want to hear from you, how do I on a limited budget
> change the things you propose?
[5] The starting point is inner change. Once the concepts of law and
property percolate through the prior programming, it is easier to perceive
the traps laid before you.
>> All law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy and
>> policy requires consent. Under the common law, a landowner had the
>> absolute power to inflict capital punishment upon a trespasser. And it's
>> no surprise that the government admits that the common law is too harsh
>> for a democracy. Frankly, the government has no sovereign prerogatives.
>>
>> "Government is not Sovereignty. Government is the machinery or expedient
>> for
>>expressing the will of the sovereign power." City of Bisbee v. Cochise
>> County, 78 P. 2d 982, 986, 52 Ariz. 1
>>
>> So, it would follow that a sovereign American, domiciled upon private
>> property, would have the right and power to shoo or shoot a trespasser.
>> If he needed more help, he would petition the "machinery" of government
>> for more assistance - such as calling the sheriff.
>
> Yes, yet in accordance with the media in Iraq (if you choose to
> recognize them as credible) we did so with consent and annouced intent.
> The Iraqi people as a majority were crying out for help according to the
> news media. Regardless of the news media's credibility, I am certain
> Sadaam Hussein was well aware the U.S. had every intent to invade.
[6] There is no compact that I know of that obligates free American people
to fund, fight, and die for Iraqis, or for any other nation. However,
national socialists may be obligated to fight in support of "socialist
democracy". But the socialists consented.
> You stated "All law is the protection of property rights, all else is
> policy and policy requires consent." I disagree, law encompasses much
> more.
[7] I challenge you to find one property right law that is superseded by a
policy law (requiring consent). In the Bible, for example, it's ADULTERY
for a woman to marry her husband's brother. HOWEVER, if the husband dies
without siring children, the surviving brother MUST marry the widow, and
sire children in the dead brother's name. So in one case, "the law of God"
condemns it, and in another, it promotes it.
The underlying property right law is the paramount importance of a blood
line of inheritance. Property is passed to the future generation, via
marriage. Property that becomes unclaimed because the owner died without an
heir was considered very very bad. An "evil foreigner" might just squat and
claim it!
> Laws reflect morality, and governs policies, and govern property
> rights.
[8] If you re-examine what you think are laws, and look for the underlying
property right (or consent), I think you'll find that I am correct. Even
the most despotic tyrant or evil monarch makes law to protect property
rights - especially his own.
> If our law provided for the marriage of men to sheep, then our
> policy reflects that we accept sheep as acceptable mates of men.
[9] Well, you are combining several concepts, but I get the gist of the
idea. Of course, "bestiality" is already a crime. Is it policy law or
property right law?
And marriage, contrary to modern spin, is not for love. Two people who love
each other don't need an oath (and related laws) to compel them to be
together. The bonds of matrimony were to TIE UP two adults who weren't
quite sure what they were getting into... ;-)
More precisely, marriage was the way two families merged property rights for
the benefit of their progeny's progeny. That's why arranged marriages were
the norm for millenia of civilized life. Two families chose their child's
spouse, endowed them, so at joining, the grandchildren would have an
inheritance. Bible says pretty much the same thing.
> Laws
> are fallible, because not everyone lives by the law - thus we have
> criminals. And we are all criminals in some fashion, either with intent
> or not.
[10] No, law is not fallible. Policy is fallible. For example, if it is
immoral, illegal, unwise to lie, cheat, steal and kill, how would law that
allows redress of grievance would be fallible?
The APPLICATION of law is fallible, not the law, itself.
More precisely, a forbidden act because it is evil (injures the person or
property of an innocent) is "against the law". However, policy may
determine the punishment FOR that offense. And that policy may very well be
flawed, inequitable, or unjust.
Another way of looking at it, when one deliberately injures another, one can
either submit to the judgment of law, or become outlawed. Civilized
societies didn't tolerate outlaws.
> I concur that "Government is not Sovereign". Bush stated, "We are a
> sovereign nation". And as the leader of our nation, our government chose
> to make war with Iraq and others. Not that this made it right, but that
> if we choose to do so, we can. I applaud any action that removes us from
> the U.N., else where is our freedom? Otherwise, why not make this the
> United States of the United Nations?
[11] What Bush stated and what the law says, are two distinctly different
things. Since 1933, the U.S. government has operated in a state of
emergency due to bankruptcy to foreign financial powers. The U.S.
government lost its ability to serve the sovereignty in lieu of the wishes
of the creditor.
>> You might be surprised to learn that the fiduciary agent of the U.N. is
>> none other than the Federal Reserve corporation, a private bank. And the
>> Secretary of Treasury, who is Governor of the Bank and Fund, is not paid
>> by the U.S. government. He's paid by the Fed. [Title 22 United States
>> Code].
>
> So we agree? We should not be in the U.N.? I remember as a child passing
> by the billboards that said, "Get us out of the U.N.". I remember
> wondering then the significance of such a sign. Now I know that
> significance.
[12] It would be more accurate to say, "Get out of usury". Without usury,
the international monetary powers would be powerless and destitute. One of
the major reasons why Islam is under attack, is due to their religious
conviction prohibiting usury. No banker can gain control over an Islamic
nation that forbids usury.
The U.N., being a creature obedient to usurers, is something quite evil.
>> I agree that we should get "right with that which you believe is
>> Supreme". However, since the majority of institutional religions are
>> teaching falsehoods, it's pretty tough.
>> For example, Ezekiel 18:13 (KJV) explicitly states that usury is an
>> abomination and a capital offense.
>> In Matthew 25, the parable of the three servants illustrate the evils of
>> usury.
>> And the sole report of Jesus getting violent, is when he whips the
>> usurers out of the temple. The modern "reinterpretation" has changed the
>> identity from usurers to "money changers".
>
> Profiteers at unreasonable rates for the exchange of currency. Check N
> Go ($50 to borrow $200 of money for two weeks) is a usurer then by this
> definition, right? I'm sorry, sounds like "money changer" to me also,
> but most assume at a even rate of exchange. But what infuriated Jesus
> was the sin and that the temple was not the place for sin. Before
> Jesus's ressurection, God could not be with the unholy people. And the
> Temple being the House of God, God could not coexist with His people. I
> am not making light of the term "Usury" as sin. Only that I sin usually
> without intent everyday, and my sin is equal, but I am forgiven through
> Jesus Christ and the grace of God.
[13] Usury is not unreasonable rate of interest. Usury is ANY gain, in
money, for the use of money. The reason behind it is simple - money is a
dead thing. It doesn't have natural increase, as living things. A farmer
invests seed, and harvests a crop. A herdsman invests in his flock, and it
reproduces. The idea of a return on investment is sound. But substituting
dead money into the equation is dead wrong.
Or more accurately, the formula for calculating interest is exponential,
with time as a factor. That means that no matter what rate is chosen, there
will come a time when the outstanding debt (principle and interest) can
exceed the total amount of money tokens in existance. That's why usury is
impossible to pay in a finite money token system. It is especially insane
when the money token (Federal Reserve Note) is borrowed, at interest, into
existance.
Money is an abstraction, a medium of exchange, and an accounting symbol for
the whole set of real goods and services. When one makes a money token FROM
something out of the whole set, there is a serious error. Because money
must have a proportional value to the whole set, or it can't function.
>> Every religion that relies on the old testament teachings and accepts
>> usury is abominable.
>> Never trust a preacher with an open interest bearing bank account.
>> And furthermore, what could excuse the abomination of the "Vatican Bank!"
>
> I trust in no man, even my own flesh fails me if I turn my attention is
> diverted from Yahweh. Only Yahweh knows the evil within a man's heart.
[14] The point is that those who are responsible for teaching scripture
aren't complying with it. Ergo, the teacher corrupts the student.
> Jehovah (Yahweh) is the only "Supreme" being.
[15] We are speaking of spirit, correct?
> The Trinity of God is the
> offspring of God. Jesus Christ (Yoshua) referred to Jehovah as God the
> Father. And Jesus Christ is the only man who professed to be the Son of
> God. The Holy Spirit is that Spirit of God which is completely Holy.
> Therefore, without God the Holy Spirit of God could not exist.
[16] I thought we're all children of God? Jesus was the only begotten son.
>> I know of no "human right" that is good for the innocent dead and
>> dispossessed.
>> There is a "right to life" that if undefended, is useless.
>> But the spin doctors have made "human rights" a euphemism for socialism.
>> That's what you should be wary of.
>
> And if people have bought into what the "Spin Doctors" say, then maybe
> those people would choose to live by socialist ideals. I think not, I
> agree that it is the "dumbing down" of our society. We live in a country
> where majority rules in some cases and political power rules in others.
> If the majority of people were protesting the Iraqi invasion, then
> political power overruled the majority.
[17] Even if the majority of people were protesting, unless they left
national socialism, the government would not necessarily obey their wishes.
It goes back to the excluded classes enumerated in Article IV of the
Confederation (also known as status criminals).
> Educating people (which is what I read you to be doing) is the way to
> avoid the fears of the socialist ideals. With this educative
> information, I can choose to validate your position by researching for
> myself, accept you as an authority on these subjects, or do nothing and
> follow the flow. As children we accept others as the authority. As
> responsible adults we validate information. As the "dumbed down", we
> choose to follow the flow.
[18] I believe in free choice. If people freely chose socialism, that's
fine. But since fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation was used to induce
participation, I have a problem with "the System". And the consequences of
the deceit have born bitter fruit.
> God wills that all should live.
[19] God is spirit. I think we all agree that we are spirits inhabiting
bodies, temporarily. And nothing in this world can harm spirit. However,
our actions can have consequences that our spirits will experience. Since
God gave us "Free Will", I don't believe he has a specific "will" for us,
other than that we, as humans, should live in a harmless manner, supporting
our right to life without injuring the person and property of another.
Unfortunately, Christians who follow the "law of love" are confronted by
another population of people who follow a different law - "law of the
jungle". They believe that supporting their right to life supersedes
everyone else's rights to person and property.
For convenience, let's call them predators. These human predators disguise
themselves in every way, hiding amongst their prey. To discover a predator
is quite easy - they will not honor property rights of another.
Right now, many good hearted, well meaning Americans have been misled to act
as predators or support predators, in their bloodthirsty harvest.
>> If you believe you're a spirit living in a body, it's true that nothing
>> physical can harm your spirit. But what you do, does have consequences
>> that harm your spiritual attunement. In essence, if you are "one with the
>> Father", you wouldn't be expressing actions that are perceived as evil,
>> immoral or injurious to others.
>
> No sir or maam, you misunderstand. I am using a metaphor to modern day
> crimes. "One with the Father" does not imply the lack of periphial
> vision. Jesus was "One with the Father" and referred repetitively to the
> modern day crimes of that time. Please don't question my devotion to
> Yahweh. I don't question your belief in God or devotion to God.
[20] No challenge was intended. What I am trying to illustrate is that
religion (and scripture) were hijacked by predators who manipulated hordes
of people to engage in "holy wars" or other abominations that were in
direct contravention to the law of love.
> To expand, I am not afraid to die. I know my eternal destination. And I
> have love for the souls which suffer tyranny of evil, I would count
> myself lucky to "fight the good fight" for.
[21] Technically, one can't "Fight in the Lord's Army" and follow the law of
love. Remember, Jesus taught that the greatest love was laying down one's
own life for another. It didn't mean to lay down your brother's life for
your benefit! Or in other words, when you use devilish tools to beat the
devil, he wins.
> Where you and I may not
> agree is what the "good fight" is.
[22] Since enemy #1 is looking back at me in the mirror, I am fighting
myself ;-)
It took me a long time to realize that I had no idea what morality was.
Despite years of training in religious schools and studying scriptures of
many faiths, it was clear that someone had twisted the underlying morality.
> Yes, there are evils in the U.S. Government. I was listening to your
> opinion about what I can do as an individual. You seem very educated in
> this area. There are evils in every form of Government, until Christ
> returns and gathers his own.
[23] If you believe Jesus is in spirit, and he promised that he would be
with us till the end of time, then there's no return necessary. He's always
around, unperceived by mortal senses.
A Guide to morality.
The confusion we feel is based upon our trained inability to reason between
the choices our own survival presents us.
Pundits and philosophers have made the waters muddy, let's uncloud them:
What is morality?
MORAL - Concerned with right or wrong, and the distinctions between them.
- Webster's dictionary.
Can you have morality without survival?
Individually, no. A dead thing has no morals - can't be right or wrong nor
distinguish between.
Collectively, no. A species - society - civilization that doesn't exist,
can't have morality, either.
SO
It would follow that without survival, there is no morality.
Is survival the highest morality?
For a species - society - civilization?
It would follow that you must first have survival before you can ponder
anything.
But is it the highest morality? No.
Then what's next?
Is anything moral, as long as the "many" survive?
No.
Here's where the break down occurs.
Individual survival.
Is it moral for a society to deny survival to an innocent individual in
order for the whole to survive?
NO!
Is it moral for an individual to deny survival to another innocent
individual in order for his own survival?
NO!
So the difference between right and wrong is simple - survival that's not at
the expense of another's survival is rightful.
Now it makes sense when Jesus says there is no greater love than when one
man lay down his life for another.
In other words, an individual who surrenders his own right to life, in
support of another's life (or collective life), is expressing a higher
morality (goodness) beyond individual survival.
And the greatest evil is self-survival at the expense of innocent people's
lives. [Abortion sounds like selfish evil...]
So the knowledge of "good and evil" is something that indicates sentient
life, and the ability to be moral or immoral. That which cannot reason
between good and evil, acting only from instinct, is not considered
sentient. Animals have no morality. Instinctual behavior is under the law of
the jungle, eat or be eaten, kill or be killed.
Extending that beyond our own species, we can state:
1. Morality is survival as long as it doesn't injure the survival of other
innocent sentient beings.
2. Greatest morality is self sacrifice for the survival of other innocent
sentient beings.
3. Evil is self survival by the deliberate injury to another innocent
sentients' survival.
4. Greatest Evil is the deliberate injury to another innocent sentient's
survival, without reason.
That's morality in four easy steps: the law of love.
Test section:
How would you define the actions of a vandal, who injuries the property of
another, without fulfilling any need for individual survival?
Evil or Greatest Evil?
How would you define the actions of a wanton murderer, who kills people,
without cause?
Evil or Greatest Evil?
How would you define premeditated murder, for a specific cause related to
survival?
Evil or Greatest Evil?
Why does government not punish unreasonable acts of murder more seriously
than reasonable acts of murder?
Does our society teach us to tolerate great evil?
Is more evil the result of our tolerance for evil?
Is it merciful to the next victim?
jetgraphics
>> [8] If you re-examine what you think are laws, and look for the
>> [underlying
>> property right (or consent), I think you'll find that I am correct. Even
>> the most despotic tyrant or evil monarch makes law to protect property
>> rights - especially his own.
>
> So I read your other post in the other thread. I think you
> missed that I include that our laws reflect our morality.
[8a] Policy laws that are based upon consent may reflect morality, which
could be either predatory morality or productive morality. But if such laws
injure property rights, they aren't "LAW", but abominations.
>> [9] Well, you are combining several concepts, but I get the gist of the
>> idea. Of course, "bestiality" is already a crime. Is it policy law or
>> property right law?
>
> Sodomy is also illegal by law in many states, yet many states
> have already recognized sexually active homosexuals as married
> couples.
[9a] Isn't that paradoxical? But gay marriages are a product of national
socialism, not law. There's no progeny of a gay marriage to pass property
rights to. Ergo, there's no legal reason for marriage. But to access
socialist benefits offered to married couples, gay marriage becomes
important.
[9b] Socialist policy is at odds with law. But you already know that.
[9c] The confusion with policy law stems from statutes that prohibit an
action by a "person" that doesn't injure another (victimless crime). In
law, the term "person" specifically excludes the sovereign. In essence, the
person liable is one who is subject to and object of the law, such as a
public servant. And it was important that the people feel secure that their
servants weren't engaged in controversial activity. But the government had
no delegation of authority to legislate morality for free inhabitants who
neither resided nor exercised political liberty.
In fact, that is probably why the military have adopted the "don't ask,
don't tell" policy regarding homosexuals. Since the military ARE subject to
the stricter policy laws that are politically unpopular, they can't
summarily disregard them.
So, in one sense, "Free inhabitants" could engage in any harmless activity
that might even be proscribed by one or more religions. But "persons" may
not.
There are many sneaky terms in policy law, such as "person" "shall" "or"
"estate" "resident" and so on. Common usage has often been warped to
maintain confusion.
Every newscaster that bleats on about "Mr Jones, a resident of XYZ, who
resides at, or has a residence", is perpetuating the propaganda.
>> [17] Even if the majority of people were protesting, unless they left
>> national socialism, the government would not necessarily obey their
>> wishes. It goes back to the excluded classes enumerated in Article IV of
>> the Confederation (also known as status criminals).
>
> Yes, this is what I was saying. Either political power or
> majority support is the motivation for any Government action.
[17a] Those who consent cannot complain. Those who never gave consent have
nothing to complain about. Sigh.
>> [19] God is spirit. I think we all agree that we are spirits inhabiting
>> bodies, temporarily. And nothing in this world can harm spirit. However,
>> our actions can have consequences that our spirits will experience. Since
>> God gave us "Free Will", I don't believe he has a specific "will" for us,
>> other than that we, as humans, should live in a harmless manner,
>> supporting our right to life without injuring the person and property of
>> another.
>
> Oh no my friend, Yahweh has a will for you. You may be
> fulfilling that as we converse. I will no longer exist in the
> physical world when I have fulfilled the will of God.
[19a] The Aramaic version of the Lord's prayer is very interesting. Unlike
the English "..thy will be done", it appears to be "thy good wishes for thy
children be made manifest". So one may presume that Jesus taught that our
Father in heaven has expectations, not imposed demands.
[19b] How do you know spirit will not remain in this physical world? There
are many reports of encounters with ghostly spirits. Perhaps such souls are
the lost ones, unable to be one with the Father. That would be tragic.
>> Unfortunately, Christians who follow the "law of love" are confronted by
>> another population of people who follow a different law - "law of the
>> jungle". They believe that supporting their right to life supersedes
>> everyone else's rights to person and property.
>
> It's my opinion that you've substituted the word "Liberals" with
> "Christian". I am a Christian, yet I accept the law of the
> jungle. Do I follow a God who loves mankind? Of course. Am I
> compelled to impose my will on others, nobody except my kids.
[19b] To clarify things, the terms liberal and conservative are synonymous
with left and right wing. Liberals / left were opposed to traditional
authority, while conservatives / right were in support of traditional
authority. FYI - fascism is defined as right wing. However, the fascist
regimes (Germany, Italy) were opposed to traditional authority! What I am
trying to communicate is that the word "liberal" is a misused and
misunderstood term (as are many invectives).
The "traditional" authority of Christianity is Christ. Those opposed to
Christ's teachings would be liberals. A "fundamentalist" Christian who
interprets scripture to oppose Christ's teachings would be liberal, despite
protests to the contrary.
Regarding the law of love, if you claim to be a Christian but not follow the
law of love, aren't you a predator (liberal)?
In Jesus' words (paraphrased):
Greatest commandment: Love God, love neighbor as yourself [Matt
22:37]
>> Right now, many good hearted, well meaning Americans have been misled to
>> act as predators or support predators, in their bloodthirsty harvest.
>
> Again, American does not equal Christian. Christian does not
> equal liberal. In fact, Christian usually means conservative.
[] No implication that all Americans are Christian. However, a good
Christian would be in harmony with the property right laws of this nation.
Under national socialism, Americans (Christian or not) are being corrupted.
>> [23] If you believe Jesus is in spirit, and he promised that he would be
>> with us till the end of time, then there's no return necessary. He's
>> always around, unperceived by mortal senses.
>
> Sure there is, because it will fulfill the Word of God as
> spelled out in the NT.
[23a] The vision of St.John has been variously interpreted to mean the end
was near many times. However, there is no reference in the four gospels
reporting Jesus' teachings that such an event was forthcoming. It's
harmless policy law - for those that believe such is necessary. However, if
such a belief empowers a disregard for property rights, it is evil.
> Also, this world is destine to fail.
[23b] All flesh is fleeting. Does that mean one should act like animals?
> There really is no hope for this world, except in Christ.
[23c] His kingdom is not of this world. Remember? He's spirit. Hoping for
heaven on earth is futile.
> I'm
> only 43 years old. The world is a worst place today than when I
> was a child.
[23d] That's why only those who take responsibility for this mess have the
power to change anything. Those who blame others, can never change
anything.
Quickie Digest of Christianity
OmegaTime
> OmegaTime wrote:
>
>
>>>[8] If you re-examine what you think are laws, and look for the
>>>[underlying
>>>property right (or consent), I think you'll find that I am correct. Even
>>>the most despotic tyrant or evil monarch makes law to protect property
>>>rights - especially his own.
>>
>>So I read your other post in the other thread. I think you
>>missed that I include that our laws reflect our morality.
>
>
> [8a] Policy laws that are based upon consent may reflect morality, which
> could be either predatory morality or productive morality. But if such laws
> injure property rights, they aren't "LAW", but abominations.
Ok
I think we've whipped this subject to death. I think we are both on the
same side, but for a little different reasons. My main point being the
morality reflected, yours substantiating the reason morals are reflected
in laws.
>>>[17] Even if the majority of people were protesting, unless they left
>>>national socialism, the government would not necessarily obey their
>>>wishes. It goes back to the excluded classes enumerated in Article IV of
>>>the Confederation (also known as status criminals).
>>
>>Yes, this is what I was saying. Either political power or
>>majority support is the motivation for any Government action.
>
>
> [17a] Those who consent cannot complain. Those who never gave consent have
> nothing to complain about. Sigh.
And while I can certainly see your point and where it may be taking us
as a nation, I also see that the U.S. is still the best country in ths
world to live. Actually, you've got me thinking biblically that maybe
SSN's could even be the mark of the beast (which I personally believe to
be acceptance of the world system). Yet I did not take it willfully or
even understanding the things we've discussed in this thread. But even
if SSN's are not, I can see how easily uneducated people can be led into
deception. And seeing that the world is not getting better, this does
frighten me for the sake of those I love who are not saved.
> [19a] The Aramaic version of the Lord's prayer is very interesting. Unlike
> the English "..thy will be done", it appears to be "thy good wishes for thy
> children be made manifest". So one may presume that Jesus taught that our
> Father in heaven has expectations, not imposed demands.
>
> [19b] How do you know spirit will not remain in this physical world? There
> are many reports of encounters with ghostly spirits. Perhaps such souls are
> the lost ones, unable to be one with the Father. That would be tragic.
Ok, first of all I am guessing you discount the Apostle Paul's
teachings(Rom 8)? In Mat 21:31 Jesus speaks in parable of the Father's
will. Or supporting the will ideal: Mar 3:35 Joh 7:17 Joh 9:31. Wishes
or will is a mute point, it's spoken of in present tense.
Next, call me crazy but this is what is impressed on me by the Spirit. I
can't support this with theology and it's completely subjective. I won't
disect this belief, it was an answer to prayer over the Genesis creation
account. Actually, I feel it's a revalation to me. It's even above my
total comprehension. No, I have not been smoking marijuana. And I don't
believe myself to be intelligent enough to develop this idea alone. If
you have seen the movie "The Matrix", it kind of touches this concept.
But these things revealed to me were before the movie was thought about.
I believe God does not see things as we do. We see things of the
physical world as it relates to time or distance. ie: The distance to my
house to from yours, the amount of years past since Jesus lived.
A.) I think time and distance have no subtantial meaning to God because
he is not of this world. I think God defined that the physical world
would have physical laws of time and distance, and man could not
comprehend this concept (since there were no defined laws of physics
before the bible to our knowledge). I think this is where 2Pe 3:8
(...that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand
years as one day.) fits in. The physical laws don't apply to God.
Remember, Satan is of this world.
B.) Thus subtracting the time and distance from the mindset, today is
the same as yesterday as is tommorrow, and from here to there is no
different than being right here to God.
C.) This explains the omnipresence of God. This also fits that the first
day of creation could have been billions of our years since physical
laws did not exist. And possibly since days were defined by light and
darkness, time still had no meaning because of the complete physical
world was not finished. Alaska has days 6 months long by this
definition, and nights equally as long (not literal, but I hope you get
the gist).
D.) Also, the time is not defined by the bible when Satan fell into a
physical world, and thus Satan is not omnipresent. So it is my guess
that Satan fell before the physical world was complete. Else, how did
Satan approach Eve in the Garden of Eden?
E.) This idea encompasses a lot, and frankly it blows me away to try and
take it all in. I am not encouraging others to believe what I beleive,
because it was revealed to me. Seek out the answers from God yourself to
test this idea.
F.) I also feel this has something to do with the explanation of death
of a human and the process to which they stand in judgment. The bible
says we fall asleep, was this a way of explaning what those men could
not comprehend? Maybe we lose the physical laws in the spirit, yet are
confined to some place other than this world. I don't believe in ghosts.
I believe in demons that could deceive one into thinking they are less
than evil or possibly accept their position as a castout from God.
What is subjective to me is everything outlined after paragraph D. I
know it seems to be an answer in which someone tried to fit to the
problem of explaining the Genesis account. I know it seems a bit wacky.
This is why it is the first time I have ever spoke of it. I don't have
all the answers to this idea. I don't fully comprehend it all.
> [19b] To clarify things, the terms liberal and conservative are synonymous
> with left and right wing. Liberals / left were opposed to traditional
> authority, while conservatives / right were in support of traditional
> authority. FYI - fascism is defined as right wing. However, the fascist
> regimes (Germany, Italy) were opposed to traditional authority! What I am
> trying to communicate is that the word "liberal" is a misused and
> misunderstood term (as are many invectives).
> The "traditional" authority of Christianity is Christ. Those opposed to
> Christ's teachings would be liberals. A "fundamentalist" Christian who
> interprets scripture to oppose Christ's teachings would be liberal, despite
> protests to the contrary.
>
> Regarding the law of love, if you claim to be a Christian but not follow the
> law of love, aren't you a predator (liberal)?
Yes, but there are different kinds of laws. ie: The law of physics. Just
because I follow the law of love, does that mean the law of physics
doesn't apply to me? I claim to follow the law of love. In one of my
first posts in this thread, I told you as much. I would lay down my life
to save the innocent.
> In Jesus' words (paraphrased):
> Greatest commandment: Love God, love neighbor as yourself [Matt
> 22:37]
And I feel I do, although at times I get aggrivated with people.
> [] No implication that all Americans are Christian. However, a good
> Christian would be in harmony with the property right laws of this nation.
> Under national socialism, Americans (Christian or not) are being corrupted.
I agree we would be good stewards of this world. But this world will
pass away, and I place my hope in the eternal. Worrying about this world
equates to the loss of a penny, when you have three billion dollars in
your possession.
> [23a] The vision of St.John has been variously interpreted to mean the end
> was near many times. However, there is no reference in the four gospels
> reporting Jesus' teachings that such an event was forthcoming. It's
> harmless policy law - for those that believe such is necessary. However, if
> such a belief empowers a disregard for property rights, it is evil.
If you discount the Revalation, you must discount the entire gospel
account. John, the same writer of Revalation wrote the Gospel of John.
Either John was a credible witness, or he wasn't. I believe he was. If
John was not credible then how do we know if Matthew, Mark, Luke were
credible either?
John's predicament on the Isle of Patomus was perculiar. He was exiled
there and not well regarded in those times. He was also given
instruction in his revalation of what to say and how to say it.
This world has not seen the Revalation of Jesus Christ as recorded by
John unfold at all. The stage is set, not all the people are lined into
their roles yet. But I can tell you that it could be within my lifetime.
For example, the temple that is defiled by the AntiChrist doesn't exist
now. But that very temple would have to replace a Mosque at the Dome of
the Rock. How easily could a Mosque be destroyed in Israel today? And
how easily could a temple be reconstructed within 3 years?
But I disagree, Matthew and Mark record the beginning of sorrows.
Matthew and Mark both record that Jesus stated there will be an end time.
> [23b] All flesh is fleeting. Does that mean one should act like animals?
No, we are expected to be good stewards. But long before you and I
existed, our paths were set.
> [23c] His kingdom is not of this world. Remember? He's spirit. Hoping for
> heaven on earth is futile.
That's why the world will be reborn (or made new). Exactly His knigdom
is not of this world. Genesis records Heaven on Earth, in the beginning.
Just as Heaven was lifted up, so can it be brought back. But you are
right, not in the world as we know it.
> [23d] That's why only those who take responsibility for this mess have the
> power to change anything. Those who blame others, can never change
> anything.
I agree, except that God could will it to happen in a day, if it were
not recorded to happen as the Revalation records.
> Quickie Digest of Christianity
> In Jesus' words (paraphrased):
> 1. Greatest commandment: Love God, love neighbor as yourself [Matt
> 22:37]
> 2. Jesus proclaimed he was one with the Father [Matt 29:30]
> 3. He said we, too, could become one with the Father [Matt 29:34;
> John 21:1]
> 4. He said we, too, could do greater things than Himself. [John
> 14:12]
> 5. Forgive trespasses. [Matt 6:14, 15; 18:21; 18:35; Mark 11:25;
> Luke 17:4]
>
> So, if I understand Jesus correctly, he's telling me to
> unequivocally love God, love my neighbor as myself, forgive all
> trespasses, so that we can become one with Him and God, and in his
> manner (Aramaic "in his name"), do even greater things, here on
> Earth.
You may not realize this, but you may be doing some of that in this
post. I have no authority or power to change the way anyone thinks or
what morals they practice. Jesus Christ did and can. Today as a result
of my past sin, I should be dead. And once you've experienced the Holy
Spirit, you cannot deny the experience anymore than the U.S. could deny
nuking Japan. I cannot change hatred to love, I cannot even forgive
people on my own account. Through Jesus Christ, I can do all things
you've outlined here.
jetgraphics
> And while I can certainly see your point and where it may be taking us
> as a nation, I also see that the U.S. is still the best country in ths
> world to live.
AGREED. In fact, it's the ONLY nation that has a republican form of
government. FYI - a "republican form" is not synonymous with republic. The
People's Republic of China is not a republican form.
> Actually, you've got me thinking biblically that maybe
> SSN's could even be the mark of the beast (which I personally believe to
> be acceptance of the world system).
If the SSN is not the number prophesized, it's a reasonable facsimile
thereof. And that doesn't bode well for the majority of enumerated
Christians either way ...
> Ok, first of all I am guessing you discount the Apostle Paul's
> teachings(Rom 8)?
I don't discount Paul. I follow Jesus' teachings. He makes things simpler.
> In Mat 21:31 Jesus speaks in parable of the Father's
> will.
When God tells me to "go to the vineyard", I will. So far, he has only
commanded that we "love God and love our neighbor." He never commanded HOW
we manifest that love. Did he tell you something different?
> Or supporting the will ideal: Mar 3:35
"Will of God" = love. Those who love are the same as his brother, sister,
etc., etc.
> Joh 7:17
Again, what part of the greatest commandment is changed?
> Joh 9:31.
Ditto.
> Wishes
> or will is a mute point, it's spoken of in present tense.
Perhaps it means that "will of God" is not specific orders for specific
tasks, but general principles. If God needs man to do something for him,
he's not too powerful, is he? But then I accept that God's love is
channelled through individuals, so one may perceive the "Will of God"
manifesting as love.
>> [] No implication that all Americans are Christian. However, a good
>> Christian would be in harmony with the property right laws of this
>> nation. Under national socialism, Americans (Christian or not) are being
>> corrupted.
>
> I agree we would be good stewards of this world.
[a] Actually, in Genesis, it states that God gave man dominion of this
world. Dominion = sovereignty. We're not stewards of God's world. Either he
gave it to us or he kept it for himself. I lean toward dominion = absolute
ownership. Which means that the BIBLE is opposed to the "qualified
ownership" of Socialism and Communism. Christian Socialists are not unlike
Vegetarian Cannibals.
>> [23a] The vision of St.John has been variously interpreted to mean the
>> end was near many times. However, there is no
>> reference in the four gospels
>> reporting Jesus' teachings that such an event was forthcoming. It's
>> harmless policy law - for those that believe such is necessary. However,
>> if such a belief empowers a disregard for property rights, it is evil.
>
> If you discount the Revalation, you must discount the entire gospel
> account.
[23b] I don't "discount" Revelations of St John. Remember, it's a VISION.
What his conscious mind interpreted, and what he reported, was filtered
through his conceptual mind. If he "saw" the image of a jet aircraft, what
would he report to us? If we "saw" a UFO, what do we report?
Frankly, words are abstractions that our ego mind uses for communication.
Depending on the understanding of the reader, John's words can have
different meanings.
> John, the same writer of Revalation wrote the Gospel of John.
I have no data to prove or disprove said assertion.
> Either John was a credible witness, or he wasn't. I believe he was. If
> John was not credible then how do we know if Matthew, Mark, Luke were
> credible either?
[23c] Now, there's witness and there's reporting. Luke was not a witness to
Jesus' acts, he was reporting. St John's vision was reporting a vision, not
witnessing. Also, since there are no originals of the gospels in existance,
and only copies are available. Are they not in Greek? And wasn't Aramaic
the language of Jesus? Hair splitting can get one wigged out.
Frankly, Revelation 1:1 plainly states "things which must shortly come to
pass". Shortly means very soon. Two thousand years later is not shortly, by
any stretch of language. So if you believe John lied when he said shortly,
but meant indeterminately, then your thesis is disproved. You can't have it
both ways.
Some interpret Revelations as allegory. Some interpret it in light of the
political situation of the day, as in the Seven Churches in Asia, and Rome.
But if you are going to insist that it is incorrupt TRUTH, it falls flat on
its face.
If we accept that the Father wouldn't lie to us, then John is either
mistaken or misquoted.
I do not discount the possibility of alteration for nefarious purposes.
See Matthew 25:14 (KJV).
If you first read Ezekiel 18:13 (KJV) wherein usury is declared an
abomination and capital offense, and note that Jesus whips the
changers of money (John 2:14) from the temple. You might wonder WHO is the
good guy when the "hard man" wants his servant to get usury from the
exchangers reported in Matthew 25:27.
To those that believe scripture is incorruptable, I challenge them to read
that parable with the first sentence stripped away.
Without "The kingdom of heaven is like", the following parable is about the
difficulty of being a good man in the employ of evil doers.
"His Lord" is not "The Lord". If you read the parable with open eyes, it
plainly states that his lord was a "hard man, reaping where thou has not
sown, and gathering where thou has not strawed". Isn't that a THIEF?!
And the third servant was AFRAID! Afraid to commit usury, I read, since
usury is a capital offense, saith Ezekiel. The real meaning of the parable
is that when one is in the employ of usurers (not unlike today), it is
painful to be moral.
I doubt that Jesus would teach that heaven is like a thieving usurer and his
2 loyal servants, and then WHIP usurers from his Father's house.
Ezekiel 18:13. Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall
he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he
shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.
If I understand that correctly, it states that usurers are responsible for
their own demise, their blood is on their own hands. That's why it was
vital to get "socialist volunteers" into usury, so that they couldn't
assert righteousness in their own defense. The "gummint" could gun down
every numbered usurer without offending God (who they really really trust).
I wouldn't be surprised if the usurers were responsible for altering the
copies of scripture that later became the Bible.
> Matthew and Mark both record that Jesus stated there will be an end time.
When that happens, it's over. It's not stated that a new beginning
(physical) happens at the end.
>> [23b] All flesh is fleeting. Does that mean one should act like animals?
>
> No, we are expected to be good stewards. But long before you and I
> existed, our paths were set.
I don't believe in predestination. It is repugnant to this child of God.
However, one can predict based on present trajectories, if not altered by
free will. That's why prophecy is a dicey business.
>> [23c] His kingdom is not of this world. Remember? He's spirit. Hoping for
>> heaven on earth is futile.
>
> That's why the world will be reborn (or made new). Exactly His knigdom
> is not of this world.
> Genesis records Heaven on Earth, in the beginning.
[23d] In Genesis 1:1, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And that doesn't say he created the heaven ON earth. It's common for people
to refer to paradise as Heaven, but they're obviously two different things
in this sentence.
I don't read where "spirit" (non material) was material, either. This world
isn't Heaven. Paradise on earth is one thing, paradise in spirit is
another.
In Luke 23:43, He said, "Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me
in paradise." Both were dead, soon afterwards.
Summation:
If one honors property rights, disregarding dogmatic differences and
religious observances, one is not trespassing. If one dishonors property
rights, while believing himself saved, one is in grave error.
If you contemplate the dire consequences of usury, and contrast it with the
current political and economic situation, it is clear that the usurers
aren't the "Good guys". Every numbered Christian with an open interest
bearing bank account, dividends from stocks, or otherwise engaged in usury,
is self condemned. Every numbered Christian is an abomination, according to
scripture.
That's depressing.
OmegaTime
>> [23c] His kingdom is not of this world. Remember? He's spirit. Hoping for
>> heaven on earth is futile.
>
>
> That's why the world will be reborn (or made new). Exactly His knigdom
> is not of this world. Genesis records Heaven on Earth, in the beginning.
> Just as Heaven was lifted up, so can it be brought back. But you are
> right, not in the world as we know it.
Also, God which created the Heavens and the Earth is quite capable of
ressurcting any person. Jesus is not a Spirit. His body was resurrected,
but He is not in the world. While many discount the "empty tomb" idea,
that tomb was empty because many people saw Jesus after His
ressurection. After His ascention, His purpose was fulfilled.
The Holy nature of God cannot have unholiness in His presence. Atonement
for sin was demanded by God in the OT with the blood of a lamb. This was
the only path back to God, was through a preist that offered this
sacrafice. Yet the preisthood was not serving it's purpose. And mankind
could not live by the Mosaic Laws. Something had to change, because sin
was not being atoned for.
Enter Jesus Christ, the God-man prophesied to come since 500 years
before His existence and met over 110 tests (100% anyway) by prophetic
standards. The odds of any man fulfilling these prophesies are infinitly
great. Jesus tried to illustrate to the preisthood what God really
wanted of them, they rejected Him and plotted His death. Jesus performed
miracles beyond our comprehension. And Jesus illustrated to God through
the human experience what being human was like. God has never been
human, except through Jesus Christ. Jesus is a teacher lighting the path
to God. Jesus was crucified on the cross, and upon the first and only
death of Christ, the temple curtain where only the high preists were
allowed to go was torn from top to bottom. This was an illustration that
the blood atonement and the preist were no longer required. We could now
deal with God directly.
Jesus's body was put in the tomb. And the tomb was sealed. On the third
Jewish day, Jesus's grave was empty. He was alive again and lives today.
He hung out a while for people to witness the miracle that God has
performed, and say His goodbyes to His dear friends. Then He ascended to
Heaven to sit by God the Father. Which is where He sits today, yet in
His body He will return. We currently live in a period of grace, that
grace provided through Jesus Christ and God.
We will all suffer the first death, with exception to those who are
present for the rapture (Whoops, did I say rapture? That word is not in
the bible). The rapture is a term mankind has put when Christ returns to
call His own to Him. The dead in Christ shall rise first, then the living.
Enter the Anti-Christ, a man capable of charisma and popular with
humans. In his first 3.5 years, he will have no idea of who he his or
whose bidding he is doing. He may even appear to be Christian and
believe in his heart he is doing the Christian works. But he is actually
setting the stage for the Great Tribulation. This is when Satan will
resurect this man's assasignated body, and possess the body of this man.
And from there, his efforts will be to cause death and destruction to
all remaining. His purpose will encompass the first death (physical
death) and the second death (Spiritual death). The rest is outlined in
the book.
So obviously I cannot explain the whole Christian account. And many
important points I've cut short that should be fully explained. Yet I am
trying to express as I beleive to be true in summary. To become
Christian is professed faith in Jesus Christ as complete and total
atonement. Once you believe, placing your trust in Christ as Lord and
Savior.
OmegaTime
> If the SSN is not the number prophesized, it's a reasonable facsimile
> thereof. And that doesn't bode well for the majority of enumerated
> Christians either way ...
I certainly don't want to believe I've accepted the mark of the beast.
And I really would be downhearted if the U.S. turned out to be the
beast. Yet my eyes are opened, and I'm ever watchful. But the mark
implies specifically a mark on the hand or the forehead.
> I don't discount Paul. I follow Jesus' teachings. He makes things simpler.
Agree, and Paul is also very poetic.
> When God tells me to "go to the vineyard", I will. So far, he has only
> commanded that we "love God and love our neighbor." He never commanded HOW
> we manifest that love. Did he tell you something different?
Sure did, grade school stuff though.
Eros - errotic, love that says "I love you as long as I get a return."
Phileo - brotherly love or the love of a sibbling.
Storgay - social love as a friend.
Agape - the highest form of love, the love of God. Unconditional love
that is selfless in nature.
So God walks up to me and says, "You should love as I do with Agape
love." Of course I'm kidding, the bible makes this clear in the Greek.
If this is telling me how to manifest that love, than how else should
we? Erroticly? Brotherly? Friendly?
> "Will of God" = love. Those who love are the same as his brother, sister,
> etc., etc.
You are diverting from what you spoke of, God's will for man. Jesus
spoke the greatest commandment, whether God has a will for each of us is
what we were talking about. Nothing has changed in regards to the
greatest commandment. And brotherly or sisterly love is Phileo love (at
least in most states). Agape love is the greatest commandment.
Now back to the point. In every verse mentioned, will (or wishes as you
put it) is present tense. Not past, not future, but occuring as we
speak. It is used as a noun. 7. Divine determination; moral purpose or
counsel. ie: Thy will be done. Lords Prayer.
thelema
thel'-ay-mah
From the prolonged form of G2309; a determination (properly the thing),
that is, (actively) choice (specifically purpose, decree; abstractly
volition) or (passively) inclination: - desire, pleasure, will.
WILL, n. [See the Verb.]
1. That faculty of the mind by which we determine either to do or
forbear an action; the faculty which is exercised in deciding, among two
or more objects, which we shall embrace or pursue. The will is directed
or influenced by the judgment. The understanding or reason compares
different objects, which operate as motives; the judgment determines
which is preferable, and the will decides which to pursue. In other
words, we reason with respect to the value or importance of things; we
then judge which is to be preferred; and we will to take the most
valuable. These are but different operations of the mind, soul, or
intellectual part of man. Great disputes have existed respecting the
freedom of the will. Will is often quite a different thing from desire.
A power over a mans subsistence, amounts to a power over his will.
2. Choice; determination. It is my will to prosecute the trespasser.
3. Choice; discretion; pleasure.
Go, then, the guilty at thy will chastise.
4. Command; direction.
Our prayers should be according to the will of God.
5. Disposition; inclination; desire. What is your will, Sir? In this
phrase, the word may also signify determination, especially when
addressed to a superior.
6. Power; arbitrary disposal.
Deliver me not over to the will of my enemies. Psa 27.
7. Divine determination; moral purpose or counsel.
Thy will be done. Lords Prayer.
8. Testament; the disposition of a mans estate, to take effect after his
death. Wills are written, or nuncupative, that is, verbal.
> Perhaps it means that "will of God" is not specific orders for specific
> tasks, but general principles. If God needs man to do something for him,
> he's not too powerful, is he? But then I accept that God's love is
> channelled through individuals, so one may perceive the "Will of God"
> manifesting as love.
Look..among a world of Aetheism, Muslim, Budhists <SP>, etc... who
better to share God's love is there with mankind, than mankind? God
loves us regardless, and it pains Him deeply to know that some of His
creation will stand in judgment and will suffer a second death.
God could pour out His wrath as He did in Noah's day. He cannot do this
because He promised He would never do it again. A Holy God cannot lie.
> [a] Actually, in Genesis, it states that God gave man dominion of this
> world. Dominion = sovereignty. We're not stewards of God's world. Either he
> gave it to us or he kept it for himself. I lean toward dominion = absolute
> ownership. Which means that the BIBLE is opposed to the "qualified
> ownership" of Socialism and Communism. Christian Socialists are not unlike
> Vegetarian Cannibals.
We are expected to use this world efficiently and with regard to the
gifts for which God gave us. Clearly dominion has many meanings other
than the one you point out.
DOMINION, n. [L. See Dominant.]
1. Sovereign or supreme authority; the power of governing and controlling.
2. Power to direct, control, use and dispose of at pleasure; right of
possession and use without being accountable; as the private dominion of
individuals.
3. Territory under a government; region; country; district governed, or
within the limits of the authority of a prince or state; as the British
dominions.
4. Government; right of governing. Jamaica is under the dominion of
Great Britain.
5. Predominance; ascendant.
6. An order of angels.
> [23b] I don't "discount" Revelations of St John. Remember, it's a VISION.
> What his conscious mind interpreted, and what he reported, was filtered
> through his conceptual mind. If he "saw" the image of a jet aircraft, what
> would he report to us? If we "saw" a UFO, what do we report?
> Frankly, words are abstractions that our ego mind uses for communication.
> Depending on the understanding of the reader, John's words can have
> different meanings.
Clearly Revelation spells out in the first sentence, A Revelation of
Jesus Christ. Huge locusts with loud wings could be a helicopter.
Rev 12:14 And two wings of a great eagle were given to the woman, so
that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is
nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the serpent's face.
Could it be a jet?
> I have no data to prove or disprove said assertion.
Ok, then prove it wasn't and this is a false assertion. His servant John
is accepted by theologians world wide to be the Apostle John in exile on
the Isle of Patomus.
> [23c] Now, there's witness and there's reporting. Luke was not a witness to
> Jesus' acts, he was reporting. St John's vision was reporting a vision, not
> witnessing. Also, since there are no originals of the gospels in existance,
> and only copies are available. Are they not in Greek? And wasn't Aramaic
> the language of Jesus? Hair splitting can get one wigged out.
> Frankly, Revelation 1:1 plainly states "things which must shortly come to
> pass". Shortly means very soon. Two thousand years later is not shortly, by
> any stretch of language. So if you believe John lied when he said shortly,
> but meant indeterminately, then your thesis is disproved. You can't have it
> both ways.
>
> Some interpret Revelations as allegory. Some interpret it in light of the
> political situation of the day, as in the Seven Churches in Asia, and Rome.
> But if you are going to insist that it is incorrupt TRUTH, it falls flat on
> its face.
Rev 1:1 A Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave to Him to declare
to His servants things which must shortly come to pass. And He signified
it by sending His angel to His servant John, 1:2 who bore record of the
Word of God and of the testimony of Jesus Christ and of all the things
that he saw.
When you read things as "snip-its", they lose there context. Read the
entire context and you get the true meaning. Michael Moore is one big
"Snip-it" in Farenheit 911. Taking things out of context is easy if you
try to avoid the truth.
You refer to the legality of "hearsay" by clarifying witnessing versus
reporting.
Ok let's put John in the witness chair.
John how long is shortly to God? Strike that - you couldn't possibly
testify as to how long shortly is to God who is the Alpha and Omega.
Rephrase then - How much time John did you mean when you said shortly? -
Move to strike - witness only got the record from God, he can't testify
as to what God meant by shortly.
Rephrase then - John, did you believe these things to occur within your
lifetime? Objection - the witness has no idea of how long shortly
amounted to.
But these are visions that John saw your Honor. They are not hearsay,
the witness is testifying as to what he saw, not what was written.
John, did you see seven golden lampstands? - Yes I did.
And John, did you see one like the Son of Man amongst them? - Yes I did.
The times and dates were never meant for John to know. Therefore he
never offered testimony as a witness to dates or times. He left it at
"shortly", because this is what God gave him.
Incorrupt truth? I can't even prove my heritage as incorrupt truth.
Truth is only absolute at God's level.
> If we accept that the Father wouldn't lie to us, then John is either
> mistaken or misquoted.
>
> I do not discount the possibility of alteration for nefarious purposes.
And to each his own, for I believe in what Christ taught and His chosen.
You are correct about the political situation. Surely you can't believe
that the other Apostles would permit any such falsities? Hair splitting
produces two strands of hair, but what purpose do they serve?
Usurers and Socialist are not the limits of evil in this world. While I
get your point, I keep see you going back to the same. If I smoke
cigarettes, my sin is equal to any in God's eye. Also, you seem to
readily accept the OT with emphasis, whereas the NT is where we live.
While Ezekiel was and is credible as a prophet, would you challenge that
his words are more credible than Christ himself?
> When that happens, it's over. It's not stated that a new beginning
> (physical) happens at the end.
If you take only Matthew and Mark. Revelation takes this further.
>>No, we are expected to be good stewards. But long before you and I
>>existed, our paths were set.
This was in reference to our parents choices, not predestination.
> I don't believe in predestination. It is repugnant to this child of God.
> However, one can predict based on present trajectories, if not altered by
> free will. That's why prophecy is a dicey business.
Neither do I, nor do I believe Paul was implying predestination for all
mankind. I believe he was implying predestiny for God's elect.
> [23d] In Genesis 1:1, In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
> And that doesn't say he created the heaven ON earth. It's common for people
> to refer to paradise as Heaven, but they're obviously two different things
> in this sentence.
Keep reading up past verse 8 and then dispute. I will not debate
beliefs. The keypoint being, do you have a belief in Jesus Christ
(Yoshua) as Lord and Savior?
> I don't read where "spirit" (non material) was material, either. This world
> isn't Heaven. Paradise on earth is one thing, paradise in spirit is
> another.
I've never proclaimed God to be material.
> In Luke 23:43, He said, "Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me
> in paradise." Both were dead, soon afterwards.
And thus Jesus prophecied. This demonstrated that even the theif on the
cross beside Jesus, with only faith in Jesus as the Son of God and as
atonement for sin was sufficient to join Jesus in paradise.
> Summation:
> If one honors property rights, disregarding dogmatic differences and
> religious observances, one is not trespassing. If one dishonors property
> rights, while believing himself saved, one is in grave error.
>
> If you contemplate the dire consequences of usury, and contrast it with the
> current political and economic situation, it is clear that the usurers
> aren't the "Good guys". Every numbered Christian with an open interest
> bearing bank account, dividends from stocks, or otherwise engaged in usury,
> is self condemned. Every numbered Christian is an abomination, according to
> scripture.
>
> That's depressing.
My Summation:
We were condemned the day we were born of this world. Jesus paid the
price in full as atonement for sin. We live in a world condemned, but in
Christ Jesus we are pardoned. Yes, every man alive on Earth is an
abomination according to scripture. Only in Christ do we have any hope
at all. 1Co 13:13 And now faith, hope, charity (Agape love), these
three remain; but the greatest of these is charity (Agape love).
jetgraphics
> Once you believe, placing your trust in Christ as Lord and
> Savior.
Do you believe that those "Fundamentalists" (Liberals?) who kill
abortionists "trust in Christ as Lord and Savior"?
Do you believe that those who do evil, and do not repent, trust in Christ as
Lord and Savior?
And do you believe that those who do no evil, but know not of Christ, are
condemned by the Father?
These are "trick" questions, no answer is required.
OmegaTime
Gen 1:26 And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, after Our
likeness. And let them have dominion (radah) over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the
earth, and over all the creepers creeping on the earth.
radah
raw-daw'
A primitive root; to tread down, that is, subjugate; specifically to
crumble off: - (come to, make to) have dominion, prevail against, reign,
(bear, make to) rule, (-r, over), take.
DOMINION, n. [L. See Dominant.]
1. Sovereign or supreme authority; the power of governing and controlling.
2. Power to direct, control, use and dispose of at pleasure; right of
possession and use without being accountable; as the private dominion of
individuals.
And we have the greatest commandment to live by, which would include
future generations. Thus if we love in the Agape sense, we will not
waste the resources provided to us by God, we will pass on resources to
future generations that which God has passed on to us.
Never the less, we are accountable to future generations out of common
sense. Yes, we by definition have the authority and the right of
possession to waste without being held accountable. Common sense tells
us the Earth has a limited amount of resources and what we use is gone
forever.
Does this make me a tree hugger? I think not, yet one study in sociology
shows the affect of populations and the effect on the Earth. As we draw
oil from the Earth, we fill the void of the oil with sea water.
Salanization has caused more land to become desert sands than forest
fires, although forest fires don't help either. One day the oil runs out
and we can't even get a weed to grow in the sands around us.
Deforestation also plays a big part of this. As the vegatation is
stripped from the Earth, or burned in forest fires, there is nothing to
protect the soil from errosion.
So as the sands increase, the ocean errodes our beaches, we are cold
because we have no heat and we are all stuck on one little island
without even a weed to chew on.
OmegaTime
> Do you believe that those "Fundamentalists" (Liberals?) who kill
> abortionists "trust in Christ as Lord and Savior"?
Radicals is what I call them, but their eternal destination is not for
me to judge. They will answer to God. God knows their heart and intent.
God knows if they are crazy or sane, or what their state of mind is.
> Do you believe that those who do evil, and do not repent, trust in Christ as
> Lord and Savior?
The Holy Spirit would not allow me to do this. Yet Satan stands as our
accuser. Satan has told me many times, "You're not going to Heaven, you
got mad at that guy that cut you off while driving." Do I repent? Yes,
and I apologize if it was you I got angry with. Will it happen again? -
likely. We are compelled by the Holy Spirit that we should repent. Our
mind is willing but our flesh is weak. Jesus recognized this in his
disciples. God and only God knows the heart of man and what lies within.
Again, it is not my place to judge these matters.
> And do you believe that those who do no evil, but know not of Christ, are
> condemned by the Father?
Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no
one comes to the Father but by Me.
Based on this statement and having complete faith in Jesus Christ, the
answer is: it is not for me to judge. How many have died right here
today that have never had the Gospel of Jesus Christ shared with them?
I've not found anywhere in the bible, the man-made law that ignorance is
no excuse. Much as I wish I did, I haven't found it.
> These are "trick" questions, no answer is required.
I realize I really haven't given an answer. Your questions require Yes
or No. I am not the authority on these issues, only God is.
Can God create a rock too big for God to lift? It's a paradox that is
meant to baffle. A "yes" or "no" answer means that God is not powerful
enough to do one or the other.
jetgraphics
> I certainly don't want to believe I've accepted the mark
> of the beast. And I really would be downhearted if the U.S. turned
> out to be the beast. Yet my eyes are opened, and I'm ever
> watchful. But the mark implies specifically a mark
> on the hand or the forehead.
How does one manifest the number?
Point to where one remembers the number - forehead.
How does one write the number?
By hand.
It's "interesting" that federal prisoners are required to answer to a
number, and not their name.
Anyway, Christians can always object to numbering. Even King David was
chastised for "numbering Israel".
> You are diverting from what you spoke of, God's will for man. Jesus
> spoke the greatest commandment, whether God has a will for each of us is
> what we were talking about. Nothing has changed in regards to the
> greatest commandment. And brotherly or sisterly love is Phileo love (at
> least in most states). Agape love is the greatest commandment.
In English, the word "love" is easily misunderstood. But it's clearly the
unconditional type.
> Now back to the point. In every verse mentioned, will (or wishes as you
> put it) is present tense. Not past, not future, but occuring as we
> speak. It is used as a noun. 7. Divine determination; moral purpose or
> counsel. ie: Thy will be done. Lords Prayer.
My concern is with those who "believe" God told them to do that which is
injurious to another. It would appear that doing harm is contradictory to
the greatest commandment.
> Look..among a world of Aetheism, Muslim, Budhists <SP>, etc... who
> better to share God's love is there with mankind, than mankind? God
> loves us regardless, and it pains Him deeply to know that some of His
> creation will stand in judgment and will suffer a second death.
Oh really? Where's the "second death" mentioned? In fact I can't recall any
section of scripture where spirits are destroyed by God or by any other
means.
> God could pour out His wrath as He did in Noah's day. He cannot do this
> because He promised He would never do it again. A Holy God cannot lie.
But humble men can make mistakes writing scriptures, correct?
Even plagiarize earlier flood stories from the Chaldeans and Sumerians...
>> [23b] I don't "discount" Revelations of St John.
>
> Clearly Revelation spells out in the first sentence, A Revelation of
> Jesus Christ.
As interpreted by John. There have been many post-Jesus folks who wrote what
they called "gospel", and even incorporated profound spiritual messages.
That they all claim to be revelations of Jesus is open to discussion. There
are some Christians who support and others denounce the Church of Jesus
Christ and the Latter Day Saints (Mormon).
Likewise, the key point is to examine the "Revelations" to determine what
the message is: a warning? prophecy? advice? literal? allegory?
I realize that we are capable of receiving spiritual guidance and messages
in dreams, or awake, through visions. But you have to realize that what
your perception (and words) used to describe it may be quite different than
what transpired.
> Huge locusts with loud wings could be a helicopter.
Indeed!
>> I have no data to prove or disprove said assertion.
>
> Ok, then prove it wasn't and this is a false assertion. His servant John
> is accepted by theologians world wide to be the Apostle John in exile on
> the Isle of Patomus.
That's no proof. Accepted by theologians' agreement, not by any historical
evidence. The various councils of the early Catholic Church, by agreement,
chose what books were gospel, and what were not. Today's Roman Catholic
Church teaches only nine of the ten commandments (they tossed out "graven
image" ban and split the tenth into "do not covet neighbor's wife" and "do
not covet thy neighbor's goods"). To them, they still "believe" they're the
one true Church, and all others are to be pitied. The Reformation
(Protestant) took most of the books that comprise the "Roman Catholic
Bible", if I am not mistaken. In addition to Roman Catholicism (and their 3
rites, Roman, Byzantine, Maronite), there are several other divisions:
Greek and Russian Orthodox, Coptic, and so on.
As you are aware, one can have a lively debate when two or more of these
"flavors" of Christianity are put in one room.
> Incorrupt truth? I can't even prove my heritage as incorrupt truth.
> Truth is only absolute at God's level.
If I may direct your attention to the parable of the prodigal son.
Luke 15:11. Can you determine if the father (representing God) forgave the
prodigal?
Read it carefully.
The father never forgave the prodigal son, for he never condemned him. The
objecting party was the son who stayed with the father, working for him.
Much wisdom is in that parable. Jesus is telling us that God doesn't condemn
us, and that we keep ourselves from God. And it's those who we trespassed
against that condemn us. That is why forgiveness is so important.
Forgiveness IS the key to the gates of paradise. Those who don't forgive,
bind the sin to the trespasser, as well as obligating themselves to "guard
duty" outside the "gates".
That also explains the situation of the "Good Thief". He was contrite over
his own trespasses, as well as forgiving those who were executing him.
Without forgiveness and contrition, he wouldn't be eligible.
>> I do not discount the possibility of alteration for nefarious purposes.
>
> And to each his own, for I believe in what Christ taught and His chosen.
> You are correct about the political situation. Surely you can't believe
> that the other Apostles would permit any such falsities?
Scriptures are based upon copies of copies of translations of copies, etc.,
etc. The Apostles aren't to be blamed for the scribes, nor can they object
posthumously.
> Hair splitting
> produces two strands of hair, but what purpose do they serve?
The current literature that is considered scripture is the result of many
stages of selection and refinement. However, the "words" that God writes on
man's heart are incorrupt. So I honor the wisdom of those who, by seeking
oneness with the Father, are doing that which Jesus taught us to do.
Agreed. But those who believe themselves to be "born again" or "saved" or
"redeemed" and continue to engage in that behavior that was proscribed, and
forbidden is counterproductive, at the least.
> While I
> get your point, I keep see you going back to the same. If I smoke
> cigarettes, my sin is equal to any in God's eye.
Where does it say in scripture that one shouldn't smoke tobacco? Or any
other thing that was created?
> Also, you seem to
> readily accept the OT with emphasis, whereas the NT is where we live.
> While Ezekiel was and is credible as a prophet, would you challenge that
> his words are more credible than Christ himself?
I don't "accept" OT with emphasis. I verified that Jesus DID condemn (and
whip) usurers! Then I went back to find the reason for his actions.
If you stop and think about it, he was tolerant and forgiving of adulterers,
tax collectors, thieves, Roman soldiers, yet WHIPPED the usurers!
Gives one pause, for sure.
> Keep reading up past verse 8 and then dispute. I will not debate
> beliefs. The keypoint being, do you have a belief in Jesus Christ
> (Yoshua) as Lord and Savior?
More than belief, I have self realization that Jesus was the Christ, the
anointed one, and that he was the one who gave evidence that he was one
with the Father, and that we, too, could become one with the Father. And I
am grateful to him and all those who keep his words.
>> Summation:
>> If one honors property rights, disregarding dogmatic differences and
>> religious observances, one is not trespassing. If one dishonors property
>> rights, while believing himself saved, one is in grave error.
>>
>> If you contemplate the dire consequences of usury, and contrast it with
>> the current political and economic situation, it is clear that the
>> usurers aren't the "Good guys". Every numbered Christian with an open
>> interest bearing bank account, dividends from stocks, or otherwise
>> engaged in usury, is self condemned. Every numbered Christian is an
>> abomination, according to scripture.
>>
>> That's depressing.
>
> My Summation:
> We were condemned the day we were born of this world.
> Yes, every man alive on Earth is an
> abomination according to scripture.
Which doesn't excuse abominations.
> Only in Christ do we have any hope
> at all. 1Co 13:13 And now faith, hope, charity (Agape love), these
> three remain; but the greatest of these is charity (Agape love).
One can hope in Christ, but if one won't repent and cease his sinning, he's
not redeemed. If one hopes in Christ, but won't forgive, he's not redeemed.
If one hopes in Christ, but engages in usury, he's not redeemed.
OmegaTime
> How does one manifest the number?
> Point to where one remembers the number - forehead.
> How does one write the number?
> By hand.
> It's "interesting" that federal prisoners are required to answer to a
> number, and not their name.
Good point, but this will be a number of a man (666). I see your
thought, yet I still don't feel it fits. I know the book of Daniel very
well, between Revelation and Daniel I tend to misquote. So I'll reserve
further comment until I've researched.
> In English, the word "love" is easily misunderstood. But it's clearly the
> unconditional type.
Actually in the Aramaic Language, Agape love was misunderstood.
Joh 21:15 Then when they broke fast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon,
son of Jonah, do you (agape)love Me more than these? He said to Him,
Yes, Lord, You know that I (phileo)love You. He said to him, Feed My
lambs. Joh 21:16 He said to him the second time, Simon, son of Jonah,
do you (agape)love Me? He said to Him, Yes, Lord, You know that I
(phileo)love You. He said to him, Feed My sheep. Joh 21:17 He said to
him the third time, Simon, son of Jonah, do you (agape)love Me? Peter
was grieved because He said to him a third time, Do you (phileo)love Me?
And he said to Him, Lord, You know all things, You know that I
(phileo)love You. Jesus said to him, Feed My sheep.
> My concern is with those who "believe" God told them to do that which is
> injurious to another. It would appear that doing harm is contradictory to
> the greatest commandment.
I don't believe that any action involving harm to another God would
command to any individual since Christ's first coming.
> Oh really? Where's the "second death" mentioned? In fact I can't recall any
> section of scripture where spirits are destroyed by God or by any other
> means.
Rev 2:11 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the
churches. He who overcomes will not be hurt by the second death.
> But humble men can make mistakes writing scriptures, correct?
> Even plagiarize earlier flood stories from the Chaldeans and Sumerians...
Surely you believe a God capable of creating Heaven and Earth is capable
of making sure the story is conceptually correct?
> As interpreted by John. There have been many post-Jesus folks who wrote what
> they called "gospel", and even incorporated profound spiritual messages.
> That they all claim to be revelations of Jesus is open to discussion. There
> are some Christians who support and others denounce the Church of Jesus
> Christ and the Latter Day Saints (Mormon).
I won't denounce the Mormons, actually I see a very active faith in the
Mormon church. I wish all churches were equally active. The problem I
have with the Mormon faith is Joseph Smith, a self declared prophet of
God. This doesn't mean that he is a false prophet, just that he doesn't
fit with the Christ concept. But then maybe there's something I'm missing.
> Likewise, the key point is to examine the "Revelations" to determine what
> the message is: a warning? prophecy? advice? literal? allegory?
> I realize that we are capable of receiving spiritual guidance and messages
> in dreams, or awake, through visions. But you have to realize that what
> your perception (and words) used to describe it may be quite different than
> what transpired.
We know Revelation was not literal, because literacy of future things
would be required. Therefore John would not have known what a jet is.
We know it was not allegory. Because it was written with John's belief
that these were the things to come as told to him by the Angel. These
were men that stood the test of faith for their words. To tell a
dramatic story would be blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
We know it was not an advice. There is no suggestion that we can change
the outcome. Advice is given to one who can alter the outcome through
their actions.
So that leaves that it is a prophetic warning.
> That's no proof. Accepted by theologians' agreement, not by any historical
> evidence. The various councils of the early Catholic Church, by agreement,
> chose what books were gospel, and what were not. Today's Roman Catholic
> Church teaches only nine of the ten commandments (they tossed out "graven
> image" ban and split the tenth into "do not covet neighbor's wife" and "do
> not covet thy neighbor's goods"). To them, they still "believe" they're the
> one true Church, and all others are to be pitied. The Reformation
> (Protestant) took most of the books that comprise the "Roman Catholic
> Bible", if I am not mistaken. In addition to Roman Catholicism (and their 3
> rites, Roman, Byzantine, Maronite), there are several other divisions:
> Greek and Russian Orthodox, Coptic, and so on.
There is historical data to support my statement. At the moment, it
escapes me where I'd find it. I have looked this up before and know
beyond certainty that Revelation St. John is the Apostle John.
> As you are aware, one can have a lively debate when two or more of these
> "flavors" of Christianity are put in one room.
We talk the talk, do we walk the walk? My thinking is our time is short
and valued by God. We should be of one mind in that Christ is Lord and
Savior. Anything else is trivial. Although I rejoice in your choice for
Christ.
> If I may direct your attention to the parable of the prodigal son.
> Luke 15:11. Can you determine if the father (representing God) forgave the
> prodigal?
> Read it carefully.
> The father never forgave the prodigal son, for he never condemned him. The
> objecting party was the son who stayed with the father, working for him.
> Much wisdom is in that parable. Jesus is telling us that God doesn't condemn
> us, and that we keep ourselves from God. And it's those who we trespassed
> against that condemn us. That is why forgiveness is so important.
> Forgiveness IS the key to the gates of paradise. Those who don't forgive,
> bind the sin to the trespasser, as well as obligating themselves to "guard
> duty" outside the "gates".
Humbleness, repentance and love is what won the father back. The son had
already condemned himself. I feel there was an implied forgiveness,
although it's not stated.
Had the son returned and said, "You cheated me out of my fair share, I
want more!" Grace / Forgiveness would not have come as easy. And the
father may have been very condemning.
I'm not making these points to argue against yours. Yes, the older
brother was angered, and yes the parable points towards that which
condemns us. Yet we are to forgive those who trespass against us.
I have a long winded testimony regarding this, I'll spare you.
To summarize, I had all the "right" reasons to kill a man that almost
caused my death by driving under the influence. I would have killed the
man if I had been given the chance. I was vengeful. I had already
commited murder in my heart and sinned. For too many years, I was a
bitter man with "the world owes me" syndrome and full of hatred. I was
on a path of self destruction.
God opened my eyes to a better life at a breaking point in my life. In
God's grace, I was spared the sin of physical murder. And I am forgiven
for the sin in my heart through Christ Jesus.
In likeness to the prodigal son, the older son must've felt cheated as
did I. The younger son squandered at the older son's expense. My life
was changed by a similiar trespass. I suffered as the result of
another's actions. And I became bitter and ugly. The hatred in my heart
was only self destructive. And I found every good reason to be angry
with God. But God was not my enemy. I was my worst enemy.
I have forgiven this other man in my heart. But I had to pour out myself
and be filled with the Holy Spirit to reach this point.
> Scriptures are based upon copies of copies of translations of copies, etc.,
> etc. The Apostles aren't to be blamed for the scribes, nor can they object
> posthumously.
Again, I trust in God that He will provide me with sufficient
information to join the Kingdom.
> The current literature that is considered scripture is the result of many
> stages of selection and refinement. However, the "words" that God writes on
> man's heart are incorrupt. So I honor the wisdom of those who, by seeking
> oneness with the Father, are doing that which Jesus taught us to do.
Agree with the writing on a man's heart. Stand by the bible as credible
to the Word of God.
> Agreed. But those who believe themselves to be "born again" or "saved" or
> "redeemed" and continue to engage in that behavior that was proscribed, and
> forbidden is counterproductive, at the least.
Worthwhile information and a good post.
> Where does it say in scripture that one shouldn't smoke tobacco? Or any
> other thing that was created?
The body is the temple Jesus rebuilt in three days. And the temple
should be clean of poisons. Cigarettes increase the risk of heart
disease and lung cancer.
> I don't "accept" OT with emphasis. I verified that Jesus DID condemn (and
> whip) usurers! Then I went back to find the reason for his actions.
> If you stop and think about it, he was tolerant and forgiving of adulterers,
> tax collectors, thieves, Roman soldiers, yet WHIPPED the usurers!
> Gives one pause, for sure.
Then I am mistaken.
> More than belief, I have self realization that Jesus was the Christ, the
> anointed one, and that he was the one who gave evidence that he was one
> with the Father, and that we, too, could become one with the Father. And I
> am grateful to him and all those who keep his words.
Glory to God and praise to His Son Jesus Christ.
> Which doesn't excuse abominations.
Agree
> One can hope in Christ, but if one won't repent and cease his sinning, he's
> not redeemed. If one hopes in Christ, but won't forgive, he's not redeemed.
> If one hopes in Christ, but engages in usury, he's not redeemed.
Repentance is necessary, and agree about redemption. To the extent of
usury, I have not researched this as of yet. I feel an interest bearing
checking account may be a bit extreme with loan sharking at the other
extreme. But let me research before I decide.
OmegaTime
Webster's Dictionary defines Usury as:
Usury
U'SURY, n. s as z. [L. usura, from utor, to use.]
1. Formerly, interest; or a premium paid or stipulated to be paid for
the use of money.
[Usury formerly denoted any legal interest, but in this sense, the word
is no longer in use.]
2. In present usage, illegal interest; a premium or compensation paid or
stipulated to be paid for the use of money borrowed or retained, beyond
the rate of interest established by law.
3. The practice of taking interest. Obs.
So your definition is outdated according to Webster. Number 2 stipulates
the modern day translation. Even Jesus parables the use of usury by your
definition.
This parable speaks of God as the master which gave talents to three
servants, two of them multiplied the talents by two. The third buried
his single talent for fear that he would lose his master's talent. And
his master replied:
Mat 25:27 then you should have put my money to the exchangers, and
coming I would have received my own with interest (usury by your
definition).
Same parable, different disciple:
Luk 19:23 And why did you not give my silver on the bank table, and
coming I might have exacted it with interest(usury by your definition)?
Jesus would not imply that God would submit to usury in this sense
unless this sense of usury was permissible by God. Therefore, I find
your definition is outdated according to Jesus.
I believe knowing the OT account, the Jews were lent money at higher
than normal interest rates. Or there property was exchanged for less
than the value of what it was worth. And this form of usury is
despictable and an abomination.
Interest bearing checking accounts pay about .5% / year. Mortgage rates
at their highest point in my life were 12% / year and that was still
within the law. CD's, IRA's, Money Markets, and Pension plans pay within
the allowed limits by law. Credit cards in some cases while still legal
fit your definition of usury, some as high as 33% / year. Likewise, I
believe that Check Exchange or places like that are forms of usury, even
while they are legal. I think these forms of loan sharking is where our
governments have sold out the people for monetary gain.
Pastor Frank
news:41a13ad2$0$27768$8b46...@news.nationwide.net...
>
> and what form of freedom belongs to the average Iraqi people?
> And, yes, help secure freedom with the people being responsibile
> in the end. But how does one get that help in the first place?
> You still have it backwards as the USA is helping the innocent
> even though they are not on American soil. President Bush is
> right on....how many free democrated societies have attacked
> other countries?
>
argue the USA is not a free democratic country but one were minority rights
supersede those of the majority. The name for such a type of government
escapes me presently. Regardless, the USA has attacked other countries
consistently and the world is studded with USA military bases, ready to
attack all who do not act in the interest of Zio-America. The reaction to
this is the root cause of terrorism.
Pastor Frank
JUDGMENT
Jesus in Mt:18:7: Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must
needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence
cometh!
Jesus in Mt:7:2: For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged:
and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Jesus in Mt:23:12: And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased;
and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
Rv:13:10: He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he
that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword.
Herb Martin
> argue the USA is not a free democratic country but one were minority
rights
> supersede those of the majority. The name for such a type of government
> escapes me presently.
The United States is technically a Republic, one which is
organized along democratic principles.
The rights of the individual are protected in favor of the
desires of the majority, i.e., no (simple) majority can vote
to remove the rights of some citizens.
bj
"Pastor Frank" <P...@christfirst.com> wrote in message
news:1101630915.86S9fTJEFKCTTWGZ4FVG6A@teranews...
I know this is going to come as a surprise to you, but Jesus was a Jew!
Bless those who bless Israel, curse those who curse Israel.
Take you arguments up with God.
pinnush
> organized along democratic principles.
>
> The rights of the individual are protected in favor of the
> desires of the majority, i.e., no (simple) majority can vote
> to remove the rights of some citizens.
How do you then explain, the War on Some Drugs, and armed sex police
deployed against consenting adults?
Bob
"Herb Martin" <ne...@LearnQuick.com> wrote in message
news:5Aiqd.50276$g21....@fe1.texas.rr.com...
> > In the case of the US, its a very long list indeed. But then you
might
> > argue the USA is not a free democratic country but one were minority
> rights
> > supersede those of the majority. The name for such a type of government
> > escapes me presently.
>
> The United States is technically a Republic,
"...and to the Republic, for which it stands..."
Bob
"pinnush" <pinnu...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:936d33b5.04112...@posting.google.com...
The sex police? Was that an episode of Jerry Springer or just the
product of one-too-many acid trips???
Fakebuster
>
> "Ken Smith" <k...@maths.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:cnbcpt$a1a$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
>>
>> Since the Senate of the University of Queensland resolved some years
>> ago that Chaplaincy Services should move towards being multi-faith,
>> some of us have been reading the sacred texts of non-Christian
>> religions, and been somewhat surprised to find that on social issues
>> they have a lot in common with parts of the New Testament - and, of
>> course, the OT prophets, but that's not too surprising.
>>
> Please show us how you came to that conclusion. Kindly make a
> comparison of the OT moral laws below, with those of any other faith.
>
> Pastor Frank
LOL. You gotta be kidding me, Fake. You're
still pretending you're a real pastor? Why
don't we look at the exchange you had with
another poster some time back, where you'd
called the 10 Commandments the "sayings of
Moses". Still holding the receipt for your
mail order pastor certificate Pastor Fake?
--
Pastor Frank wrote:
:
:Portal wrote in message <7lfq2v$883$6...@news.iag.net>...
:
::If you are so fond of the Ten Commandments, post them,
::with an explanation of each. Otherwise stop saying
::that they should be posted in schools when churches
::do not even teach them. Most churches do not even
::know what they are!
:
:You are the one with the extensive knowledge of the OT
:and you love to quote the OT, so why don't you do your
:assignment yourself? I'm NT oriented and prefer the
:sayings of Jesus to those of Moses.
Pastor Frank
news:CKlqd.39$he1...@fe61.usenetserver.com...
> "Pastor Frank" <P...@christfirst.com> wrote in message
> news:1101630915.86S9fTJEFKCTTWGZ4FVG6A@teranews...
> > "bckwrds" <bck...@theriver.com> wrote in message
> > news:41a13ad2$0$27768$8b46...@news.nationwide.net...
> > >
> > > and what form of freedom belongs to the average Iraqi people?
> > > And, yes, help secure freedom with the people being responsibile
> > > in the end. But how does one get that help in the first place?
> > > You still have it backwards as the USA is helping the innocent
> > > even though they are not on American soil. President Bush is
> > > right on....how many free democrated societies have attacked
> > > other countries?
> >
> > In the case of the US, its a very long list indeed. But then you
might
> > argue the USA is not a free democratic country but one were minority
> rights
> > supersede those of the majority. The name for such a type of government
> > escapes me presently. Regardless, the USA has attacked other countries
> > consistently and the world is studded with USA military bases, ready to
> > attack all who do not act in the interest of Zio-America. The reaction
to
> > this is the root cause of terrorism.
> >
> > Jesus in Mt:18:7: Woe unto the world because of offences! for it
must
> > needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence
> > cometh!
> > Jesus in Mt:7:2: For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be
judged:
> > and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
> > Jesus in Mt:23:12: And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be
abased;
> > and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
> > Rv:13:10: He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he
> > that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword.
>
> Gee another Barry Lynn, pastor of one.
> I know this is going to come as a surprise to you, but Jesus was a Jew!
> Bless those who bless Israel, curse those who curse Israel.
> Take you arguments up with God.
>
He told me, that he gave us the 10 commandments which specify no coveting
and no killing, and that He never made an exception for anyone. All who
claim He did are Satan's minions. What did God tell YOU?
Pastor Frank
For God to kill via a great flood etc. is one thing, and that's why we
call such events "Acts of God". It's quite another to command some of
His children to kill their Semitic brothers and sisters and their children
and life stock, in fact "all that breatheth". Here God is supposed to have
ordered fratricide and that can only be an order from Satan. Let no one
think, that the Bible as well as the church and temple are free from Satan
and his minions, for the adversary has access to all media, even our hearts
and minds, right up to the very throne of God Himself (Rv:12:10).
All we have to go on are the inerrant words of Christ, our God incarnate
and His commandments, all of which command us to love. Nowhere does
Christ endorse killing anyone for any reason. We even are commanded to
love our enemies, for God is our Father which is in Heaven, our Abba, Daddy,
who wishes that no harm should come to any of His children and that all
should come to repentance and be saved (2Pt:3:9). We are all warned, that we
WILL be judged and treated as we judge and treat others.
Had the Jews faith in their Theology, they would have converted the
natives of Israel, and there would have been no Islam today. Instead, Jews
went to "kill all that breatheth" in the entire country, keeping alive only
little girls to "do with as you please" (Moses in Numbers 31:17-18).
See below the "abomination of desolation" at work and what the ultimate
consequence as per Biblical prophesy will be.
CAUSE OF THE APOCALYPSE: Being proud instead of repentant of the
horrific holocaust of the entire native population of "the promised land",
as well as the continuing colonial brutality against Palestinian natives.
The below atrocities were committed shortly after the God of the Jews,
YHWH, gave them the 10 commandments, forbidding Jews to covet their
neighbour's property and kill them to get a hold of it.
Jews and some Christians want us to believe, that YHWH, though "the same
yesterday, today and tomorrow" decided to change His mind and command both
coveting and fratricide. Jews were to kill their Semitic brothers, sisters
and their children and life-stock, in fact they were to "kill all that
breatheth" in the entire country, in order for them to "occupy the land" and
"reap where they have not sown". This resulted in the below horrific
obscenity, a genocidal holocaust of gigantic proportions.
--------
Deuteronomy 20:16-17 But of the cities of these people, which the Lord
thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing
that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them; the Hittites, and the
Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites
as the Lord thy God has commanded thee."
Ezekiel 32:5 "I will strew your flesh upon the mountains, and fill the
valleys with your carcass. I will drench the land even to the mountains with
your flowing blood..."
Ezekiel 9:5 "Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall
not spare and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and
maidens, little children and women...'"
Deut. 7:1 (KJV)When Yahweh your god has settled you in the land you're
about to occupy, and driven out many infidels before you...you're to cut
them down and exterminate them. You're to make no compromise with
them nor show them any mercy.
Joshua 10:40 - BBE So Joshua struck all the land, the hill-country, and
the South, and the lowland, and the slopes, and all their kings: he left
none remaining, but he utterly destroyed all that breathed, as God, the God
of Israel, commanded."
1 Samuel 15:3 - BBE Now go and strike Amalek, and utterly destroy all
that they have, and don't spare them; but kill both man and woman, infant
and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."
Isaiah 13:16 - BBE Their infants also will be dashed in pieces before
their eyes. Their houses will be ransacked, and their wives raped."
Hosea 13:16 - BBE Samaria will bear her guilt; For she has rebelled
against her God. They will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed
in pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open."
Moses in Numbers 31:17-18 Now therefore kill every male among the
little ones, and kill every woman, that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the female children, that have not known man by lying with him,
keep alive for yourself.
PROPHETIC APOCALYPSE, (The N-U-C-L-E-A-R consequence of the abomination
above and others like it, employing great noise and heat that can melt
elements, scorch people and destroy the "works of man" on a massive scale)
2Pt:3:10: But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in
the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements
shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein
shall be burned up.
2Pt:3:12: Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God,
wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall
melt with fervent heat?
Jesus in Matt. 24:16: Then let them which be in Judea flee into the
mountains:
17: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out
of his house:
18: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his
clothes.
19: And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in
those days!
20: But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the
sabbath day:
21: For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the
beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22: And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be
saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
Jesus in Lk:23:30: Then shall they begin to say to the mountains, Fall
on us; and to the hills, Cover us.
Rev 6: 15-17 Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the
rich, the mighty, and every slave and every free man hid in caves and among
the rocks of the mountains. They called to the mountains and the rocks,
"Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from
the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of their wrath has come, and who
can stand?"
Rv:16:9: And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name
of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give
him glory.
bckwrds
PF, what do you think about "a time for war and a time for peace"?
Are those satan's words?
bckwrds
George
> "bj" <holla...@comteck.com> wrote in message
> news:CKlqd.39$he1...@fe61.usenetserver.com...
[snip]
>>Gee another Barry Lynn, pastor of one.
>>I know this is going to come as a surprise to you, but Jesus was a Jew!
>>Bless those who bless Israel, curse those who curse Israel.
>>Take you arguments up with God.
>
> Give references where Jesus tell us that. I did take it up with God and
> He told me, that he gave us the 10 commandments which specify no coveting
> and no killing, and that He never made an exception for anyone. All who
> claim He did are Satan's minions. What did God tell YOU?
>
> Pastor Frank
LOL! So sayeth Pastor Fake, who claimed that the
10 Commandments were the "sayings of Moses". :-)
Pastor Frank
news:x9CdnbY_QY8...@pghconnect.com...
between the side-walk and a busy street.
Pastor Frank
news:irmdnaUSI94...@adelphia.com...
> Pastor Frank wrote:
> > "Ken Smith" <k...@maths.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
> > news:cnbcpt$a1a$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> >>
> >> Since the Senate of the University of Queensland resolved some years
> >> ago that Chaplaincy Services should move towards being multi-faith,
> >> some of us have been reading the sacred texts of non-Christian
> >> religions, and been somewhat surprised to find that on social issues
> >> they have a lot in common with parts of the New Testament - and, of
> >> course, the OT prophets, but that's not too surprising.
> >
> > Please show us how you came to that conclusion. Kindly make a
> > comparison of the OT moral laws below, with those of any other faith.
>
> still pretending you're a real pastor? Why
> don't we look at the exchange you had with
> another poster some time back, where you'd
> called the 10 Commandments the "sayings of
> Moses". Still holding the receipt for your
> mail order pastor certificate Pastor Fake?
>
our pristine religious NGs?
Pastor Frank
THE LAW
"For the law was given by Moses..." (John 1:17) and:
"...according to the law of Moses..." (Luke 2:22)
THE 10 COMMANDMENTS OF YHWH:
I. I AM THE LORD THY GOD, THOU SHALT NOT HAVE strange gods BEFORE
ME.
II. THOU SHALT NOT TAKE THE NAME OF THE LORD THY GOD IN VAIN.
III. REMEMBER THOU KEEP HOLY THE SABBATH DAY.
IV. HONOR THY FATHER AND THY MOTHER.
V. THOU SHALT NOT KILL.
VI. THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.
VII . SHALT NOT STEAL.
VIII. THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS AGAINST THY NEIGHBOR.
IX. THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S WIFE
X. THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR'S GOODS.
what
desires of the majority, i.e., no (simple) majority can vote
to remove the rights of some citizens.
Aaron
wrote:
>Pastor Frank wrote:
>
>> "bj" <holla...@comteck.com> wrote in message
>> news:CKlqd.39$he1...@fe61.usenetserver.com...
>
>[snip]
>
>>>Gee another Barry Lynn, pastor of one.
>>>I know this is going to come as a surprise to you, but Jesus was a Jew!
>>>Bless those who bless Israel, curse those who curse Israel.
>>>Take you arguments up with God.
>>
>> Give references where Jesus tell us that.
If you mean the Gospel account, then we could go with Luke 2:21,
where He was circumcised as a Jew.
Or we could go with His claim that the Va'ahavta, which is the
defining verse in Judaism that is recited at least twice a day
privately in addition to berecited in every Synagogue service is the
Most important part of the Bible.
Or that he was allowed into the Temple where non-Jews were not allowed
to go.
Or the fact that jesus never renounced Judaism. He did denounce the
Saducees and Beyt Shammai, a minority group of Pharisees that opposed
his teachings because Jesus agreed with their rivals Beyt Hillel.
(BTW: it was Rabbi Hillel who wrote the Golden Rule that Jesus
quoted.)
>>I did take it up with God and
>> He told me, that he gave us the 10 commandments which specify no coveting
>> and no killing, and that He never made an exception for anyone.
Frank, make up your mind! First you claim that YHVH is only the God
of Judaism and that he has nothing to do with Jesus, whom you have
claimed is the God of Christianity, then you claim that the Ten
Utterances come from [your?] God. For you to make this claim, you
must admit that YHVH and Jesus are one.
BTW: the Bible calles the Ten, "Aseret HaDibrot (the Ten Utterances),"
because all of the Jews heard the voice of God for themselves.
>>All who
>> claim He did are Satan's minions. What did God tell YOU?
Well frank, by that logic you must agree that all 613 Commandments are
in full effect with respect to followers of Jesus as well as to Jews.
However, when I said this you called me a Judaist.
>>
>> Pastor Frank
>
>LOL! So sayeth Pastor Fake, who claimed that the
>10 Commandments were the "sayings of Moses". :-)
Frank just can't make up his mind.
Bob
"what" <wh...@who.com> wrote in message
news:Po3rd.25202$fC4....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
country for good or ill, you obviously have a vastly distorted view of
politics and basic government.
By your logic, the last four years should have dismantled Roe Vs. Wade,
made Protestant church attendance mandatory, and instituted the death
penalty for gays.
U R A Moron.
Aaron
wrote:
That was silly, Frank. Jesus COMMANDED all of His Folloers to obey
all the commandments in the OT (Mathew 5:17-19. You cannot reject the
613 Commandments without rejecting Jesus.
jetgraphics
> I've begun my investigation.
>
> Webster's Dictionary defines Usury as:
> Usury
> U'SURY, n. s as z. [L. usura, from utor, to use.]
>
> 1. Formerly, interest; or a premium paid or stipulated to be paid for
> the use of money.
>
> [Usury formerly denoted any legal interest, but in this sense, the word
> is no longer in use.]
>
> 2. In present usage, illegal interest; a premium or compensation paid or
> stipulated to be paid for the use of money borrowed or retained, beyond
> the rate of interest established by law.
>
> 3. The practice of taking interest. Obs.
>
> So your definition is outdated according to Webster. Number 2 stipulates
> the modern day translation. Even Jesus parables the use of usury by your
> definition.
Have you considered that the "modern" reinterpretation was at the behest of
usurers?
The Biblical meaning is not subject to your modern reinterpretation.
Mathematically speaking, usury is impossible to pay in a finite money token
system. I do not refer to the individual compacts, but aggregate usury. The
aggregate debt + interest exceeds the whole sum of money tokens in
existance. That means that a proportion of debtors MUST default because the
money tokens don't exist. That's the "REASON" why usury was an abomination,
and proscribed by Ezekiel.
> This parable speaks of God as the master which gave talents to three
> servants, two of them multiplied the talents by two.
I suggest you carefully read the passage aloud, and ask yourself what kind
of "master" STEALS other people's property and engages in an abomination.
It's not "God"!
> The third buried
> his single talent for fear that he would lose his master's talent.
NO NO NO. HE WAS AFRAID TO COMMIT USURY, A CAPITAL OFFENSE.
> And
> his master replied:
>
> Mat 25:27 then you should have put my money to the exchangers, and
> coming I would have received my own with interest (usury by your
> definition).
The King James version is clear - it's USURY. That was declared an
abomination in Ezekiel 18:13.
> Same parable, different disciple:
>
> Luk 19:23 And why did you not give my silver on the bank table, and
> coming I might have exacted it with interest(usury by your definition)?
>
> Jesus would not imply that God would submit to usury in this sense
> unless this sense of usury was permissible by God. Therefore, I find
> your definition is outdated according to Jesus.
No, your presumption is wrong. As is your "modern" reinterpretation. As I
suggested, strip the first sentence, "The kingdom of heaven is like" and
then re-read it. The parable is obviously NOT in favor of usury.
> I believe knowing the OT account, the Jews were lent money at higher
> than normal interest rates. Or there property was exchanged for less
> than the value of what it was worth. And this form of usury is
> despictable and an abomination.
>
> Interest bearing checking accounts pay about .5% / year. Mortgage rates
> at their highest point in my life were 12% / year and that was still
> within the law. CD's, IRA's, Money Markets, and Pension plans pay within
> the allowed limits by law. Credit cards in some cases while still legal
> fit your definition of usury, some as high as 33% / year. Likewise, I
> believe that Check Exchange or places like that are forms of usury, even
> while they are legal. I think these forms of loan sharking is where our
> governments have sold out the people for monetary gain.
Usury is not excessive interest. Usury WAS and IS any interest, in money,
for the use of money. It is forbidden. The reason is simple - no finite
money token system can tolerate it and survive.
The one and only way usury is tolerable is where the debtor can create the
new money needed to pay the interest.
It's no coincidence that the Federal Reserve Note (dollar bill) is borrowed
at usury, into existance. The only way the government can pay the interest
is to borrow more. That's insanity.
OmegaTime
> Have you considered that the "modern" reinterpretation was at the behest of
> usurers?
> The Biblical meaning is not subject to your modern reinterpretation.
This was hardly my modern reinterpretation. This definition was written
by Noah Webster in 1828. Although I'm sure this bears little weight in
your opinion, every concordance I've checked is in agreement with what I
say.
> Mathematically speaking, usury is impossible to pay in a finite money token
> system. I do not refer to the individual compacts, but aggregate usury. The
> aggregate debt + interest exceeds the whole sum of money tokens in
> existance. That means that a proportion of debtors MUST default because the
> money tokens don't exist. That's the "REASON" why usury was an abomination,
> and proscribed by Ezekiel.
I understand your point. In Jesus' day, the trade of goods and services
entered into the equation. In the days of Ezekiel, trade was not as
popular. Men built their own homes, farmed their own lands, and milled
their own grain thus leaving a finite money token system. Adding goods
and services, the system becomes infinite.
> I suggest you carefully read the passage aloud, and ask yourself what kind
> of "master" STEALS other people's property and engages in an abomination.
> It's not "God"!
I've read it carefully again and before I posted. First, remember the
KJV is a translation, just as the MKJV, the NIV, and the LITV are. All
four versions are making the point that this servant who received one
talent was trying to use his idea master's moral characteristic as an
excuse for slothfulness. If I were able to sing wonderfully and profited
from selling my ability to sing, by your line of thought I would be
guilty of some form of usury. The talent (not confused with the parable)
is God given, but used for my profit. Show me a parable in the bible
where Jesus parables a master that is not God.
> NO NO NO. HE WAS AFRAID TO COMMIT USURY, A CAPITAL OFFENSE.
He was making an excuse for being slothful.
> The King James version is clear - it's USURY. That was declared an
> abomination in Ezekiel 18:13.
I am not denying the words that are printed in the KJV. It is the intent
of the words that I disagree with. Friendly words can have a bad meaning
and vica-versa. I can say to a dear friend, "I should just shoot you."
This doesn't mean that I intend to kill my dear friend, it means that my
patience grows short.
> No, your presumption is wrong. As is your "modern" reinterpretation. As I
> suggested, strip the first sentence, "The kingdom of heaven is like" and
> then re-read it. The parable is obviously NOT in favor of usury.
Again, you speak like this is my reinterpretation. No! It is from Noah
Webster in 1828. The church itself pays interest on purchases. The bible
says in some form, that evil will not prevail against the church. So you
would suggest that any church who has borrowed money is not of God?
> Usury is not excessive interest. Usury WAS and IS any interest, in money,
> for the use of money. It is forbidden. The reason is simple - no finite
> money token system can tolerate it and survive.
If our money token system were finite. Introduce the trade of goods and
services and it becomes infinite.
> The one and only way usury is tolerable is where the debtor can create the
> new money needed to pay the interest.
And this is the American Modern day system, free trade. I can build a
house for you in exchange for money or the repayment of a debt.
> It's no coincidence that the Federal Reserve Note (dollar bill) is borrowed
> at usury, into existance. The only way the government can pay the interest
> is to borrow more. That's insanity.
I won't disagree with this statement. The dollar used to be based on a
measure of gold at it's value. Today in retrospect it is just a token
system.
jetgraphics
> jetgraphics wrote:
>
>> Have you considered that the "modern" reinterpretation was at the behest
>> of usurers?
>> The Biblical meaning is not subject to your modern reinterpretation.
>
> This was hardly my modern reinterpretation. This definition was written
> by Noah Webster in 1828. Although I'm sure this bears little weight in
> your opinion, every concordance I've checked is in agreement with what I
> say.
And since usury was quite popular in the USA at that time, his
"interpretation" is questionable, at the least. Consider that during
Shakespeare's time, the concept was defined otherwise. Cite: Merchant of
Venice.
>> Mathematically speaking, usury is impossible to pay in a finite money
>> token system. I do not refer to the individual compacts, but aggregate
>> usury. The aggregate debt + interest exceeds the whole sum of money
>> tokens in existance. That means that a proportion of debtors MUST default
>> because the money tokens don't exist. That's the "REASON" why usury was
>> an abomination, and proscribed by Ezekiel.
>
> I understand your point. In Jesus' day, the trade of goods and services
> entered into the equation. In the days of Ezekiel, trade was not as
> popular. Men built their own homes, farmed their own lands, and milled
> their own grain thus leaving a finite money token system. Adding goods
> and services, the system becomes infinite.
You fail to comprehend that money is an abstract symbol for the sum of goods
and services in the marketplace. Obviously, a proportionality must be
maintained, otherwise trade falters.
Usurers rely on the principle of natural increase (living things) as their
rationale for "return on investment". Unfortunately, money doesn't
reproduce, as does plants and animals.
Usury IS an abomination, since time immemorial. And it's based on sound
reasons, as well as religious prohibition. Making excuses in support of
usury puts you on shaky ground, biblically speaking.
>> I suggest you carefully read the passage aloud, and ask yourself what
>> kind of "master" STEALS other people's property and engages in an
>> abomination. It's not "God"!
>
> I've read it carefully again and before I posted.
> First, remember the
> KJV is a translation, just as the MKJV, the NIV, and the LITV are.
And you can't see that the "hard man" is an evil person?
> All
> four versions are making the point that this servant who received one
> talent was trying to use his idea master's moral characteristic as an
> excuse for slothfulness.
No. It doesn't. You are focusing on what generations of apologists for
usurers have promulgated - that the third servant was "bad" for not
engaging in usury, like the first two servants.
Remember, if Jesus was not opposed to usurers, he wouldn't have whipped them
from the temple. Ezekiel's prohibition was still in force. The Romans
didn't prohibit usury, and that's why they flourished despite the
scriptural ban.
> If I were able to sing wonderfully and profited
> from selling my ability to sing, by your line of thought I would be
> guilty of some form of usury.
No. Selling one's services, labor or output is NOT usury. Charging money for
the use of money is USURY. A return on investment need not be limited to
money.
> The talent (not confused with the parable)
> is God given, but used for my profit.
Your argument is not about the evils or blessings of usury. Talent is not
the core of the parable about the three servants. The real message is that
when one tries to be righteous while employed by evil men, one risks
getting one's butt kicked. Not unlike today, when righteous men are
penalized for their adherence to their religious beliefs that contradict
the politically correct evil doers.
> Show me a parable in the bible
> where Jesus parables a master that is not God.
Prove that all "masters" in parables ARE God.
Matthew 25 is clearly not GOD.
>> NO NO NO. HE WAS AFRAID TO COMMIT USURY, A CAPITAL OFFENSE.
>
> He was making an excuse for being slothful.
>
>> The King James version is clear - it's USURY. That was declared an
>> abomination in Ezekiel 18:13.
>
> I am not denying the words that are printed in the KJV. It is the intent
> of the words that I disagree with.
Mt25:4 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord,
I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown,
and gathering where thou hast not strawed
What "kind" of person reaps where he hast not sown, and gathered where he
hast not strawed?
A thief!
The parable does not represent "GOD" as a "hard man" who is a thief and
scoundrel.
If GOD steals, then it's a very strange God, by any meaning of the words.
>> No, your presumption is wrong. As is your "modern" reinterpretation. As I
>> suggested, strip the first sentence, "The kingdom of heaven is like" and
>> then re-read it. The parable is obviously NOT in favor of usury.
>
> Again, you speak like this is my reinterpretation. No! It is from Noah
> Webster in 1828.
Webster's definition of 1828 doesn't supersede King James!
Ezekiel 18:13 (KJV) - Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken
increase:shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these
abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.
USURY = "taken increase" NOT "excessive interest"
USURY = abomination
USURY = self condemned to death (his blood shall be upon him)
Jesus whips the money changers / exchangers of money from the temple.
Jesus teaches a parable about a servant who is AFRAID to commit usury, a
capital offense, an abomination, and you think that the "hard man" is
euphemism for GOD!?
> The church itself pays interest on purchases. The bible
> says in some form, that evil will not prevail against the church. So you
> would suggest that any church who has borrowed money is not of God?
>
>> Usury is not excessive interest. Usury WAS and IS any interest, in money,
>> for the use of money. It is forbidden. The reason is simple - no finite
>> money token system can tolerate it and survive.
>
> If our money token system were finite. Introduce the trade of goods and
> services and it becomes infinite.
The money token in circulation is the Federal Reserve Note, which by law, in
Title 12, United States Code, Sec. 411, is an obligation of the U.S. to
pay. New notes are only printed when Congress votes deficits. They ARE
finite - and borrowed at usury.
If you believe that "goods and services" equal money, you are mistaken.
Money is the medium of exchange for those goods and services. I challenge
you to go into any market and buy those goods and services, at retail
price, with those "infinite goods and services" you speak of.
In short, the money token system is based on debt / credit and usury. This
has been the bottleneck on modern commerce for over 3 generations.
America's economic decline can be traced to the institution of the Federal
Reserve in 1914.
Money drought favors the bankers who offer the "credit" to a money starved
marketplace.
The solution doesn't require any new laws. It only requires righteous people
to SHUN usury and usurers. Of course, I don't expect that to happen any
time soon...
>> The one and only way usury is tolerable is where the debtor can create
>> the new money needed to pay the interest.
>
> And this is the American Modern day system, free trade. I can build a
> house for you in exchange for money or the repayment of a debt.
No, it's not correct. People do not "create new federal reserve notes" (at
least not without risking a prison sentence).
Your sentence plainly states "Exchange for money" or "repayment of debt".
Both refer to MONEY, not goods and services (barter). In fact, in national
socialism, you cannot retain custody of your house unless you pay taxes, in
money. Ditto for everything else.
The IRS will tax barter, and demand payment in MONEY.
If you examine the recent Dot Com bust, it was the result of the "almost
balanced budget" that reduced the creation of new money tokens (red ink).
Only after the huge budget deficits, did the economy begin to recover.
Insane? Yes.
Usury is the quickest way to gain control over a nation. This is why the
bankers / usurers are running the world and hate Islamic countries that
forbid usury.
When USSR fell, the first thing Yeltsin did was to petition for membership
in the IMF, and borrow the ruble into existance. Communism and Socialism
are not foes of usury. But when Lenin told the bankers to take a hike in
1919, that made the "Fee World" very angry with Russian communists.
>> It's no coincidence that the Federal Reserve Note (dollar bill) is
>> borrowed at usury, into existance. The only way the government can pay
>> the interest is to borrow more. That's insanity.
>
> I won't disagree with this statement. The dollar used to be based on a
> measure of gold at it's value. Today in retrospect it is just a token
> system.
Incorrect. A dollar, as defined by law (Coinage Act of 1792) is still a
silver coin containing a minimum of 3/4 troy ounce of pure silver. A
"federal reserve note" is an obligation to pay one dollar. Since 1933, that
promise was repudiated when the U.S. went bankrupt to the USURERS. For over
3 generations, America has been under a "State of Emergency" based on their
evil deeds.
References:
_Psal 15:5_ He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward
against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.
_Ezek 18:13_ Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he
then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall
surely die; his blood shall be upon him.
_Exod 22:25_ If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee,
thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him
usury.
_Levi 25:36_ Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that
thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon
usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.
jetgraphics
Let me direct your attention to the definition from Blackstone's
Commentaries on law, second volume:
USURY - Interest of money, increase for the loan of money. The taking of
any compensation for the use of money.
"ANY COMPENSATION" in money, for the use of money, is USURY.
Every Christian with an interest bearing bank account, or any compact with
usurers, is condemned. That is why USURERS trust God not to interfere with
their evil plans against fellow usurers. There's no "Divine Justice"
available to the enumerated usurers, mired in the abomination of their
usury.
Gaurdenman
I would like to know; How I can apply for a job with the sex police? I
have substantial experience in law enforcement and sex.
>
>
Pastor Frank
news:8a7qq09ev11v6u75d...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 02:28:34 -0700, Fakebuster <frank...@unoit.com>
> wrote:
> >Pastor Frank wrote:
> > > "Ken Smith" <k...@maths.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
> > > news:cnbcpt$a1a$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> > >>
> > >> Since the Senate of the University of Queensland resolved some years
> > >> ago that Chaplaincy Services should move towards being multi-faith,
> > >> some of us have been reading the sacred texts of non-Christian
> > >> religions, and been somewhat surprised to find that on social issues
> > >> they have a lot in common with parts of the New Testament - and, of
> > >> course, the OT prophets, but that's not too surprising.
> > >>
> > > Please show us how you came to that conclusion. Kindly make a
> > > comparison of the OT moral laws below, with those of any other faith.
> >
> >still pretending you're a real pastor? Why
> >don't we look at the exchange you had with
> >another poster some time back, where you'd
> >called the 10 Commandments the "sayings of
> >Moses". Still holding the receipt for your
> >mail order pastor certificate Pastor Fake?
>
> all the commandments in the OT (Mathew 5:17-19. You cannot reject the
> 613 Commandments without rejecting Jesus.
>
above. But since you elected yourself as his spokes person, you can answer
why neither Jew nor Christians follow any of the laws below and even ignore
most of the 10 commandments about adultery, coveting, killing etc. etc.
Pastor Frank
THE COMMANDMENTS THE LORD GAVE MOSES ON MT. SINAI TO THE ISREALITES.
"For the law was given by Moses..." (John 1:17) and:
"...according to the law of Moses..." (Luke 2:22)
Leviticus 20:9-27 If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put
to death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on
his own head.
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-with the wife
of his neighbour-both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonoured his
father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood
will be on their own heads.
If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be
put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be
on their own heads.
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them
have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood
will be on their own heads.
If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both
he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be
among you.
If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to
death, and you must kill the animal.
If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it,
kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their
blood will be on their own heads.
If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or
his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They must be
cut off before the eyes of their people. He has dishonoured his sister and
will be held responsible.
If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has
sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and
she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people.
Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your
mother or your father, for that would dishonour a close relative; both of
you would be held responsible.
If a man sleeps with his aunt, he has dishonoured his uncle. They
will be held responsible; they will die childless.
If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he
has dishonoured his brother. They will be childless.
Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land
where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out.
You must not live according to the customs of the nations I am going
to drive out before you. Because they did all these things, I abhorred them.
But I said to you, "You will possess their land; I will give it to
you as an inheritance, a land flowing with milk and honey." I am the LORD
your God, who has set you apart from the nations.
You must therefore make a distinction between clean and unclean
animals and between unclean and clean birds. Do not defile yourselves by
any animal or bird or anything that moves along the ground-those which I
have set apart as unclean for you.
You are to be holy to me [3] because I, the LORD , am holy, and I
have set you apart from the nations to be my own.
A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be
put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own
heads.
Lev 21: 9 If a priest's daughter defiles herself by becoming a
prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.
Deuteronomy 25:11-12 "When men strive together one with another, and
the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand
of him that smiteth him and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the
secrets: Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her"
OmegaTime
> And since usury was quite popular in the USA at that time, his
> "interpretation" is questionable, at the least. Consider that during
> Shakespeare's time, the concept was defined otherwise. Cite: Merchant of
> Venice.
I agree that redefining the term in given periods would be advantageous
to some. I don't agree this is what happened. If someone or a group of
people were so devious as to change the definition of a word to their
advantage, it makes sense that they would change all of the biblical
uses of usury to extortion?
> You fail to comprehend that money is an abstract symbol for the sum of goods
> and services in the marketplace. Obviously, a proportionality must be
> maintained, otherwise trade falters.
No, money is a token. The goods and services are what have value. How
much is the White House worth? Only what somebody is willing to pay. I
comprehend exactly what is logical, written, and what I've received from
the Spirit as the answers.
> Usurers rely on the principle of natural increase (living things) as their
> rationale for "return on investment". Unfortunately, money doesn't
> reproduce, as does plants and animals.
This is where you lose me. So, if money should not be allowed to be
increased by itself, likewise profiting from the sale of a car show be
disallowed by the same logic.
> Usury IS an abomination, since time immemorial. And it's based on sound
> reasons, as well as religious prohibition. Making excuses in support of
> usury puts you on shaky ground, biblically speaking.
The ground I stand on is solid. Shakiness comes in judgment of others
(biblically speaking).
> And you can't see that the "hard man" is an evil person?
Here is the wisdom and undisputed facts of this parable. It talks of a
master and three servants. Two of the servants provide the master with
his principle money and 100% gain. The master tells those two servants,
‘Well done, good and faithful servants’. The third servant buries the
money token and returns the principle sum only, it gains nothing.
Upon discovering this, the master is infuriated that the servant was
slothful. The servant that received the smallest amount of principle
gave nothing as a return except the principle. The master tells the
third servant “Evil and slothful servant! You knew that I reaped where I
did not sow, and gathered where I did not scatter, then you should have
put my money to the exchangers, and coming I would have received my own
with interest. Therefore take the talent from him and give it to him who
has ten talents. For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he
will abound. But from him who has not, even that which he has shall be
taken away from him. And throw the unprofitable servant into outer
darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
This is the tested or disputed part of the parable.
Where will there be weeping and gnashing of teeth? Where is the outer
darkness? It’s not in Heaven. Who has the power to make judgments that
result in outer darkness, and cause weeping and gnashing of teeth? God
is the master in this parable. God is the dominant being in Jesus'
parables.
God gave us with our literal talents (not money tokens). The parable is
actually saying, make the best of what you have. Failure to utilize the
gifts from God will result unfavorably.
The point I make is that the master states, "then you should have put my
money to the exchangers, and coming I would have received my own with
interest." Thus money compounds money or earns interest.
> No. It doesn't. You are focusing on what generations of apologists for
> usurers have promulgated - that the third servant was "bad" for not
> engaging in usury, like the first two servants.
Exactly, because whether you read the KJ, MKJ, NI version they all say
this, that the master called the third servant evil and slothful. Do you
dispute the bible? If so, then what is the basis of your original post?
> Remember, if Jesus was not opposed to usurers, he wouldn't have whipped them
> from the temple. Ezekiel's prohibition was still in force. The Romans
> didn't prohibit usury, and that's why they flourished despite the
> scriptural ban.
It's not appropriate to sell cars in the church parking lot, muchless
exchange money at the temple at extorted rates. Jesus would have thrown
out the car salesmen from the temple, had he been there selling cars.
> No. Selling one's services, labor or output is NOT usury. Charging money for
> the use of money is USURY. A return on investment need not be limited to
> money.
This does not pass a logical test, what is written, or what the Spirit
says to me.
> Your argument is not about the evils or blessings of usury. Talent is not
> the core of the parable about the three servants. The real message is that
> when one tries to be righteous while employed by evil men, one risks
> getting one's butt kicked. Not unlike today, when righteous men are
> penalized for their adherence to their religious beliefs that contradict
> the politically correct evil doers.
I completely reject your interpretation of this parable. But you have
your opinion what it means, and I have mine. Mine is stated above.
> Prove that all "masters" in parables ARE God.
>
> Matthew 25 is clearly not GOD.
Ok, now I realize who you are Mr. Clinton, LOL - Joking only. I only
asked you to quote a parable that God is not the dominant role in a
parable. Matthew 25 - God is clearly the master.
> Mt25:4 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord,
> I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown,
> and gathering where thou hast not strawed
Some people would believe God to be like a hard man. God in His holiness
is a impossible standard for us humans to live up to. Therefore
perceived as being hard.
> What "kind" of person reaps where he hast not sown, and gathered where he
> hast not strawed?
>
> A thief!
>
> The parable does not represent "GOD" as a "hard man" who is a thief and
> scoundrel.
>
> If GOD steals, then it's a very strange God, by any meaning of the words.
Good point, except the parable never says that the master had any intent
to reap where he had not sown. The third servant was making excuse for
his slothfulness. And the master recognized this because the servant
made a poor excuse. The servant became contemptable to the master when
he tried to use the master's own words against him. God did not steal.
He's made an investment in mankind, He expects mankind to earn a return
on His investment.
>
>
> Webster's definition of 1828 doesn't supersede King James!
>
> Ezekiel 18:13 (KJV) - Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken
> increase:shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these
> abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.
>
> USURY = "taken increase" NOT "excessive interest"
> USURY = abomination
> USURY = self condemned to death (his blood shall be upon him.
>
> Jesus whips the money changers / exchangers of money from the temple.
>
> Jesus teaches a parable about a servant who is AFRAID to commit usury, a
> capital offense, an abomination, and you think that the "hard man" is
> euphemism for GOD!?
I sure do, and if you don't beleive God is the master is Matthew 25 then
you read differently than I do.
> The money token in circulation is the Federal Reserve Note, which by law, in
> Title 12, United States Code, Sec. 411, is an obligation of the U.S. to
> pay. New notes are only printed when Congress votes deficits. They ARE
> finite - and borrowed at usury.
>
> If you believe that "goods and services" equal money, you are mistaken.
> Money is the medium of exchange for those goods and services. I challenge
> you to go into any market and buy those goods and services, at retail
> price, with those "infinite goods and services" you speak of.
>
> In short, the money token system is based on debt / credit and usury. This
> has been the bottleneck on modern commerce for over 3 generations.
> America's economic decline can be traced to the institution of the Federal
> Reserve in 1914.
>
> Money drought favors the bankers who offer the "credit" to a money starved
> marketplace.
>
> The solution doesn't require any new laws. It only requires righteous people
> to SHUN usury and usurers. Of course, I don't expect that to happen any
> time soon...
Repetitious argument of the facts.
> No, it's not correct. People do not "create new federal reserve notes" (at
> least not without risking a prison sentence).
> Your sentence plainly states "Exchange for money" or "repayment of debt".
> Both refer to MONEY, not goods and services (barter). In fact, in national
> socialism, you cannot retain custody of your house unless you pay taxes, in
> money. Ditto for everything else.
> The IRS will tax barter, and demand payment in MONEY.
No new "federal reserve notes" are required. Just an agreement. If I owe
you $150,000.00 and agree to build a house for you in exchange, no new
money was created. My labor covered the cost of the debt.
My statements have been solely based on the term "Usury", nothing to do
with national socialism.
> If you examine the recent Dot Com bust, it was the result of the "almost
> balanced budget" that reduced the creation of new money tokens (red ink).
> Only after the huge budget deficits, did the economy begin to recover.
> Insane? Yes.
I agree, but the budget went unstable after the 9/11 attacks and the
reprecussions of the terrorism. In addition, our Government chose to
make war on borrowed money. This was the crime. I'm just glad that I
wasn't in Pres. Bush's shoes to have to make that decision.
> Usury is the quickest way to gain control over a nation. This is why the
> bankers / usurers are running the world and hate Islamic countries that
> forbid usury.
>
> When USSR fell, the first thing Yeltsin did was to petition for membership
> in the IMF, and borrow the ruble into existance. Communism and Socialism
> are not foes of usury. But when Lenin told the bankers to take a hike in
> 1919, that made the "Fee World" very angry with Russian communists.
Again, my post right now addresses the term "Usury". Where in the Koran
is usury forbidden? Control is an illusion. I can only be controlled as
much as I am willing to be controlled. The worst penalty I can suffer
for non-compliance is some form of the first death. I face that everyday
driving to and from work. The second death I assured that I will not
suffer through my faith in Jesus Christ.
> Incorrect. A dollar, as defined by law (Coinage Act of 1792) is still a
> silver coin containing a minimum of 3/4 troy ounce of pure silver. A
> "federal reserve note" is an obligation to pay one dollar. Since 1933, that
> promise was repudiated when the U.S. went bankrupt to the USURERS. For over
> 3 generations, America has been under a "State of Emergency" based on their
> evil deeds.
Again, you say silver. I said gold. Maybe I was mistaken about this
detail. My point is that it was based on something of real value, not
just paper. And I agree with you about America being in a state of
emergency for evil deeds. But the evil is being done in many ways, not
only because of the old definition of usury.
jetgraphics
> jetgraphics wrote:
>> And since usury was quite popular in the USA at that time, his
>> "interpretation" is questionable, at the least. Consider that during
>> Shakespeare's time, the concept was defined otherwise. Cite: Merchant of
>> Venice.
>
> I agree that redefining the term in given periods would be advantageous
> to some. I don't agree this is what happened. If someone or a group of
> people were so devious as to change the definition of a word to their
> advantage, it makes sense that they would change all of the biblical
> uses of usury to extortion?
Usury is not extortion, though both are forms of thievery.
>> You fail to comprehend that money is an abstract symbol for the sum of
>> goods and services in the marketplace. Obviously, a proportionality must
>> be maintained, otherwise trade falters.
>
> No, money is a token. The goods and services are what have value. How
> much is the White House worth? Only what somebody is willing to pay. I
> comprehend exactly what is logical, written, and what I've received from
> the Spirit as the answers.
Money is an abstraction for the value of the "real goods and services".
Generations of people have mistakenly made a thing derived from the whole
set of goods and services and made it a token. Big Error. But that's part
of the problem.
Since money is a medium of exchange that facilitates trade of differing
values and amounts of goods and services, it MUST have a proportionality,
otherwise it is not a measure.
The problem with "hard money" (precious metal coinage) is that it is PART of
the whole set.
To illustrate let's divide the whole set into ten parts : A,B...I,J.
G=Gold, and is 1/10 the set.
But "Gold Money", to function as a medium of exchange for the other 9/10ths
of the set must have a proportional value. So 1/9G = A, or B, and so on.
But that means that 1/9G can buy all the "G".
That's a problem that every nation that used hard money has wrestled with...
making the "official" value of bullion far cheaper than its "coined" value.
Worse, is when inflation by fiat / paper / fraud causes a flip flop, where
the coins have less value than the bullion.
>> Usurers rely on the principle of natural increase (living things) as
>> their rationale for "return on investment". Unfortunately, money doesn't
>> reproduce, as does plants and animals.
>
> This is where you lose me. So, if money should not be allowed to be
> increased by itself, likewise profiting from the sale of a car show be
> disallowed by the same logic.
Here's the way to understand it -
I asked my imaginary friend from 4,212 B.C. that very question: What did the
rich herdsman do with surplus capital and/or investment?
My friend leaned on his shepherd's crook and thought a moment. He said, "If
the herdsman was rich in herd beasts but shy on grazing land, he might
invest them, via a loan, to his neighbor with more land and no herd beasts.
In return for that investment, the owner and the borrower agreed to divide
the gain, the newborn animals. And after a period of time, the original
capital, the breeding stock, would be returned, well fed and well bred."
In the ancient way of doing business, the common sense folks knew that life
did grow and reproduce. The natural increase of plants, animals, and living
things was well understood. Seeds produced plants that generated more
seeds, thus multiplying amounts, and higher value. Animals bred more
animals that increased the quantity and value.
But precious metal coins, or even paper currency notes are dead dead dead.
They can't naturally increase. You can't plant gold coins and get a bumper
harvest of more gold coins.
The scam of the usurers was to persuade their victims that the rate of
return of nature, natural increase, could be applied to money, a dead dead
dead thing.
So why is usury on dead money so immoral, or bad?
Usury requires the borrower to pay back more money than he received.
It would appear that a single contract for usury is not a problem. The
problem occurs when usurers keep increasing the amount of debt, by loaning,
and reloaning their gain. Over time, the aggregate debt grows larger than
the whole sum of money in existance.
That is the point that usurers can quietly take over power, and government,
and every other activity that needs their "credit" to remain in business.
Those who fail to pay, default because the money doesn't exist.
This is exactly what has happened in the U.S.A.
The current "national debt" exceeds 7 trillion dollars.
The sum total of federal reserve notes (not real dollars) is far less.
In short, if all that debt had to be redeemed, it would be IMPOSSIBLE.
Impossible contracts are illegal, if not immoral.
But that's the result of usury.
>> Usury IS an abomination, since time immemorial. And it's based on sound
>> reasons, as well as religious prohibition. Making excuses in support of
>> usury puts you on shaky ground, biblically speaking.
>
> The ground I stand on is solid. Shakiness comes in judgment of others
> (biblically speaking).
Rhetorical witticism aside, there is no way usury can be tolerated in a
finite money token system.
>> And you can't see that the "hard man" is an evil person?
>
> Here is the wisdom and undisputed facts of this parable. It talks of a
> master and three servants. Two of the servants provide the master with
> his principle money and 100% gain. The master tells those two servants,
> ?Well done, good and faithful servants?. The third servant buries the
> money token and returns the principle sum only, it gains nothing.
>
> Upon discovering this, the master is infuriated that the servant was
> slothful. The servant that received the smallest amount of principle
> gave nothing as a return except the principle. The master tells the
> third servant ?Evil and slothful servant! You knew that I reaped where I
> did not sow, and gathered where I did not scatter, then you should have
> put my money to the exchangers, and coming I would have received my own
> with interest. Therefore take the talent from him and give it to him who
> has ten talents. For to everyone who has, more shall be given, and he
> will abound. But from him who has not, even that which he has shall be
> taken away from him. And throw the unprofitable servant into outer
> darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
>
> This is the tested or disputed part of the parable.
>
> Where will there be weeping and gnashing of teeth? Where is the outer
> darkness? It?s not in Heaven. Who has the power to make judgments that
> result in outer darkness, and cause weeping and gnashing of teeth? God
> is the master in this parable. God is the dominant being in Jesus'
> parables.
> God gave us with our literal talents (not money tokens). The parable is
> actually saying, make the best of what you have. Failure to utilize the
> gifts from God will result unfavorably.
>
> The point I make is that the master states, "then you should have put my
> money to the exchangers, and coming I would have received my own with
> interest." Thus money compounds money or earns interest.
If you prefer a more complex interpretation that allows God to not only
desire his servants to do that which is proscribed as an abomination, but
that Jesus also opposed, that's your right.
But the parable is much clearer if you presume that the audience was of the
simple folk that knew of the evil of usurers, and their abomination.
The simpler meaning is: "When you cooperate with usurers, you shall be
rewarded. When you try to be righteous, you will get your butt kicked."
It's no surprise that modern politics is very close to that point, where the
"Ten Commandments" are tossed from the courthouses and public buildings of
the land. And those who defend them are tossed from their jobs.
>> No. It doesn't. You are focusing on what generations of apologists for
>> usurers have promulgated - that the third servant was "bad" for not
>> engaging in usury, like the first two servants.
>
> Exactly, because whether you read the KJ, MKJ, NI version they all say
> this, that the master called the third servant evil and slothful. Do you
> dispute the bible? If so, then what is the basis of your original post?
If you overheard a Mafia Don berate his "evil and slothful" servant, who
failed to collect extortion, would you dispute it on the basis of morality,
too?
>> Remember, if Jesus was not opposed to usurers, he wouldn't have whipped
>> them from the temple. Ezekiel's prohibition was still in force. The
>> Romans didn't prohibit usury, and that's why they flourished despite the
>> scriptural ban.
>
> It's not appropriate to sell cars in the church parking lot, muchless
> exchange money at the temple at extorted rates. Jesus would have thrown
> out the car salesmen from the temple, had he been there selling cars.
The scripture is clear. He whipped the exchangers / money changers /
usurers. He would not whip those whom he alluded to be "good and faithful"
servants of GOD! It does not compute.
>> No. Selling one's services, labor or output is NOT usury. Charging money
>> for the use of money is USURY. A return on investment need not be limited
>> to money.
>
> This does not pass a logical test, what is written, or what the Spirit
> says to me.
It scares you, apparently, to realize that perhaps your understanding of
scripture is impaired.
If I am incorrect, and usury is BLESSED, please enlighten me.
But if I am correct, and usury is cursed, then many other things become
clear.
Ezekiel's exclamation that usurers shall not live, and their blood be on
them is frightening - to usurers.
As Baron Von Rothschild said, (paraphrased) "I don't care who rules, as long
as I control the money..."
>> Your argument is not about the evils or blessings of usury. Talent is not
>> the core of the parable about the three servants. The real message is
>> that when one tries to be righteous while employed by evil men, one risks
>> getting one's butt kicked. Not unlike today, when righteous men are
>> penalized for their adherence to their religious beliefs that contradict
>> the politically correct evil doers.
>
> I completely reject your interpretation of this parable. But you have
> your opinion what it means, and I have mine. Mine is stated above.
The amount of interpretation is minimal. It only takes comprehension of the
words, as related, and the times in which they were uttered.
At that time, usury was proscribed. However, the ruling Romans didn't forbid
usury, and the usurers proliferated, to the point of profaining the temple.
Think of homosexuality, today.
It was proscribed for thousands of years, by Judaism, Christianity, and
Islam. But suddenly, not only is it no longer punished, but it is
encouraged, and those who were once reviled, are demanding civil marriages
of their unions.
Is it "bad interpretation" of scripture, that it's an abomination for a man
to lay with a man, as a woman?
Is it "bad interpretation" of scripture, that it's an abomination to engage
in usury, and receive gain?
>> Prove that all "masters" in parables ARE God.
>>
>> Matthew 25 is clearly not GOD.
>
> Ok, now I realize who you are Mr. Clinton, LOL - Joking only. I only
> asked you to quote a parable that God is not the dominant role in a
> parable. Matthew 25 - God is clearly the master.
A parable that features a dominant is not always an allegory for God.
The culture was filled with rank and privilege. Every time someone is called
"Lord", "Master. or "Rabbi" doesn't mean he is "THE SUPREME LORD OF ALL".
Frankly, Jesus taught that all men were brethren, with no man as master.
[Matt 23:8-12]. However, his parables did not always feature characters
that were all brethren. So it's wrong to imply that the "Lord" was the ONE
LORD, in all cases, especially Matthew 25.
>> Mt25:4 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord,
>> I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown,
>> and gathering where thou hast not strawed
>
> Some people would believe God to be like a hard man. God in His holiness
> is a impossible standard for us humans to live up to. Therefore
> perceived as being hard.
>> What "kind" of person reaps where he hast not sown, and gathered where he
>> hast not strawed?
>>
>> A thief!
>>
>> The parable does not represent "GOD" as a "hard man" who is a thief and
>> scoundrel.
>>
>> If GOD steals, then it's a very strange God, by any meaning of the words.
>
> Good point, except the parable never says that the master had any intent
> to reap where he had not sown.
Matthew 25:25 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful
servant, thou KNEWEST that I reap where I sowed no, and gathered where I
have not strawed.
That's an admission by the "hard man" that he was a THIEF, and wanted his
servants to engage in usury, in his absence. He was NOT an allegory for
God, whose prophets denounced usury as an abomination.
>> Webster's definition of 1828 doesn't supersede King James!
>>
>> Ezekiel 18:13 (KJV) - Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken
>> increase:shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these
>> abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.
>>
>> USURY = "taken increase" NOT "excessive interest"
>> USURY = abomination
>> USURY = self condemned to death (his blood shall be upon him.
>>
>> Jesus whips the money changers / exchangers of money from the temple.
>>
>> Jesus teaches a parable about a servant who is AFRAID to commit usury, a
>> capital offense, an abomination, and you think that the "hard man" is
>> euphemism for GOD!?
>
> I sure do, and if you don't beleive God is the master is Matthew 25 then
> you read differently than I do.
That's agreed!
>> The money token in circulation is the Federal Reserve Note, which by law,
>> in Title 12, United States Code, Sec. 411, is an obligation of the U.S.
>> to pay. New notes are only printed when Congress votes deficits. They ARE
>> finite - and borrowed at usury.
>>
>> If you believe that "goods and services" equal money, you are mistaken.
>> Money is the medium of exchange for those goods and services. I challenge
>> you to go into any market and buy those goods and services, at retail
>> price, with those "infinite goods and services" you speak of.
>>
>> In short, the money token system is based on debt / credit and usury.
>> This has been the bottleneck on modern commerce for over 3 generations.
>> America's economic decline can be traced to the institution of the
>> Federal Reserve in 1914.
>>
>> Money drought favors the bankers who offer the "credit" to a money
>> starved marketplace.
>>
>> The solution doesn't require any new laws. It only requires righteous
>> people to SHUN usury and usurers. Of course, I don't expect that to
>> happen any time soon...
>
> Repetitious argument of the facts.
So you agree?
>> No, it's not correct. People do not "create new federal reserve notes"
>> (at least not without risking a prison sentence).
>> Your sentence plainly states "Exchange for money" or "repayment of debt".
>> Both refer to MONEY, not goods and services (barter). In fact, in
>> national socialism, you cannot retain custody of your house unless you
>> pay taxes, in money. Ditto for everything else.
>> The IRS will tax barter, and demand payment in MONEY.
>
> No new "federal reserve notes" are required. Just an agreement. If I owe
> you $150,000.00 and agree to build a house for you in exchange, no new
> money was created. My labor covered the cost of the debt.
>
> My statements have been solely based on the term "Usury", nothing to do
> with national socialism.
And since "we agreed" to owe 7 trillion dollars (national debt) and the
money doesn't exist, we're okay by your reasoning?
>> If you examine the recent Dot Com bust, it was the result of the "almost
>> balanced budget" that reduced the creation of new money tokens (red ink).
>> Only after the huge budget deficits, did the economy begin to recover.
>> Insane? Yes.
>
> I agree, but the budget went unstable after the 9/11 attacks and the
> reprecussions of the terrorism. In addition, our Government chose to
> make war on borrowed money. This was the crime. I'm just glad that I
> wasn't in Pres. Bush's shoes to have to make that decision.
Not correct. The Dot Com bust preceeded the attacks on 9/11.
And the government has only had borrowed money tokens since 1933. If you
want to get picky, the crime began in 1913, with the enactment of the
Federal Reserve Act.
>> Usury is the quickest way to gain control over a nation. This is why the
>> bankers / usurers are running the world and hate Islamic countries that
>> forbid usury.
>>
>> When USSR fell, the first thing Yeltsin did was to petition for
>> membership in the IMF, and borrow the ruble into existance. Communism and
>> Socialism are not foes of usury. But when Lenin told the bankers to take
>> a hike in 1919, that made the "Fee World" very angry with Russian
>> communists.
>
>
> Again, my post right now addresses the term "Usury". Where in the Koran
> is usury forbidden?
KORAN
The Cow
[2.275] Those who swallow down usury cannot arise except as one whom Shaitan
has prostrated by (his) touch does rise. That is because they say, trading
is only like usury; and Allah has allowed trading and forbidden usury. To
whomsoever then the admonition has come from his Lord, then he desists, he
shall have what has already passed, and his affair is in the hands of Allah;
and whoever returns (to it)-- these arc the inmates of the fire; they shall
abide in it.
[2.276] Allah does not bless usury, and He causes charitable deeds to
prosper, and Allah does not love any ungrateful sinner.
[2.278] O you who believe! Be careful of (your duty to) Allah and relinquish
what remains (due) from usury, if you are believers.
The Family of Imran
[3.130] O you who believe! do not devour usury, making it double and
redouble, and be careful of (your duty to) Allah, that you may be
successful.
The Women
[4.161] And their taking usury though indeed they were forbidden it and
their devouring the property of people falsely, and We have prepared for the
unbelievers from among them a painful chastisement.
The Romans
[30.39] And whatever you lay out as usury, so that it may increase in the
property of men, it shall not increase with Allah; and whatever you give in
charity, desiring Allah's pleasure-- it is these (persons) that shall get
manifold.
Triple score!
Usury is forbidden by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.
Of the three which group still forbids usury?
Islam.
Guess which religion is under attack, world wide, by the "Fee World"?
Islam.
What is the consequence of usury?
To be cursed by Allah, God, Jesus, The Lord, etc., etc.
> Control is an illusion. I can only be controlled as
> much as I am willing to be controlled. The worst penalty I can suffer
> for non-compliance is some form of the first death. I face that everyday
> driving to and from work. The second death I assured that I will not
> suffer through my faith in Jesus Christ.
To ignore the tyranny of usurers, is to condemn many to ruin. That's not
merciful nor reasonable. To ignore the spiritual consequences of usury is
tragic.
>> Incorrect. A dollar, as defined by law (Coinage Act of 1792) is still a
>> silver coin containing a minimum of 3/4 troy ounce of pure silver. A
>> "federal reserve note" is an obligation to pay one dollar. Since 1933,
>> that promise was repudiated when the U.S. went bankrupt to the USURERS.
>> For over 3 generations, America has been under a "State of Emergency"
>> based on their evil deeds.
>
> Again, you say silver. I said gold.
> Maybe I was mistaken about this
> detail. My point is that it was based on something of real value, not
> just paper. And I agree with you about America being in a state of
> emergency for evil deeds. But the evil is being done in many ways, not
> only because of the old definition of usury.
No one says that evil is limited to usury. But to excuse the great evil done
under the banner of usury is foolish.
Contrary to popular belief, there never was a "gold standard". The unit
dollar (the standard) has always been silver. In the 1870s, silver was
demonetized (for the federal government) because of the major silver
strikes in the West. Many proponents of "free and unlimited coinage" of
silver argued for plentiful money to fight the money drought.
However, the usurers who rule us, demanded that Congress prevent the end of
the drought (and the demand for their credit), and succeeded.
Read William Jennings Bryant's "Cross of Gold" speech, to get a feel for the
sentiment of the people versus the usurers who were behind the government.
To combat the severe money drought, the Congress enacted the Federal Reserve
Act of 1913 so there would be an elastic currency. The bankers danced in
glee. They helped create the drought that was solved by submission to them.
Since that day, the Federal Reserve corporation, the shell behind which
usurers hide, have ruled us.
It is pitiful that so many Christians and Jews have been deluded into
partipating in usury. To cooperate with usurers, is certain doom.
Submitting to the masters of usury, one shall reap great rewards in this
world.
But what rewards in the world to come?
Aaron
Frank you keep denying what Jesus taught and calling it "Judaism."
Do you actually think that all Christians are anti-Semitic enough to
automatically reject the Gospel just because you call it "Judaism"?
Silly Racist! You sound like you would reject Jesus Himself just
because He is Jewish.
Aaron
wrote:
Frank, you make baseless accusations against the Jews. The Jews do
obey these Commandments, at least the Jewish Jews do. Those people of
Jewish descent who do not adhear to Judaism are calles Katet in the
Bible and are not part of the Jewish people.
As for Christians...
Most of Christianity is Catholicism. The paganism of Catholicism
rejects the Word of God in favor of the decrees of various Popes.
most protestantism is more Catholic than Biblical. Any Christian who
does not follow all 613 Commandments does not follow Jesus.
If people make mistakes and ignore parts of the Bible, that does not
mean that they are correct to do so.
OmegaTime
> OmegaTime wrote:
>
>
>>jetgraphics wrote:
>>
>>>And since usury was quite popular in the USA at that time, his
>>>"interpretation" is questionable, at the least. Consider that during
>>>Shakespeare's time, the concept was defined otherwise. Cite: Merchant of
>>>Venice.
>>
>>I agree that redefining the term in given periods would be advantageous
>>to some. I don't agree this is what happened. If someone or a group of
>>people were so devious as to change the definition of a word to their
>>advantage, it makes sense that they would change all of the biblical
>>uses of usury to extortion?
>
>
> Usury is not extortion, though both are forms of thievery.
Yet you avoided the question. Why not change the bible also? Why get
caught up in the literal language when you surely understand the gist?
How much is a dollar bill worth if the U.S. government were overthrown?
Nothing except the paper it's printed on.
Good illustration. But today's market is based around non-living
material goods with exception to the basic needs of food. Cars, boats,
houses, and furniture do not reproduce. So in essence, I hear your
argument to be against the material world, to which I agree. Basing your
life around material goods is a problem.
> So why is usury on dead money so immoral, or bad?
>
> Usury requires the borrower to pay back more money than he received.
> It would appear that a single contract for usury is not a problem. The
> problem occurs when usurers keep increasing the amount of debt, by loaning,
> and reloaning their gain. Over time, the aggregate debt grows larger than
> the whole sum of money in existance.
>
> That is the point that usurers can quietly take over power, and government,
> and every other activity that needs their "credit" to remain in business.
> Those who fail to pay, default because the money doesn't exist.
>
> This is exactly what has happened in the U.S.A.
> The current "national debt" exceeds 7 trillion dollars.
> The sum total of federal reserve notes (not real dollars) is far less.
> In short, if all that debt had to be redeemed, it would be IMPOSSIBLE.
> Impossible contracts are illegal, if not immoral.
> But that's the result of usury.
But your last point in another post was that Russia defaulted on loans
made. Yes, the Russian government collapsed, but was not overthrown.
>>>Usury IS an abomination, since time immemorial. And it's based on sound
>>>reasons, as well as religious prohibition. Making excuses in support of
>>>usury puts you on shaky ground, biblically speaking.
>>
>>The ground I stand on is solid. Shakiness comes in judgment of others
>>(biblically speaking).
>
>
> Rhetorical witticism aside, there is no way usury can be tolerated in a
> finite money token system.
Ok, but I still stand by the notion that the value system is infinite as
long as there are good and services available to trade.
Really I see my interpretation much less complexed. Debating the sense
of the parable is fruitless, there's no debate in me tonight.
> But the parable is much clearer if you presume that the audience was of the
> simple folk that knew of the evil of usurers, and their abomination.
>
> The simpler meaning is: "When you cooperate with usurers, you shall be
> rewarded. When you try to be righteous, you will get your butt kicked."
>
> It's no surprise that modern politics is very close to that point, where the
> "Ten Commandments" are tossed from the courthouses and public buildings of
> the land. And those who defend them are tossed from their jobs.
At the time when Jesus threw out the USURERS, the Jews were required to
pay their homage to the temple. Since the only token recognized as
having value was the Roman token, the Jews had to exchange their money.
They were cheated by loan sharks. Much as if you asked me for change for
a $20, and I said "Yes, but it will cost you $5 to get change".
>>>No. It doesn't. You are focusing on what generations of apologists for
>>>usurers have promulgated - that the third servant was "bad" for not
>>>engaging in usury, like the first two servants.
>>
>>Exactly, because whether you read the KJ, MKJ, NI version they all say
>>this, that the master called the third servant evil and slothful. Do you
>>dispute the bible? If so, then what is the basis of your original post?
>
>
> If you overheard a Mafia Don berate his "evil and slothful" servant, who
> failed to collect extortion, would you dispute it on the basis of morality,
> too?
That's a good point. Yet the parable is of a master that expected his
servants to multiply the principle talent. Therefore, he was stating,
'You knew I expected you to make my talents grow' This was not theivery,
this was what was expected of the servants. Laziness sparked the
master's comment towards the thrid servant. And the servant's contempt
even more.
>>>Remember, if Jesus was not opposed to usurers, he wouldn't have whipped
>>>them from the temple. Ezekiel's prohibition was still in force. The
>>>Romans didn't prohibit usury, and that's why they flourished despite the
>>>scriptural ban.
>>
>>It's not appropriate to sell cars in the church parking lot, muchless
>>exchange money at the temple at extorted rates. Jesus would have thrown
>>out the car salesmen from the temple, had he been there selling cars.
>
>
> The scripture is clear. He whipped the exchangers / money changers /
> usurers. He would not whip those whom he alluded to be "good and faithful"
> servants of GOD! It does not compute.
He didn't need to whip them. They were doing the appropriate thing in
the appropriate place. If I belch in your face, it's inappropriate
anywhere. These money changers chose to change money in the temple. This
equates to belching in one's face while they eat. It had no place on the
temple grounds.
>>>No. Selling one's services, labor or output is NOT usury. Charging money
>>>for the use of money is USURY. A return on investment need not be limited
>>>to money.
>>
>>This does not pass a logical test, what is written, or what the Spirit
>>says to me.
>
>
> It scares you, apparently, to realize that perhaps your understanding of
> scripture is impaired.
>
> If I am incorrect, and usury is BLESSED, please enlighten me.
>
> But if I am correct, and usury is cursed, then many other things become
> clear.
>
> Ezekiel's exclamation that usurers shall not live, and their blood be on
> them is frightening - to usurers.
> As Baron Von Rothschild said, (paraphrased) "I don't care who rules, as long
> as I control the money..."
Honestly, I am afraid of nothing this world has for me. I already know
my eternal destination. I've been within moments of death, I've suffered
and ran the race minus one good leg. If Jesus came today, I'd be going
home. It doesn't matter that I might promote usury in your definition,
or disassociate with it. My sins have been paid for by the blood of
Jesus Christ.
God is required to change something as drastic as you propose. I can sit
here and whole hearted agree with you, or debate. It doesn't change that
usury by your definition takes place all over the world. So why should I
fret about the things to which I cannot control?
This aside, I still believe your definition of usury to be the
unintended definition. But also I know where you get these ideas.
>>>Your argument is not about the evils or blessings of usury. Talent is not
>>>the core of the parable about the three servants. The real message is
>>>that when one tries to be righteous while employed by evil men, one risks
>>>getting one's butt kicked. Not unlike today, when righteous men are
>>>penalized for their adherence to their religious beliefs that contradict
>>>the politically correct evil doers.
>>
>>I completely reject your interpretation of this parable. But you have
>>your opinion what it means, and I have mine. Mine is stated above.
>
>
> The amount of interpretation is minimal. It only takes comprehension of the
> words, as related, and the times in which they were uttered.
> At that time, usury was proscribed. However, the ruling Romans didn't forbid
> usury, and the usurers proliferated, to the point of profaining the temple.
>
> Think of homosexuality, today.
> It was proscribed for thousands of years, by Judaism, Christianity, and
> Islam. But suddenly, not only is it no longer punished, but it is
> encouraged, and those who were once reviled, are demanding civil marriages
> of their unions.
Then you would comprehend that the dictionary defines it as unreasonable
interest rates and that the definition you use is outdated, you would
comprehend the meaning of Matthew 25 the same as I do. No, you are
wrong, interpretation is involved.
I agree with you about homosexuality. I disagree that those who were
repulsed by it are now fighting for it. This is an influx of evil that
has taken our country at it's very roots. The people who made bold
stands against it either have died, or they face the go jobless.
Corporate America has allowed in what by law America has not yet. Any
major corporation has domestic partnerships allowed in their benefits
package now.
> Is it "bad interpretation" of scripture, that it's an abomination for a man
> to lay with a man, as a woman?
> Is it "bad interpretation" of scripture, that it's an abomination to engage
> in usury, and receive gain?
No your interpretation in the first instance I agree with, in the second
I don't.
>>>Prove that all "masters" in parables ARE God.
>>>
>>>Matthew 25 is clearly not GOD.
>>
>>Ok, now I realize who you are Mr. Clinton, LOL - Joking only. I only
>>asked you to quote a parable that God is not the dominant role in a
>>parable. Matthew 25 - God is clearly the master.
>
>
> A parable that features a dominant is not always an allegory for God.
> The culture was filled with rank and privilege. Every time someone is called
> "Lord", "Master. or "Rabbi" doesn't mean he is "THE SUPREME LORD OF ALL".
>
> Frankly, Jesus taught that all men were brethren, with no man as master.
> [Matt 23:8-12]. However, his parables did not always feature characters
> that were all brethren. So it's wrong to imply that the "Lord" was the ONE
> LORD, in all cases, especially Matthew 25.
The dominant either refers to Jesus speaking as the third person, God,
or the Holy Spirit. There is only one Lord, therefore who else is there
to call Lord? I agree that parables also contain people of non-belief.
>>> Mt25:4 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord,
>>> I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown,
>>> and gathering where thou hast not strawed
>>
>>Some people would believe God to be like a hard man. God in His holiness
>>is a impossible standard for us humans to live up to. Therefore
>>perceived as being hard.
>
>
>
>
>>>What "kind" of person reaps where he hast not sown, and gathered where he
>>>hast not strawed?
>>>
>>>A thief!
>>>
>>>The parable does not represent "GOD" as a "hard man" who is a thief and
>>>scoundrel.
>>>
>>>If GOD steals, then it's a very strange God, by any meaning of the words.
>>
>>Good point, except the parable never says that the master had any intent
>>to reap where he had not sown.
>
> Matthew 25:25 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful
> servant, thou KNEWEST that I reap where I sowed no, and gathered where I
> have not strawed.
>
> That's an admission by the "hard man" that he was a THIEF, and wanted his
> servants to engage in usury, in his absence. He was NOT an allegory for
> God, whose prophets denounced usury as an abomination.
Prophets of the OT. If this were such a horrible sin, why then is it not
specified in the Mosaic Laws? Or the Mount Syani accords? It doesn't
take a "hard man" to spell out their expectations. I meet with "hard
men" every day by this account. This is why the terms servant and master
are used, the servant is inferior to the master. Again, the third
servant drew the master's contempt by trying to use his stated morals
against him. The servant already knew he was expected to multiply his
master's investment. This doesn't mean through interest paid on the
money, but that was the master's point was that the talent would have
been better invested in usury than in the servant.
>>>Webster's definition of 1828 doesn't supersede King James!
>>>
>>>Ezekiel 18:13 (KJV) - Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken
>>>increase:shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these
>>>abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.
>>>
>>>USURY = "taken increase" NOT "excessive interest"
>>>USURY = abomination
>>>USURY = self condemned to death (his blood shall be upon him.
>>>
>>>Jesus whips the money changers / exchangers of money from the temple.
>>>
>>>Jesus teaches a parable about a servant who is AFRAID to commit usury, a
>>>capital offense, an abomination, and you think that the "hard man" is
>>>euphemism for GOD!?
>>
>>I sure do, and if you don't beleive God is the master is Matthew 25 then
>>you read differently than I do.
>
>
> That's agreed!
So then I beleive we are at the point of agreeing to disagree.
>>>The money token in circulation is the Federal Reserve Note, which by law,
>>>in Title 12, United States Code, Sec. 411, is an obligation of the U.S.
>>>to pay. New notes are only printed when Congress votes deficits. They ARE
>>>finite - and borrowed at usury.
>>>
>>>If you believe that "goods and services" equal money, you are mistaken.
>>>Money is the medium of exchange for those goods and services. I challenge
>>>you to go into any market and buy those goods and services, at retail
>>>price, with those "infinite goods and services" you speak of.
>>>
>>>In short, the money token system is based on debt / credit and usury.
>>>This has been the bottleneck on modern commerce for over 3 generations.
>>>America's economic decline can be traced to the institution of the
>>>Federal Reserve in 1914.
>>>
>>>Money drought favors the bankers who offer the "credit" to a money
>>>starved marketplace.
>>>
>>>The solution doesn't require any new laws. It only requires righteous
>>>people to SHUN usury and usurers. Of course, I don't expect that to
>>>happen any time soon...
>>
>>Repetitious argument of the facts.
>
>
> So you agree?
No, there are no righteous people. Murder, white lies, or usury by your
definition only are all sin. Therefore, we place our hope in Christ. No
living man today on planet Earth can meet the term "righteous".
>>>No, it's not correct. People do not "create new federal reserve notes"
>>>(at least not without risking a prison sentence).
>>>Your sentence plainly states "Exchange for money" or "repayment of debt".
>>>Both refer to MONEY, not goods and services (barter). In fact, in
>>>national socialism, you cannot retain custody of your house unless you
>>>pay taxes, in money. Ditto for everything else.
>>>The IRS will tax barter, and demand payment in MONEY.
>>
>>No new "federal reserve notes" are required. Just an agreement. If I owe
>>you $150,000.00 and agree to build a house for you in exchange, no new
>>money was created. My labor covered the cost of the debt.
>>
>>My statements have been solely based on the term "Usury", nothing to do
>>with national socialism.
>
>
> And since "we agreed" to owe 7 trillion dollars (national debt) and the
> money doesn't exist, we're okay by your reasoning?
Not at all. The seriousness of national debt is all too important. But
it isn't within our control. It is controllable, but not by any person's
righteousness. God would have to intervene, and I believe He would have
steered this nation in the 1800's to avoid what you are stating as an
abomination in today's world.
>>>If you examine the recent Dot Com bust, it was the result of the "almost
>>>balanced budget" that reduced the creation of new money tokens (red ink).
>>>Only after the huge budget deficits, did the economy begin to recover.
>>>Insane? Yes.
>>
>>I agree, but the budget went unstable after the 9/11 attacks and the
>>reprecussions of the terrorism. In addition, our Government chose to
>>make war on borrowed money. This was the crime. I'm just glad that I
>>wasn't in Pres. Bush's shoes to have to make that decision.
>
>
> Not correct. The Dot Com bust preceeded the attacks on 9/11.
> And the government has only had borrowed money tokens since 1933. If you
> want to get picky, the crime began in 1913, with the enactment of the
> Federal Reserve Act.
Our government lost control of spending when 9/11 occured. At whatever
the cost, we were going to stamp out terrorism. Our budget before 9/11
was balanced and in surplus. Our national deficit was decreasing.
I'll let you in on a little secret, STAR WARS (Stategic Missile Defense
System) never existed. It was a ploy by the U.S. to break the U.S.S.R.'s
economy. Russia said, 'Ut oh, the threat of mutual destruction will be
lost if the U.S. can deploy missiles from space and destroy our missiles
before they leave the ground.' The U.S. led all to believe that STAR
WARS was months from being realized. Russia sunk billions upon billions
into a good idea that the U.S. never realized or ever intended to
realize. This is what broke Russia's economy. Russia still has it's
missiles, why haven't we developed STAR WARS? Because it never existed
except in the media. We have a 30 billion dollar tank that can fire a
laser from 6 miles away and kill a gnat, but no STAR WARS?
Just checking your knowledge of your claims. Good job, except I don't
view the Koran with regard.
>>Control is an illusion. I can only be controlled as
>>much as I am willing to be controlled. The worst penalty I can suffer
>>for non-compliance is some form of the first death. I face that everyday
>>driving to and from work. The second death I assured that I will not
>>suffer through my faith in Jesus Christ.
>
>
> To ignore the tyranny of usurers, is to condemn many to ruin. That's not
> merciful nor reasonable. To ignore the spiritual consequences of usury is
> tragic.
To worry about that which is not in your control is insanity and the
leading cause of stress, depression, and anxiety. Tyranny on a checking
account at .5% / year, I think you overemphasize. Either way, the
spiritual consequences are already taken care of. It's not ignoring the
consequence, it's about realizing what you can and cannot control.
Through Christ Jesus, we share in a common kinship. I place my faith and
my whole being at the foot of the cross. Every reward awaits me in
Heaven when that day comes that Christ will call His own home. To get
bound up by the evils of the day is carrying a burden that we are not
built to carry. "Come to me all ye that are heavy laden, and I will give
you rest." Jesus meant this, and it's true.
We are not here to condemn evil. I believe God has a use for usury (in
your definition). By my definition, nothing good can come from usury
unless God intervenes.
Pastor Frank
> news:1101630915.86S9fTJEFKCTTWGZ4FVG6A@teranews...
> > "bckwrds" <bck...@theriver.com> wrote in message
> > news:41a13ad2$0$27768$8b46...@news.nationwide.net...
> > >
> > > and what form of freedom belongs to the average Iraqi people?
> > > And, yes, help secure freedom with the people being responsibile
> > > in the end. But how does one get that help in the first place?
> > > You still have it backwards as the USA is helping the innocent
> > > even though they are not on American soil. President Bush is
> > > right on....how many free democrated societies have attacked
> > > other countries?
> > >
> > In the case of the US, its a very long list indeed. But then you
might
> > argue the USA is not a free democratic country but one were minority
> rights
> > supersede those of the majority. The name for such a type of government
> > escapes me presently. Regardless, the USA has attacked other countries
> > consistently and the world is studded with USA military bases, ready to
> > attack all who do not act in the interest of Zio-America. The reaction
to
> > this is the root cause of terrorism.
> >
> > Jesus in Mt:18:7: Woe unto the world because of offences! for it
must
> > needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence
> > cometh!
> > Jesus in Mt:7:2: For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be
judged:
> > and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
> > Jesus in Mt:23:12: And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be
abased;
> > and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
> > Rv:13:10: He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he
> > that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword.
>
> Gee another Barry Lynn, pastor of one.
> I know this is going to come as a surprise to you, but Jesus was a Jew!
> Bless those who bless Israel, curse those who curse Israel.
> Take you arguments up with God.
>
us as we judge and treat others, as long as we "bless Israel"? Please cite
your references.
Pastor Frank
CHRIST'S SOCIAL GOSPEL
Jesus in Mat:25:31-46: When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all
the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory.
And before him shall be gathered all nations, and he shall separate them one
from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats. And he shall
set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of
my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the
world, for I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat, I was thirsty, and ye
gave me drink, I was a stranger, and ye took me in, naked, and ye clothed
me. I was sick, and ye visited me, I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an
hungered, and fed thee? Or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee
a stranger, and took thee in? Or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we
thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and
say unto them: Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one
of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand: Depart from me, ye
cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels, for I
was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat, I was thirsty, and ye gave me no
drink, I was a stranger, and ye took me not in, naked and ye clothed me not,
sick and in prison and ye visited me not.
Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an
hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and
did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying: Verily I say
unto you, inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it
not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the
righteous into life eternal.
Jam 1:26-7 RSVA If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle
his tongue but deceives his heart, this man's religion is vain. Religion
that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit
orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from
the world.
Pastor Frank
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:54:04 -0700, George <geo...@thejungle.com>
> wrote:
> >Pastor Frank wrote:
> >> "bj" <holla...@comteck.com> wrote in message
> >> news:CKlqd.39$he1...@fe61.usenetserver.com...
> >
cited below? I bet you are just itching to begin applying those Commandments
of YHWH and stone someone to death, or help dispossess and kill
Palestinians, aren't you?
Pastor Frank
THE COMMANDMENTS YHWH GAVE MOSES ON MT. SINAI.
Leviticus 20:9-27 If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to
death. He has cursed his father or his mother, and his blood will be on his
own head.
If a man commits adultery with another man's wife-with the wife
of his neighbor-both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his
father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood
will be on their own heads.
If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be
put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be
on their own heads.
If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them
have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood
will be on their own heads.
If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both
he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be
among you.
If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to
death, and you must kill the animal.
If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it,
kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their
blood will be on their own heads.
If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or
his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They must be
cut off before the eyes of their people. He has dishonored his sister and
will be held responsible.
If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has
sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and
she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people.
Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your
mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of
you would be held responsible.
If a man sleeps with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They
will be held responsible; they will die childless.
If a man marries his brother's wife, it is an act of impurity; he
has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.
Pastor Frank
news:936d33b5.04112...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > The United States is technically a Republic, one which is
> > organized along democratic principles.
> > The rights of the individual are protected in favor of the
> > desires of the majority, i.e., no (simple) majority can vote
> > to remove the rights of some citizens.
>
> How do you then explain, the War on Some Drugs, and armed sex police
> deployed against consenting adults?
>
and another guy with your pants down? LOL "armed sex police", give us a
break already!!!!!
We here in our pristine spiritual NGs are much more worried about armed
thought police. For were Christ's commandments followed, waging war would be
neigh impossible.
Pastor Frank
THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST
Jesus in Matthew. 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye
for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: (Exodus 21:23-24)
39: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall
smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40: And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let
him have thy cloke also.
41: And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
42: Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee
turn not thou away.
43: Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour,
and hate thine enemy.
44: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do
good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you,
and persecute you;
45: That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for
he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on
the just and on the unjust.
46: For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even
the publicans the same?
47: And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do
not even the publicans so?
48: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is
perfect.
---------------------
His teaching is a humongous step up from Judaism's Exodus 21:23-24
"If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth
for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound,
stripe for stripe."
Pastor Frank
> Are those satan's words?
>
war? Any Biblical references for that?
Pastor Frank
> > "Ken Smith" <k...@maths.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
> > news:cnbcpt$a1a$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> >>
> >> Since the Senate of the University of Queensland resolved some years
> >> ago that Chaplaincy Services should move towards being multi-faith,
> >> some of us have been reading the sacred texts of non-Christian
> >> religions, and been somewhat surprised to find that on social issues
> >> they have a lot in common with parts of the New Testament - and, of
> >> course, the OT prophets, but that's not too surprising.
> >
> > Please show us how you came to that conclusion. Kindly make a
> > comparison of the OT moral laws below, with those of any other faith.
>
> still pretending you're a real pastor? Why
> don't we look at the exchange you had with
> another poster some time back, where you'd
> called the 10 Commandments the "sayings of
> Moses". Still holding the receipt for your
> mail order pastor certificate Pastor Fake?
>
you?
Pastor Frank
THE COMMANDMENTS YHWH GAVE MOSES ON MT. SINAI.
"For the law was given by Moses..." (John 1:17) and:
"...according to the law of Moses..." (Luke 2:22
jetgraphics
> jetgraphics wrote:
>> OmegaTime wrote:
>>
>>
>>>jetgraphics wrote:
>>>
>>>>And since usury was quite popular in the USA at that time, his
>>>>"interpretation" is questionable, at the least. Consider that during
>>>>Shakespeare's time, the concept was defined otherwise. Cite: Merchant of
>>>>Venice.
>>>
>>>I agree that redefining the term in given periods would be advantageous
>>>to some. I don't agree this is what happened. If someone or a group of
>>>people were so devious as to change the definition of a word to their
>>>advantage, it makes sense that they would change all of the biblical
>>>uses of usury to extortion?
>>
>>
>> Usury is not extortion, though both are forms of thievery.
>
> Yet you avoided the question. Why not change the bible also? Why get
> caught up in the literal language when you surely understand the gist?
No question was avoided. The scriptural denouncement of usury is found in
many sections of the bible.
_Psal 15:5_ He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward
against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.
_Ezek 18:13_ Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he
then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall
surely die; his blood shall be upon him.
_Exod 22:25_ If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee,
thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him
usury.
_Levi 25:36_ Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that
thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon
usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.
If you choose to reinterpret the bible to accept usury, that's your choice.
But the result is the same...
> How much is a dollar bill worth if the U.S. government were overthrown?
> Nothing except the paper it's printed on.
Actually, the "worth" of the dollar bill, since 1933, has been "no par
value". That's nothing RIGHT NOW. A federal reserve note is not a dollar.
No judge will ever rule that it is. (I asked a few, myself).
But your retort fails to change the underlying facts -
MONEY control by the usurers has allowed them to control most of the world.
In the process, they perverted Judaism and Christianity, and are attacking
Islam.
> Good illustration. But today's market is based around non-living
> material goods with exception to the basic needs of food. Cars, boats,
> houses, and furniture do not reproduce. So in essence, I hear your
> argument to be against the material world, to which I agree. Basing your
> life around material goods is a problem.
That's not the point. The point is that people were fooled into accepting
usury as legitimate as natural increase. Scripture says otherwise.
Money token supply, at this time, is absolutely controlled by the banksters
(usurers).
>> So why is usury on dead money so immoral, or bad?
>>
>
> But your last point in another post was that Russia defaulted on loans
> made. Yes, the Russian government collapsed, but was not overthrown.
I didn't state that Russia defaulted on their loans. I stated that one of
the first things Yeltsin did, in the New Russian Republic, was to BORROW
the ruble into existence, from the World Bank. Previously, the ruble was
not convertible, and thus excluded from world trade. The sad joke is that
before the USSR fell, the ruble had been a legitimate money token, not
borrowed into existence. It functioned well as long as it was within their
socialist economy.
>> Rhetorical witticism aside, there is no way usury can be tolerated in a
>> finite money token system.
>
> Ok, but I still stand by the notion that the value system is infinite as
> long as there are good and services available to trade.
That's incorrect reasoning. That which is traded, goods and labor, are
increasing, but they ARE finite. The supply of money tokens, though equally
finite, are not increasing in proportion, thus straining the system.
> At the time when Jesus threw out the USURERS, the Jews were required to
> pay their homage to the temple. Since the only token recognized as
> having value was the Roman token, the Jews had to exchange their money.
> They were cheated by loan sharks. Much as if you asked me for change for
> a $20, and I said "Yes, but it will cost you $5 to get change".
But that explanation doesn't dispute that USURERS were abominations.
>> If you overheard a Mafia Don berate his "evil and slothful" servant, who
>> failed to collect extortion, would you dispute it on the basis of
>> morality, too?
>
> That's a good point. Yet the parable is of a master that expected his
> servants to multiply the principle talent. Therefore, he was stating,
> 'You knew I expected you to make my talents grow' This was not thievery,
> this was what was expected of the servants. Laziness sparked the
> master's comment towards the thrid servant. And the servant's contempt
> even more.
As long as the Bible says usury is evil, a good God cannot command his
followers to do evil. To do so, would negate His nature. Much in the same
vein, one cannot do good, by evil means. The end DOES NOT justify the
means. Beating the devil with evil, is a win for the "other side".
> Honestly, I am afraid of nothing this world has for me. I already know
> my eternal destination. I've been within moments of death, I've suffered
> and ran the race minus one good leg. If Jesus came today, I'd be going
> home. It doesn't matter that I might promote usury in your definition,
> or disassociate with it. My sins have been paid for by the blood of
> Jesus Christ.
You have been misled to believe that though sins were redeemed, you aren't
required to STOP SINNING.
That's incorrect reasoning.
There is NO part of the New Testament wherein Jesus says, "Go, your sins are
forgiven, and SIN SOME MORE!"
If I recall, he says, "Go, and sin no more..."
A born again, redeemed Christian, who is actively engaging in abomination IS
NOT, I repeat, IS NOT in harmony with Christ's teachings.
> God is required to change something as drastic as you propose. I can sit
> here and whole hearted agree with you, or debate. It doesn't change that
> usury by your definition takes place all over the world. So why should I
> fret about the things to which I cannot control?
> This aside, I still believe your definition of usury to be the
> unintended definition. But also I know where you get these ideas.
Participation in evil is always under your control. If one's life is
threatened to compel obedience to evil, isn't it the proper choice to lay
down one's life rather than cooperate?
Didn't Jesus preach it would be better to cut off one's right hand, than
offend God? [Matt 5:30]
By all means, Christians are to not participate with evil.
>> Is it "bad interpretation" of scripture, that it's an abomination for a
>> man to lay with a man, as a woman?
>> Is it "bad interpretation" of scripture, that it's an abomination to
>> engage in usury, and receive gain?
>
> No your interpretation in the first instance I agree with, in the second
> I don't.
The Bible disagrees with you, unfortunately.
>
>> Frankly, Jesus taught that all men were brethren, with no man as master.
>> [Matt 23:8-12]. However, his parables did not always feature characters
>> that were all brethren. So it's wrong to imply that the "Lord" was the
>> ONE LORD, in all cases, especially Matthew 25.
>
> The dominant either refers to Jesus speaking as the third person, God,
> or the Holy Spirit. There is only one Lord, therefore who else is there
> to call Lord? I agree that parables also contain people of non-belief.
The term "Lord" appears repeatedly in scripture when one is addressing a
person of higher rank. Not unlike the English "Sir" and "Sire", it doesn't
always mean God.
>>>>What "kind" of person reaps where he hast not sown, and gathered where
>>>>he hast not strawed?
>>>>
>>>>A thief!
>>>>
>>>>The parable does not represent "GOD" as a "hard man" who is a thief and
>>>>scoundrel.
>>>>
>>>>If GOD steals, then it's a very strange God, by any meaning of the
>>>>words.
>>>
>>>Good point, except the parable never says that the master had any intent
>>>to reap where he had not sown.
>>
>> Matthew 25:25 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and
>> slothful servant, thou KNEWEST that I reap where I sowed no, and gathered
>> where I have not strawed.
>>
>> That's an admission by the "hard man" that he was a THIEF, and wanted his
>> servants to engage in usury, in his absence. He was NOT an allegory for
>> God, whose prophets denounced usury as an abomination.
>
> Prophets of the OT. If this were such a horrible sin, why then is it not
> specified in the Mosaic Laws?
May I direct your attention to:
_Psal 15:5_ He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward
against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.
_Ezek 18:13_ Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he
then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall
surely die; his blood shall be upon him.
_Exod 22:25_ If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee,
thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him
usury.
_Levi 25:36_ Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that
thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon
usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.
> By definition, only are all sin. Therefore, we place our hope in
> Christ. No living man today on planet Earth can meet the
> term "righteous".
Then you admit that prior to today there were many righteous men?
The Bible says so:
Matt 13:17 refers to the righteous men who have desired to see Him.
And before you get your panties in a knot, He said he came to call the
sinners to repentance, not the righteous. But he didn't say all men were
not righteous. And those who repent, must cease doing evil or their
repentance is false.
In Romans 3:10, Paul quotes, "There is none righteous, no, not one". But he
fails to cite that particular authority.
Psalms 125:3 For the rod of the wicked shall not rest upon the lot of the
righteous; lest the righteous put forth their hands unto iniquity. Do good,
O LORD, unto those that be good, and to them that are upright in their
hearts.
That seems to contradict your assertion that EVERYONE is not righteous.
It is true that Jesus denounced the scribes and Pharisees who appeared
righteous outwardly, while hiding their hypocrisy and iniquity. But I can
find no cite where Jesus claims ALL MEN are not righteous.
In Luke 23:50, Joseph of Arimathaea is called a "good man and just".
And the most important one, is Matthew 13:38:
The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but
the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is
the devil; the harvest is the end of the world and the reapers are the
angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so
shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his
angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend,
and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire:
three shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous
shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to
hear, let him hear.
It's plain enough, isn't it?
Those who offend and do iniquity are cast out. Those who are righteous shall
shine forth. I think Paul is less of an authority on righteousness, than is
Jesus. Ergo, there ARE righteous men, and they shall shine forth.
>>>>No, it's not correct. People do not "create new federal reserve notes"
>>>>(at least not without risking a prison sentence).
>>>>Your sentence plainly states "Exchange for money" or "repayment of
>>>>debt". Both refer to MONEY, not goods and services (barter). In fact, in
>>>>national socialism, you cannot retain custody of your house unless you
>>>>pay taxes, in money. Ditto for everything else.
>>>>The IRS will tax barter, and demand payment in MONEY.
>>>
>>>No new "federal reserve notes" are required. Just an agreement. If I owe
>>>you $150,000.00 and agree to build a house for you in exchange, no new
>>>money was created. My labor covered the cost of the debt.
>>>
>>>My statements have been solely based on the term "Usury", nothing to do
>>>with national socialism.
You may be unaware that prior to national socialism, federal reserve notes
were subject to objection, as a tender in payment of debt. After 1935, one
could no longer object.
>> And since "we agreed" to owe 7 trillion dollars (national debt) and the
>> money doesn't exist, we're okay by your reasoning?
>
> Not at all. The seriousness of national debt is all too important. But
> it isn't within our control. It is controllable, but not by any person's
> righteousness. God would have to intervene, and I believe He would have
> steered this nation in the 1800's to avoid what you are stating as an
> abomination in today's world.
I trust that God gave us Free Will, which implies that he isn't going to
"steer" anyone to do good, who doesn't wish to do so. To impose "goodness"
upon those who are offensive and evil, is against "policy".
It's your turn to choose: usury or not usury.
>>>>If you examine the recent Dot Com bust, it was the result of the "almost
>>>>balanced budget" that reduced the creation of new money tokens (red
>>>>ink). Only after the huge budget deficits, did the economy begin to
>>>>recover. Insane? Yes.
>>>
>>>I agree, but the budget went unstable after the 9/11 attacks and the
>>>reprecussions of the terrorism. In addition, our Government chose to
>>>make war on borrowed money. This was the crime. I'm just glad that I
>>>wasn't in Pres. Bush's shoes to have to make that decision.
>>
>> Not correct. The Dot Com bust preceded the attacks on 9/11.
>> And the government has only had borrowed money tokens since 1933. If you
>> want to get picky, the crime began in 1913, with the enactment of the
>> Federal Reserve Act.
>
> Our government lost control of spending when 9/11 occurred. At whatever
> the cost, we were going to stamp out terrorism. Our budget before 9/11
> was balanced and in surplus. Our national deficit was decreasing.
That is incorrect. There was never a fiscal year that deficits were
eliminated entirely. And since NEW federal reserve notes are only
authorized by NEW red ink, the almost balanced budget reduced their
emission. THAT is what destroyed dot coms, and a host of related
industries. And when the red ink flowed again, recovery occurred.
Most Americans are living in an illusion created by false and misleading
statements like "the dollar was once backed by gold" or "America can't go
bankrupt" or "foreign imports are the result of cheap labor".
> I'll let you in on a little secret, STAR WARS (Strategic Missile Defense
> System) never existed.
And you know this from where?
> It was a ploy by the U.S. to break the U.S.S.R.'s
> economy. Russia said, 'Ut oh, the threat of mutual destruction will be
> lost if the U.S. can deploy missiles from space and destroy our missiles
> before they leave the ground.' The U.S. led all to believe that STAR
> WARS was months from being realized. Russia sunk billions upon billions
> into a good idea that the U.S. never realized
The "offensive" weapons weren't under SDI.
And you dismiss "stealth" fighters conceived and built during the same time
as "Strategic Defense Initiative"? Or the high powered lasers? Or the
kinetic energy weapons? Or the ultra high frequency sensors that can "see"
through walls?
SDI WAS for defense and not offense.
Sigh.
>> What is the consequence of usury?
>> To be cursed by Allah, God, Jesus, The Lord, etc., etc.
>
> Just checking your knowledge of your claims. Good job, except I don't
> view the Koran with regard.
Isn't that nice. When you're disproved, you dismiss it. But the irony is
that those Muslims who shun usury are morally superior to those who embrace
usury, despite their beliefs to the contrary.
>> To ignore the tyranny of usurers, is to condemn many to ruin. That's not
>> merciful nor reasonable. To ignore the spiritual consequences of usury is
>> tragic.
>
> To worry about that which is not in your control is insanity and the
> leading cause of stress, depression, and anxiety. Tyranny on a checking
> account at .5% / year, I think you overemphasize. Either way, the
> spiritual consequences are already taken care of. It's not ignoring the
> consequence, it's about realizing what you can and cannot control.
Every American has the FREE CHOICE not to engage in usury, nor participate
in national socialism. There is no law in Title 18 United States Code that
punishes one for failure to participate, nor is there a law compelling
participation. It is 100% voluntary. He who consents cannot complain.
Interesting side issue. Those who aren't participants in national socialism
aren't required to pay the socialist levies (Title 26). All those folks who
are annoyed with the government's support for iniquity have always had the
means to legally STOP funding that which is against their religious
beliefs.
In fact, unnumbered Christians aren't permitted to accidentally engage in
usury with a Federal Reserve bank, nor open an interest bearing stock
account under the authority of the Securities and Exchange committee.
Aren't they nice....
> Through Christ Jesus, we share in a common kinship.
I am a child of God, and He's my Father. In spirit, all are brethren.
Christians are fellow-citizens in the kingdom of heaven, and ambassadors for
Christ. However, failure to "sin no more" seems to be conclusive evidence
that one is not a Christian in good standing.
> I place my faith and
> my whole being at the foot of the cross.
Putting one's faith in Jesus and acting against his teachings is
contradictory. I believe that is what Jesus called hypocrisy.
> Every reward awaits me in
> Heaven when that day comes that Christ will call His own home.
Yup. And as he stated, THE RIGHTEOUS shall shine forth, while those
abominations are cast into the fire...
Can't keep dancing with devil, and skip paying the piper.
> To get
> bound up by the evils of the day is carrying a burden that we are not
> built to carry. "Come to me all ye that are heavy laden, and I will give
> you rest." Jesus meant this, and it's true.
> We are not here to condemn evil.
IF you mean that judging and condemning others, binds their trespass upon
them, yes. And furthermore, we are reminded to forgive those who trespass
against us. However, that doesn't mean we are permitted to trespass, or do
evil. To continue to do evil, while claiming to be saved / redeemed is
beyond reason and contrary to His teachings.
John 5:14 ... Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing
come unto thee.
John 8:11 ... Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Romans 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of
righteousness.... For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from
righteousness.
In short, if you want to "sin no more", it's important to cease engaging in
usury.
Aaron
wrote:
Frank you changed the title to indicate that this was a discussion of
my interpretation of the Ten Utterances which are incorrectly called
"the Ten Commandments."
BTW: "The Ten Commandments" is the title of a movie, but the portion
of the Bible in question is refered to as "Aseret HaDibrot" (The Ten
Utterances) in the Bible.
Since you changed the Title, I can only assume that you want to learn
about the Ten Utterances.
What most people call the Ten Commandments is also (and more
accurately refered) to as "the Ten Utterences." This is because
HaShem (G-d) spoke them out loud for all the people to hear, ans
because that is what the Bible calles them (Aseret HaDibrot).
But what are they?
What do they mean?
First, accordin to Jesus, you cannot obey any commandment unless you
do it out of Love for the L-rd. They do not provide salvation; that
is through G-d's forgiveness and though the individual's acceptance of
Messiah.
The Ten Utterances
I
It is commanded to have faith in the existence of HaShem, and in his
complete and unfettered power.
II
Idolatry is forbidden.
(This includes any being, real or imaginary, or any thing or any
institution that can conceivably be worshiped. It also includes
believing or teaching that the pagan "gods" are anything other than
ridiculous fiction, because these thoughts can promote idolatry among
the weak and perverse.)
III
Vain oaths are forbidden.
(This means using HaShem's name to establish an obvious truth, or to
further an obvious lie. Any other use that does not exault the glory
of HaShem is also forbidden.)
IV
Remember and observe the Sabbath.
(Shammai the Elder interpreted to mean that one should be preparing
for the Shabbat at all times. Sabbath is the seventh day, Saturday.
It was sanctified by HaShem in Gen. 2:3, and can never be
rescheduled.)
V
Honor one's parents.
(This means revere and respect them, and seek to elevate their status
on all levels. Your actions should prompt people to tell your parents
what a good job they did raising you.)
VI
Don't Murder.
(also includes those actions that endanger others, both physically and
spiritually. Includes raising one's hand to do violence, or plotting
violence, negligence, causing someone to loose their livelihood,
causing someone significant embarrassment, ruling on Halachic ("the
Walk" or "the Way", how a person observes the commandments) matters
for which one is not qualified, refusing ruling on Halachic matters
when one's wisdom is needed.)
VII
Don't commit adultery.
(The exact term used forbids a married woman from cohabiting with a
man other that her husband. This indicates that any action that
undermines the marital relationship, betrays the covenamt of marriage,
or mocks the institution of marriage is a form of adultery. This
includes interfering in other people's marriages {see Talmud Bavli,
Shabbot 55b}. This includes fornication, because it belittles the
entire institution of marriage.)
VIII
Don't steal [people (From the Masoretic Text which is also explained
in Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 87a)].
(The exact word means to kidnap a person by force and enslave them or
sell them into slavery. This can also mean the theft of a person's
self respect, or the theft of their gratitude or respect through the
use of deceit.)
IX
Don't bear false witness against your neighbor.
(This includes slander (Sforno), and tacit lying (Talmud Bavli,
Shevuot 31a) or even allowing a known slander to go on without
renouncing it.)
X
Don't covet anything of your neighbors'.
(This means envying a person's spouse, property, or position in the
community, et cetera. (anything = ANY-thing !) This is not the same
as ambition. The ambitious person sees another's sucess and holds up
that as an example of what he too can do; a covetous person sees
another's success and belives that he is the one who REALLY deserves
it.)
Now the big question...
Are they binding on you?
Ask yourself if you love G-d....
Do you think G-d was lieing when He Commanded them?
Aaron
wrote:
>"Aaron" <an...@home.net> wrote in message
Christians don't obey then because they do not follow Jesus who
commanded that hid followers obey them.
Jews do follow them. However you do not understand the biblical Laws
of jurisprudence. In order to obtain a death sentance, the action
must be witnessed by at least two men in good standing in the
synagogue, who warned the violator(s) that the action was a capital
crime before the action was committed and who attepmted to prevent the
sin from happening by all reasonable means. These two of more
witnesses may testify in a religious court which decides the case.
This is why there were very few death sntances carried out in ancient
Israel.
Frank, there are no such things as "palestinians." The racist
invaders of Israel to whom you refer are not Jewish and therefore the
religious court has no authority over them. The civil courts do have
authority to deport these illegal aliens who inveded the Jewish
homelend after the end of the Brittish occupation of Israel.
Frank as much as you hate Jews, and Jesus/YHVH, you should just admit
you are a nazi or a muslim. You certainly work hard to suppoert the
muslim Jihad against Christians and Jews.
OmegaTime
jetgraphics wrote:
> As long as the Bible says usury is evil, a good God cannot command his
> followers to do evil. To do so, would negate His nature. Much in the same
> vein, one cannot do good, by evil means. The end DOES NOT justify the
> means. Beating the devil with evil, is a win for the "other side".
By this parable, the master never commanded his servants to use usury to
increase his investment. He said he would have been better off to have
given the money to usury.
> You have been misled to believe that though sins were redeemed, you aren't
> required to STOP SINNING.
> That's incorrect reasoning.
> There is NO part of the New Testament wherein Jesus says, "Go, your sins are
> forgiven, and SIN SOME MORE!"
> If I recall, he says, "Go, and sin no more..."
> A born again, redeemed Christian, who is actively engaging in abomination IS
> NOT, I repeat, IS NOT in harmony with Christ's teachings.
Therefore, once again, you judge me. I've been misled about anything in
regards to my relationship with Christ. I realize my power and authority
in this world. Is it within my power to eliminate usury even by your
definition? No, I have a house which has a mortgage, I am in debt. It's
not a question of whether I should, it's a question of whether I can.
Does that sentence me to damnation? No, I am saved and born again. I am
forgiven. Unless you are going to give me a loan for $250,000.00
interest free, condemning other and myself is not advisable.
> Participation in evil is always under your control. If one's life is
> threatened to compel obedience to evil, isn't it the proper choice to lay
> down one's life rather than cooperate?
> Didn't Jesus preach it would be better to cut off one's right hand, than
> offend God? [Matt 5:30]
> By all means, Christians are to not participate with evil.
Your definition of evil does not equate to my definition. So as I've
stated, let's agree to disagree.
> The Bible disagrees with you, unfortunately.
Yes, the Old Testament. A new convenant with God was created when Jesus
took up the cross.
> The term "Lord" appears repeatedly in scripture when one is addressing a
> person of higher rank. Not unlike the English "Sir" and "Sire", it doesn't
> always mean God.
In this case we were speaking of parables. But even still show me where
any Apostle called any other man 'Lord'.
> May I direct your attention to:
>
> _Psal 15:5_ He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward
> against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.
> _Ezek 18:13_ Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he
> then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall
> surely die; his blood shall be upon him.
> _Exod 22:25_ If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee,
> thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him
> usury.
> _Levi 25:36_ Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that
> thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon
> usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.
If you choose to live by the OT, that's your choice. I choose the new
covenant. Usury was not defined by the commandments. Jesus said, 'If you
love me you will keep my commandments.' To which I do.
> Then you admit that prior to today there were many righteous men?
No, exactly the opposite. No man can be righteous by the 'God Standard'
> The Bible says so:
> Matt 13:17 refers to the righteous men who have desired to see Him.
>
> And before you get your panties in a knot, He said he came to call the
> sinners to repentance, not the righteous. But he didn't say all men were
> not righteous. And those who repent, must cease doing evil or their
> repentance is false.
>
> In Romans 3:10, Paul quotes, "There is none righteous, no, not one". But he
> fails to cite that particular authority.
>
> Psalms 125:3 For the rod of the wicked shall not rest upon the lot of the
> righteous; lest the righteous put forth their hands unto iniquity. Do good,
> O LORD, unto those that be good, and to them that are upright in their
> hearts.
>
> That seems to contradict your assertion that EVERYONE is not righteous.
If you believe that you alone are righteous enough to stand before a
Holy God, you don't need Christ. I'm not judging you to be unrighteous,
I am stating that no person except Christ has or ever will be that
righteous.
> It is true that Jesus denounced the scribes and Pharisees who appeared
> righteous outwardly, while hiding their hypocrisy and iniquity. But I can
> find no cite where Jesus claims ALL MEN are not righteous.
>
> In Luke 23:50, Joseph of Arimathaea is called a "good man and just".
>
> And the most important one, is Matthew 13:38:
> The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but
> the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is
> the devil; the harvest is the end of the world and the reapers are the
> angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so
> shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his
> angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend,
> and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire:
> three shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous
> shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to
> hear, let him hear.
The righteous in Christ, because no man is righteous.
> It's plain enough, isn't it?
It's very simple, but you are choosing to make this more complex. No man
will stand in the sight of God that is not shamed in judgment. Whether
that person is considered a Saint by Earthly standards or not. Mother
Theresa, even though she was a Saint as compared to most people, will
stand before God ashamed. Only in the righteousness of Christ and the
grace of God do we stand blameless.
> Those who offend and do iniquity are cast out. Those who are righteous shall
> shine forth. I think Paul is less of an authority on righteousness, than is
> Jesus. Ergo, there ARE righteous men, and they shall shine forth.
The only righteousness I can claim is that of Christ's. Because it was
offered to me as grace.
> I trust that God gave us Free Will, which implies that he isn't going to
> "steer" anyone to do good, who doesn't wish to do so. To impose "goodness"
> upon those who are offensive and evil, is against "policy".
>
> It's your turn to choose: usury or not usury.
I also trust that God gave us 'Free Will'. But I also know that through
the ages, especially in the early 1900's and before, there were God
loving men who had the power and authority to steer this country. I did
not mean to imply that God would intervene to the 'Noah's Ark'
proportion. Merely that He would have led these men of prior generations
to the right way.
> That is incorrect. There was never a fiscal year that deficits were
> eliminated entirely.
Never said there was. I said it was declining.
> And since NEW federal reserve notes are only
> authorized by NEW red ink, the almost balanced budget reduced their
> emission. THAT is what destroyed dot coms, and a host of related
> industries. And when the red ink flowed again, recovery occurred.
>
> Most Americans are living in an illusion created by false and misleading
> statements like "the dollar was once backed by gold" or "America can't go
> bankrupt" or "foreign imports are the result of cheap labor".
America can go bankrupt. In fact, I believe we are heading there now.
But not for the reasons you cite.
>>I'll let you in on a little secret, STAR WARS (Strategic Missile Defense
>>System) never existed.
>
>
> And you know this from where?
The US Government. I cannot reveal my sources because of a trust.
> The "offensive" weapons weren't under SDI.
> And you dismiss "stealth" fighters conceived and built during the same time
> as "Strategic Defense Initiative"? Or the high powered lasers? Or the
> kinetic energy weapons? Or the ultra high frequency sensors that can "see"
> through walls?
>
> SDI WAS for defense and not offense.
>
> Sigh.
SIGH!!! To defend peace, is to prepare for war. SDI - STAR WARS
terms are synonymus. You spend more time trying to correct me than
hearing what I say. Why do you talk down to me? I do not talk down to
you. I have talked to you as an equal with the exception of this post.
You talk down to me, you question my standing in Christ and it's
beginning to offend me.
> Isn't that nice. When you're disproved, you dismiss it. But the irony is
> that those Muslims who shun usury are morally superior to those who embrace
> usury, despite their beliefs to the contrary.
No, I just never recognized the Koran as an authority to begin with. You
disproved me, you are correct, as I stated...I was testing your knowledge.
> Every American has the FREE CHOICE not to engage in usury, nor participate
> in national socialism. There is no law in Title 18 United States Code that
> punishes one for failure to participate, nor is there a law compelling
> participation. It is 100% voluntary. He who consents cannot complain.
>
> Interesting side issue. Those who aren't participants in national socialism
> aren't required to pay the socialist levies (Title 26). All those folks who
> are annoyed with the government's support for iniquity have always had the
> means to legally STOP funding that which is against their religious
> beliefs.
>
> In fact, unnumbered Christians aren't permitted to accidentally engage in
> usury with a Federal Reserve bank, nor open an interest bearing stock
> account under the authority of the Securities and Exchange committee.
>
> Aren't they nice....
You speak of a speck in your brother's eye, while you have a board in
your own.
>>Through Christ Jesus, we share in a common kinship.
>
>
> I am a child of God, and He's my Father. In spirit, all are brethren.
> Christians are fellow-citizens in the kingdom of heaven, and ambassadors for
> Christ. However, failure to "sin no more" seems to be conclusive evidence
> that one is not a Christian in good standing.
>
>
>>I place my faith and
>>my whole being at the foot of the cross.
>
>
> Putting one's faith in Jesus and acting against his teachings is
> contradictory. I believe that is what Jesus called hypocrisy.
>
>
>>Every reward awaits me in
>>Heaven when that day comes that Christ will call His own home.
>
>
> Yup. And as he stated, THE RIGHTEOUS shall shine forth, while those
> abominations are cast into the fire...
>
> Can't keep dancing with devil, and skip paying the piper.
Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in
Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the
Spirit.
So who's dancing with the devil? Sin is inevitable, not excusable except
through Christ. Jesus never taught against usury by your meaning, if I'm
wrong show me.
The new covenant is in effect, usury in your definition in the Old
Testament may have been a sin. Since the new covenant, show me where it
is defined as sin. We are to look upon the Old Testament as a historical
lesson, not to define sin.
> IF you mean that judging and condemning others, binds their trespass upon
> them, yes. And furthermore, we are reminded to forgive those who trespass
> against us. However, that doesn't mean we are permitted to trespass, or do
> evil. To continue to do evil, while claiming to be saved / redeemed is
> beyond reason and contrary to His teachings.
Acting contrary to His teahcings? Wow...Judge not lest thee be judged. I
am not of the agnostic believe. I am a realistic conservative in Christ.
Evil can be defined in many ways.
Show me in the New Testament where the word rape is. Rape is evil, yet
you pick usury to claim as the evil that would condemn the world.
Contrary to His teachings? Jesus must have okayed the rape of men or
women or even children. It's not in His teachings, so therefore it must
be okay?
Here I'll save you the trouble of quoting Old Testament stuff.
Deu 22:25 But if a man finds an engaged girl in the field, and the man
forces her and lies with her, then only the man that lay with her shall
die.
Deu 22:26 But you shall do nothing to the girl. No sin worthy of death
is in the girl; for as when a man rises against his neighbor and slays
him, even so is this matter.
From this by the literal definition, if a girl is not engaged then it's
okay to rape her. Certainly you cannot agree with this? But that is what
it says. When you skip the common sense and stand by the literal, this
is what you end up with.
I note this only as an illustration, not because I believe it's okay to
rape. Use some common sense. Jesus became angry at the temple because of
the disrespect and contempt the money changers showed towards God's
house. And everytime you write or speak condeming overtones against
anyone for anything, you condemn yourself and draw contempt from the
believer's in Christ and believers in good moral judgment.
I'm sure you'll try to tell me how I've misinterpreted what is written,
cut and pasted from the MKJV of the bible. Remember, you said
interpretation is not necessary.
> John 5:14 ... Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing
> come unto thee.
> John 8:11 ... Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
> Romans 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of
> righteousness.... For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from
> righteousness.
>
> In short, if you want to "sin no more", it's important to cease engaging in
> usury.
You quote the new testament, live by the old. Sin then while Jesus
before the crucifixtion was defined by the OT, this is why Jesus said,
'Go and sin no more'.
Sin now is defined by the new covenant. 'Follow my commandments if you
love me.' and the great commandment.
jetgraphics
>>>>And since usury was quite popular in the USA at that time, his
>>>>"interpretation" is questionable, at the least. Consider that during
>>>>Shakespeare's time, the concept was defined otherwise. Cite: Merchant of
>>>>Venice.
>>>
>>>I agree that redefining the term in given periods would be advantageous
>>>to some. I don't agree this is what happened. If someone or a group of
>>>people were so devious as to change the definition of a word to their
>>>advantage, it makes sense that they would change all of the biblical
>>>uses of usury to extortion?
>>
>> Usury is not extortion, though both are forms of thievery.
>
> Yet you avoided the question. Why not change the bible also? Why get
> caught up in the literal language when you surely understand the gist?
No question was avoided. The scriptural denouncement of usury is found in
many sections of the bible.
_Psal 15:5_ He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward
against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.
_Ezek 18:13_ Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he
then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall
surely die; his blood shall be upon him.
_Exod 22:25_ If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee,
thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him
usury.
_Levi 25:36_ Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that
thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon
usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.
If you choose to reinterpret the bible to accept usury, that's your choice.
> How much is a dollar bill worth if the U.S. government were overthrown?
> Nothing except the paper it's printed on.
Actually, the "worth" of the dollar bill, since 1933, has been "no par
value". That's nothing RIGHT NOW. A federal reserve note is not a dollar.
No judge will ever rule that it is. (I asked a few, myself).
But your retort fails to change the underlying facts -
MONEY control by the usurers has allowed them to control most of the world.
In the process, they perverted Judaism and Christianity, and are now
attacking Islam.
<snipped>
> [The parable] Good illustration.
> But today's market is based around non-living
> material goods with exception to the basic needs of food. Cars, boats,
> houses, and furniture do not reproduce. So in essence, I hear your
> argument to be against the material world, to which I agree. Basing your
> life around material goods is a problem.
That's not the point. The point is that people were fooled into accepting
usury as legitimate as natural increase. Scripture says otherwise.
Money token supply, at this time, is absolutely controlled by the banksters
(usurers).
<snipped>
> But your last point in another post was that Russia defaulted on loans
> made. Yes, the Russian government collapsed, but was not overthrown.
I didn't state that Russia defaulted on their loans. I stated that one of
the first things Yeltsin did, in the New Russian Republic, was to BORROW
the ruble into existence, from the World Bank. Previously, the ruble was
not convertible, and thus excluded from world trade. The sad joke is that
before the USSR fell, the ruble had been a legitimate money token, not
borrowed into existence. It functioned well as long as it was within their
socialist economy.
>> Rhetorical witticism aside, there is no way usury can be tolerated in a
>> finite money token system.
>
> Ok, but I still stand by the notion that the value system is infinite as
> long as there are good and services available to trade.
That's incorrect reasoning. That which is traded, goods and labor, are
increasing, but they ARE finite. The supply of money tokens, though equally
finite, are not increasing in proportion, thus straining the system.
> At the time when Jesus threw out the USURERS, the Jews were required to
> pay their homage to the temple. Since the only token recognized as
> having value was the Roman token, the Jews had to exchange their money.
> They were cheated by loan sharks. Much as if you asked me for change for
> a $20, and I said "Yes, but it will cost you $5 to get change".
But that explanation doesn't dispute that USURY was an abomination.
Nor does it negate the fact that Jesus whipped the USURERS from the temple.
>> If you overheard a Mafia Don berate his "evil and slothful" servant, who
>> failed to collect extortion, would you dispute it on the basis of
>> morality, too?
>
> That's a good point. Yet the parable is of a master that expected his
> servants to multiply the principle talent. Therefore, he was stating,
> 'You knew I expected you to make my talents grow' This was not thievery,
> this was what was expected of the servants. Laziness sparked the
> master's comment towards the thrid servant. And the servant's contempt
> even more.
As long as the Bible says usury is evil, a good God cannot command his
followers to do evil. To do so, would be against His nature. Much in the
same vein, one cannot do good, by evil means. The end DOES NOT justify the
means. Beating the devil with evil, is a win for the "other side".
> Honestly, I am afraid of nothing this world has for me. I already know
> my eternal destination. I've been within moments of death, I've suffered
> and ran the race minus one good leg. If Jesus came today, I'd be going
> home. It doesn't matter that I might promote usury in your definition,
> or disassociate with it. My sins have been paid for by the blood of
> Jesus Christ.
You have been misled to believe that though sins were redeemed, you aren't
required to STOP SINNING.
That's incorrect reasoning.
There is NO part of the New Testament wherein Jesus says, "Go, your sins are
forgiven, and SIN SOME MORE!"
If I recall, he says, "Go, and sin no more..."
A born again, redeemed Christian, who is actively engaging in abomination IS
NOT, I repeat, IS NOT in harmony with Christ's teachings.
> God is required to change something as drastic as you propose. I can sit
> here and whole hearted agree with you, or debate. It doesn't change that
> usury by your definition takes place all over the world. So why should I
> fret about the things to which I cannot control?
> This aside, I still believe your definition of usury to be the
> unintended definition. But also I know where you get these ideas.
Participation in evil is always under your control. If one's life is
threatened to compel obedience to evil, isn't it the proper choice to lay
down one's life rather than cooperate?
Didn't Jesus preach it would be better to cut off one's right hand, than
offend God? [Matt 5:30]
If I understand scripture correctly, Christians are to not participate with
evil doers in their deeds.
>> Is it "bad interpretation" of scripture, that it's an abomination for a
>> man to lay with a man, as a woman?
>> Is it "bad interpretation" of scripture, that it's an abomination to
>> engage in usury, and receive gain?
>
> No your interpretation in the first instance I agree with, in the second
> I don't.
The Bible disagrees with you, unfortunately.
>
>> Frankly, Jesus taught that all men were brethren, with no man as master.
>> [Matt 23:8-12]. However, his parables did not always feature characters
>> that were all brethren. So it's wrong to imply that the "Lord" was the
>> ONE LORD, in all cases, especially Matthew 25.
>
> The dominant either refers to Jesus speaking as the third person, God,
> or the Holy Spirit. There is only one Lord, therefore who else is there
> to call Lord? I agree that parables also contain people of non-belief.
The term "Lord" appears repeatedly in scripture when one is addressing a
person of higher rank. Not unlike the English "Sir" and "Sire", it doesn't
always mean God.
>>>>What "kind" of person reaps where he hast not sown, and gathered where
>>>>he hast not strawed?
>>>>
>>>>A thief!
>>>>
>>>>The parable does not represent "GOD" as a "hard man" who is a thief and
>>>>scoundrel.
>>>>
>>>>If GOD steals, then it's a very strange God, by any meaning of the
>>>>words.
>>>
>>>Good point, except the parable never says that the master had any intent
>>>to reap where he had not sown.
>>
>> Matthew 25:25 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and
>> slothful servant, thou KNEWEST that I reap where I sowed no, and gathered
>> where I have not strawed.
>>
>> That's an admission by the "hard man" that he was a THIEF, and wanted his
>> servants to engage in usury, in his absence. He was NOT an allegory for
>> God, whose prophets denounced usury as an abomination.
[No objection offered]
> Prophets of the OT. If this were such a horrible sin, why then is it not
> specified in the Mosaic Laws?
May I direct your attention to:
_Psal 15:5_ He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward
against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.
_Ezek 18:13_ Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he
then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall
surely die; his blood shall be upon him.
_Exod 22:25_ If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee,
thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him
usury.
_Levi 25:36_ Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that
thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon
usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.
> By definition, only are all sin. Therefore, we place our hope in
> Christ. No living man today on planet Earth can meet the
> term "righteous".
Then you claim that there are and were no righteous men?
The Bible says differently:
Matt 13:17 refers to the righteous men who have desired to see Him.
And before you get your panties in a knot, He said he came to call the
sinners to repentance, not the righteous. But he didn't say all men were
not righteous. And those who repent, must cease doing evil or their
repentance is false.
In Romans 3:10, Paul quotes, "There is none righteous, no, not one". But he
fails to cite that particular authority.
Psalms 125:3 For the rod of the wicked shall not rest upon the lot of the
righteous; lest the righteous put forth their hands unto iniquity. Do good,
O LORD, unto those that be good, and to them that are upright in their
hearts.
That seems to contradict your assertion that EVERYONE is not righteous.
It is true that Jesus denounced the scribes and Pharisees who appeared
righteous outwardly, while hiding their hypocrisy and iniquity. But I can
find no cite where Jesus claims ALL MEN are not righteous.
In Luke 23:50, Joseph of Arimathaea is called a "good man and just".
And the most important one, is Matthew 13:38:
The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom;
but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them
is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world and the reapers are the
angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so
shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his
angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend,
and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire:
three shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous
shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to
hear, let him hear.
It's plain enough, isn't it?
Those who offend and do iniquity are cast out. Those who are righteous shall
shine forth. I think Paul is less of an authority on righteousness, than is
Jesus. Ergo, there ARE righteous men, and they shall shine forth.
>>>>No, it's not correct. People do not "create new federal reserve notes"
>>>>(at least not without risking a prison sentence).
>>>>Your sentence plainly states "Exchange for money" or "repayment of
>>>>debt". Both refer to MONEY, not goods and services (barter). In fact, in
>>>>national socialism, you cannot retain custody of your house unless you
>>>>pay taxes, in money. Ditto for everything else.
>>>>The IRS will tax barter, and demand payment in MONEY.
>>>
>>>No new "federal reserve notes" are required. Just an agreement. If I owe
>>>you $150,000.00 and agree to build a house for you in exchange, no new
>>>money was created. My labor covered the cost of the debt.
Not correct. But that's beating a dead horse. In today's economic system,
debt instruments (FRNs) are being used in lieu of real money, which being
finite, are incapable of facilitating trade at the level we have now.
>>>My statements have been solely based on the term "Usury", nothing to do
>>>with national socialism.
You may be unaware that prior to national socialism, federal reserve notes
were subject to objection, as a tender in payment of debt. After 1935, one
could no longer object.
>> And since "we agreed" to owe 7 trillion dollars (national debt) and the
>> money doesn't exist, we're okay by your reasoning?
>
> Not at all. The seriousness of national debt is all too important. But
> it isn't within our control.
I disagree. It is within our control.
> It is controllable, but not by any person's
> righteousness.
Incorrect. Usurers would have no business if righteous people stopped
contracting with them. The same is true for government.
> God would have to intervene, and I believe He would have
> steered this nation in the 1800's to avoid what you are stating as an
> abomination in today's world.
I trust that God gave us Free Will, which implies that he isn't going to
"steer" anyone to do good, who doesn't wish to do so. To impose "goodness"
upon those who are offensive and evil, is against "policy".
It's your turn to choose: usury or not usury.
>>>>If you examine the recent Dot Com bust, it was the result of the "almost
>>>>balanced budget" that reduced the creation of new money tokens (red
>>>>ink). Only after the huge budget deficits, did the economy begin to
>>>>recover. Insane? Yes.
>>>
>>>I agree, but the budget went unstable after the 9/11 attacks and the
>>>reprecussions of the terrorism. In addition, our Government chose to
>>>make war on borrowed money. This was the crime. I'm just glad that I
>>>wasn't in Pres. Bush's shoes to have to make that decision.
>>
>> Not correct. The Dot Com bust preceded the attacks on 9/11.
>> And the government has only had borrowed money tokens since 1933. If you
>> want to get picky, the crime began in 1913, with the enactment of the
>> Federal Reserve Act.
>
> Our government lost control of spending when 9/11 occurred. At whatever
> the cost, we were going to stamp out terrorism. Our budget before 9/11
> was balanced and in surplus. Our national deficit was decreasing.
That is incorrect. There was never a fiscal year that deficits were
eliminated entirely. And since NEW federal reserve notes are only
authorized by NEW red ink, the almost balanced budget reduced their
emission. THAT is what destroyed dot coms, and a host of related
industries. And when the red ink flowed again, recovery occurred.
Most Americans are living in an illusion created by false and misleading
statements like "the dollar was once backed by gold" or "America can't go
bankrupt" or "foreign imports are the result of cheap labor".
> I'll let you in on a little secret, STAR WARS (Strategic Missile Defense
> System) never existed.
And you know this from where?
> It was a ploy by the U.S. to break the U.S.S.R.'s
> economy. Russia said, 'Ut oh, the threat of mutual destruction will be
> lost if the U.S. can deploy missiles from space and destroy our missiles
> before they leave the ground.' The U.S. led all to believe that STAR
> WARS was months from being realized. Russia sunk billions upon billions
> into a good idea that the U.S. never realized
The "offensive" weapons weren't under SDI.
And you dismiss "stealth" fighters conceived and built during the same time
as "Strategic Defense Initiative"? Or the high powered lasers? Or the
kinetic energy weapons? Or the ultra high frequency sensors that can "see"
through walls?
SDI WAS for defense and not offense.
<snipped quotes from the Koran denouncing usury>
>> What is the consequence of usury?
>> To be cursed by Allah, God, Jesus, The Lord, etc., etc.
>
> Just checking your knowledge of your claims. Good job, except I don't
> view the Koran with regard.
Isn't that nice. When you're disproved, you dismiss it. But the irony is
that those Muslims who shun usury are morally superior to those who embrace
usury, despite their beliefs to the contrary.
>> To ignore the tyranny of usurers, is to condemn many to ruin. That's not
>> merciful nor reasonable. To ignore the spiritual consequences of usury is
>> tragic.
>
> To worry about that which is not in your control is insanity and the
> leading cause of stress, depression, and anxiety. Tyranny on a checking
> account at .5% / year, I think you overemphasize. Either way, the
> spiritual consequences are already taken care of. It's not ignoring the
> consequence, it's about realizing what you can and cannot control.
Every American has the FREE CHOICE not to engage in usury, nor participate
in national socialism. There is no law in Title 18 United States Code that
punishes one for failure to participate, nor is there a law compelling
participation. It is 100% voluntary. He who consents cannot complain.
Interesting side issue. Those who aren't participants in national socialism
aren't required to pay the socialist income tax levies (Title 26). All those
folks who are annoyed with the government's support for iniquity have
always had the means to legally STOP funding that which is against their
religious beliefs.
In fact, unnumbered Christians aren't permitted to accidentally engage in
usury with a Federal Reserve bank, nor open an interest bearing stock
account under the authority of the Securities and Exchange committee.
Aren't they nice....
> Through Christ Jesus, we share in a common kinship.
I am a child of God, and He's my Father. In spirit, all are brethren.
Christians are fellow-citizens in the kingdom of heaven, and ambassadors for
Christ.
However, failure to "sin no more" seems to be conclusive evidence
that one is not a Christian in good standing.
> I place my faith and
> my whole being at the foot of the cross.
Putting one's faith in Jesus and acting against his teachings is
contradictory. I believe that is what Jesus called hypocrisy.
Attending Church and performing sacred rituals won't erase one's intentions.
> Every reward awaits me in
> Heaven when that day comes that Christ will call His own home.
Yup. And as he stated, THE RIGHTEOUS shall shine forth, while those
abominations (usurers, etc) are cast into the fire...
Can't keep dancing with devil, and skip paying the piper.
> To get
> bound up by the evils of the day is carrying a burden that we are not
> built to carry. "Come to me all ye that are heavy laden, and I will give
> you rest." Jesus meant this, and it's true.
> We are not here to condemn evil.
IF you mean that judging and condemning others, binds their trespass upon
them, yes. And furthermore, we are reminded to forgive those who trespass
against us. However, that doesn't mean we are now permitted to trespass, or
do evil. To continue to do evil, while claiming to be saved / redeemed is
beyond reason and contrary to His teachings.
John 5:14 ... Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing
OmegaTime
Wow, I realize I was harsh in this post. Guess I'm on the short fuse
today. I apologize for my harsh words.
bckwrds
No, PF, I'm saying one has to take the whole Bible....not just the Old, not
just the New....the whole Bible.
bckwrds
Pastor Frank
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 14:21:16 +0800, "Pastor Frank" <P...@christfirst.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> That was silly, Frank. Jesus COMMANDED all of His Folloers to obey
> >> all the commandments in the OT (Mathew 5:17-19. You cannot reject the
> >> 613 Commandments without rejecting Jesus.
> >
> > Interesting, that Ken Smith won't answer the simple question I asked
> >above. But since you elected yourself as his spokes person, you can
answer
> >why neither Jew nor Christians follow any of the laws below and even
ignore
> >most of the 10 commandments about adultery, coveting, killing etc. etc.
>
> Frank, you make baseless accusations against the Jews. The Jews do
> obey these Commandments, at least the Jewish Jews do. Those people of
> Jewish descent who do not adhear to Judaism are calles Katet in the
> Bible and are not part of the Jewish people.
>
above and what the courts have to say about it.
I am beginning to suspect you are a converts to one of Rev. Dick Foot's
of the Broomleigh group of Real Christian® churches whose motto is "All the
Bible ALL the way", and whose aim is to do away with "atheist liberal trash"
by the executions commanded in Leviticus. LOL
--
Pastor Frank
Pastor Frank
At least Germans are repentant of their holocaust of the Jews, but Jews are
still proud of their genocide of their fellow Semites, the entire native
population of Israel, in fact "all that breatheth", which was a holocaust of
gigantic proportions.
Pastor Frank
Jesus was born a Jew. Most believing in Him are Gentiles and not Jews.
Jesus kept the law but did not preach it, for He considered Himself the
fulfillment of the law. This makes the law of no effect and obligatory upon
us any longer. In other words in HIM the law is fulfilled, finished and done
with. Yet we are to heed the commandments of Christ if we want to be
Christian, meaning followers of Christ, for only those seeking to do the
will of the Father which is in heaven will find redemption in Christ
shedding His blood for them.
The underlying theme of the gospels is the conflict between Jesus and the
religious leaders of Judaism. Jesus defied them, cursed them, contradicted
their teachings and their rituals, and warned his followers against them, as
He thought their teachings insidious, and like yeast able to infect the
entire populace. He warned people to be on guard against the leavening of
the Jewish religious establishment, as it would prevented them from entering
the Kingdom of Heaven.
As a direct result of those perceived heresies the Jews arranged to have
Jesus killed. That's the summary of the Gospels. Jesus did not come to
follow the Law but to fulfill the law, so we would not have to any longer.
He rejected the Jewish religious establishment as well as their teachings,
which is much of the Old Testament. Therefore Christians who want to follow
the teachings of Christ must do the same, and not try to be both, followers
of Christ AND followers of the law, i.e. try to be both Christian AND Jew.
(--anon)
Aaron
wrote:
Almost all religious Jews. Since Judaism forbids focing Jewish
beliefs on non-Jews, the actions of Pagans are not a matter for
religious courts, thus the secular courts have nothing to say because
the religious Jews do not commit the capital crimes to begin with.
Aaron
wrote:
>"Aaron" <an...@home.net> wrote in message
>news:i840r0prb29qijfka...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Frank you keep denying what Jesus taught and calling it "Judaism."
>> Do you actually think that all Christians are anti-Semitic enough to
>> automatically reject the Gospel just because you call it "Judaism"?
>> Silly Racist! You sound like you would reject Jesus Himself just
>> because He is Jewish.
>>
> Do you mean like Jews rejecting all Germans because Hitler was a German?
Frank, sonce this has not happened your lie has not value.
>At least Germans are repentant of their holocaust of the Jews, but Jews are
>still proud of their genocide of their fellow Semites, the entire native
>population of Israel, in fact "all that breatheth", which was a holocaust of
>gigantic proportions.
Another lie. Israel was invaded by Arabs in 1948 after the end of the
Brittish occupation of Israel. Yet you want to pretend that these
invaders were in Israel before they entered Israel on their mission of
genicide. The Muslim attampt to commit a seconf holocaust was
thwarted by God. Frabnk since you oppse God in other matters it is no
wonder that you oppse Him in this.
>
>Pastor Frank
> Jesus was born a Jew.
And is still a Jew
>Most believing in Him are Gentiles and not Jews.
Many Gentiles SAY they believe in Him without following His teachings.
However it should be noted that a greater percentage of Jews believed
in Him in His day than the percentage of Gentiles who believe in Him
today.
>Jesus kept the law but did not preach it, for He considered Himself the
>fulfillment of the law.
Jesus did nothing but preach the Law. Frank you, who do not even know
the 613 Commandments are not in a postion to evaluate whether of not
jesus taught the Law. If you knew the Halachic debates that were
going on in Jesus' time you would know that He was settling questions
as to the proper interpretation of the Law.
Jesus taught that while we must obey all 613 Commandments (Matthew
5:17-19) that our Kavenah must also be correct for that obedience to
have moral value (Matthew 22:36-40). As such, He made the Law even
more dificult than before.
Jesus also taught that anyone who prays in His name for Salvation, but
who rejects the Commandments is damned (Matthew 7:21-23).
>This makes the law of no effect and obligatory upon
>us any longer. In other words in HIM the law is fulfilled, finished and done
>with.
Frank, "fulfilled" does NOT mean "done away with."
Jesus specifically said that the all 613 commandments ARE obligatory
until Heaven and Earth are destroyed.
You should also know that it is a sin to take away even one of the
Commandments. To claim that Jesus made any of the Commandments null
and viod it to accuse Him of sinning.
>Yet we are to heed the commandments of Christ if we want to be
>Christian, meaning followers of Christ, for only those seeking to do the
>will of the Father which is in heaven will find redemption in Christ
>shedding His blood for them.
Christ said that ALL 613 Commandments are still in full effect.
> The underlying theme of the gospels is the conflict between Jesus and the
>religious leaders of Judaism.
Wrong.
The underlying theme of the Gospels is Kavenah. Kavenah is the
motivation behind your observance of the commandments. Jesus agreed
with the majority of the Pharisees (Beyt Hillel). Because of this
Beyt Hillel's opponents (Beyt Shammai and the Saducees) opposed Jesus.
>Jesus defied them, cursed them, contradicted
>their teachings and their rituals, and warned his followers against them, as
>He thought their teachings insidious, and like yeast able to infect the
>entire populace. He warned people to be on guard against the leavening of
>the Jewish religious establishment, as it would prevented them from entering
>the Kingdom of Heaven.
Jesus opposed Sadducaic Judaism which was corrupt and a vast minority
whose power was in the fact that they controlled the Temple.
Jesus opped the ridgid "letter of the Law" approach od Beut Shammai.
Today's Orthodox Judaism is based on the teachings of Beyt Hillel, the
group of Pharisees who agreed with Jesus' interpretation of the Law.
> As a direct result of those perceived heresies the Jews arranged to have
>Jesus killed.
Wrong.
A minority faction lead by Caiaphas tricked Pontius Pilate into
thinking that the Jewish leadership opposed Jesus and that Jesus had
committed treason against Rome by declaring himself "King of the
Jews."
If the Sanhedrin had convicted Jesus, He would have been stoned to
death. But He was never taken before the Sanhedrin which can onlt
meet durring the day. In the middle of the night the minority group
met and realized that they did not have enough votes for a conviction
and that they could not trick Jesus into committing blasphemy. So
they got the romans to do the job.
Jesus came to teach the Law and to provide atonement for our sins.
He did both. You can only claim that the Law is done away with if you
do not know the Law and refuse to read the Gospels in their entirety.
OmegaTime
> No question was avoided. The scriptural denouncement of usury is found in
> many sections of the bible.
But the question was, if those in power in the earlier eras saw it
advantageous to change the definition of USURY, then why did they not
change the bible also? I see no response to this question, therefore the
question was avoided.
> _Psal 15:5_ He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward
> against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.
> _Ezek 18:13_ Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he
> then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall
> surely die; his blood shall be upon him.
> _Exod 22:25_ If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee,
> thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him
> usury.
> _Levi 25:36_ Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that
> thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon
> usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.
>
> If you choose to reinterpret the bible to accept usury, that's your choice.
I'm using a definition from over 132 years ago. I haven't reinterpreted
anything in regards to usury. Your definition predates mine. Your
definition is based before the coming of Jesus Christ.
> Actually, the "worth" of the dollar bill, since 1933, has been "no par
> value". That's nothing RIGHT NOW. A federal reserve note is not a dollar.
> No judge will ever rule that it is. (I asked a few, myself).
So why not just reply, "Agreed"?
> But your retort fails to change the underlying facts -
> MONEY control by the usurers has allowed them to control most of the world.
> In the process, they perverted Judaism and Christianity, and are now
> attacking Islam.
Okay, if that's what you believe.
> That's not the point. The point is that people were fooled into accepting
> usury as legitimate as natural increase. Scripture says otherwise.
This is a judgment of interpretation about the people being fooled into
accepting usury as legitimate. So to debate your interpretation versus
mine is fruitless.
> Money token supply, at this time, is absolutely controlled by the banksters
> (usurers).
I agree with exception to the (usurers).
> I didn't state that Russia defaulted on their loans. I stated that one of
> the first things Yeltsin did, in the New Russian Republic, was to BORROW
> the ruble into existence, from the World Bank. Previously, the ruble was
> not convertible, and thus excluded from world trade. The sad joke is that
> before the USSR fell, the ruble had been a legitimate money token, not
> borrowed into existence. It functioned well as long as it was within their
> socialist economy.
Ok, I must've misunderstood.
> That's incorrect reasoning. That which is traded, goods and labor, are
> increasing, but they ARE finite. The supply of money tokens, though equally
> finite, are not increasing in proportion, thus straining the system.
No matter how many words you capitalize, it doesn't change my logic.
Money tokens may be limited, but only by the money regulators (ie: the
Federal Reserve). Thus, when more money tokens are introduced into the
market, inflation occurs. Because the dollar has been sold down in value.
If you are a farmer growing grain and need a tractor to harvest your
grain. I have tractors, I'm sure you would be willing to trade some
amount of grain for a tractor.
Goods and services are finite at some degree in the highest exponential
form. Right now, I work 8 hours / day. If I need extra money, I work
overtime. But that's only one person. If the whole world works overtime,
then think of the increase in goods from a manufacturing perspective.
The auto industry uses this to their advantage today. When record sales
are at there peak, every employee works 12 to 14 hours / day and the
company cannot hire enough people. When those sales decline, they cut
overtime and / or lay off people.
> But that explanation doesn't dispute that USURY was an abomination.
> Nor does it negate the fact that Jesus whipped the USURERS from the temple.
Never implied that it did. It was the reason that Jesus whipped the
usurers from the temple. Before Jesus came, sin was defined by what was
written in the bible. After Jesus was crucified, sin has been crushed by
the believer.
Cite, the thief at the cross. The thief had sinned, no doubt by what was
written the thief had sinned. Because he only believed in Jesus as the
Son of God, Jesus said, 'Today we will be in paradise.'
> As long as the Bible says usury is evil, a good God cannot command his
> followers to do evil. To do so, would be against His nature. Much in the
> same vein, one cannot do good, by evil means. The end DOES NOT justify the
> means. Beating the devil with evil, is a win for the "other side".
Evil is conceived in the hearts of men. If men conceive that God
commanded them to do evil, then they are mistaken. You are right. Yet in
this parable of God as the master - he states in essence, 'You did
nothing with my money except buried it, I might as well given it to the
usurers that it might increase.' He commanded nobody to give it to
usury, he made a statement that made the impacted point, 'You failed to
do your job as my servant.'
> You have been misled to believe that though sins were redeemed, you aren't
> required to STOP SINNING.
> That's incorrect reasoning.
You desire me to doubt my salvation? My reasoning is fine and in
agreement with the biblical account. Sin was defined by law before
Christ's crucifixion. Christ bridged the barrier the law could not. And
that is that man is not capable of living by the laws without
transgressions. Now we are bound by the Spirit. The laws are to be
regarded as historical reference. The commandments we are to honor, yet
should we fail does not imply damnation.
> There is NO part of the New Testament wherein Jesus says, "Go, your sins are
> forgiven, and SIN SOME MORE!"
> If I recall, he says, "Go, and sin no more..."
Remember, before the crucifixion of Christ, the law defined sin.
> A born again, redeemed Christian, who is actively engaging in abomination IS
> NOT, I repeat, IS NOT in harmony with Christ's teachings.
A born again Christian lives by the Spirit. Your definition of sin is
not in accordance with the teaching of Christ. We are set free from the
condemnation that transgression to laws brought about.
> Participation in evil is always under your control. If one's life is
> threatened to compel obedience to evil, isn't it the proper choice to lay
> down one's life rather than cooperate?
God will choose the time and place of my death. The evil you speak of is
only evil if you live by the law. When you live by the Spirit, you are
told in your heart what is sin.
> Didn't Jesus preach it would be better to cut off one's right hand, than
> offend God? [Matt 5:30]
> If I understand scripture correctly, Christians are to not participate with
> evil doers in their deeds.
I agree.
> The Bible disagrees with you, unfortunately.
The Old Testament would, we live under a new covenant with God.
> The term "Lord" appears repeatedly in scripture when one is addressing a
> person of higher rank. Not unlike the English "Sir" and "Sire", it doesn't
> always mean God.
No disagreement here. We've already talked about Matthew 25, you said
God was not the master in this parable, I said He was. Show me in any
other parable where God was not the dominant rank.
> May I direct your attention to:
>
> _Psal 15:5_ He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward
> against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.
Addresses taking reward against the innocent.
> _Ezek 18:13_ Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he
> then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall
> surely die; his blood shall be upon him.
This addresses the poor and needy.
> _Exod 22:25_ If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee,
> thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him
> usury.
Ok, I haven't. Again addresses the poor and needy.
> _Levi 25:36_ Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God; that
> thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon
> usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase.
Again, to the poor and needy brother. None of my brothers have asked me
for a loan, none of them have I charged interest.
> Then you claim that there are and were no righteous men?
>
> The Bible says differently:
> Matt 13:17 refers to the righteous men who have desired to see Him.
The definition of righteous is in character or by act. I can act
righteous by giving all I have to the poor, it doesn't make me a
righteous man. None of my acts mean a thing without Christ to stand with
me in judgment. Again, cite the thief at the cross.
> And before you get your panties in a knot, He said he came to call the
> sinners to repentance, not the righteous. But he didn't say all men were
> not righteous. And those who repent, must cease doing evil or their
> repentance is false.
What man has not sinned? Jesus and Jesus alone. Therefore, He calls all
men to repent. You find a man or woman that says they have nothing to
repent of then you've found a liar.
> In Romans 3:10, Paul quotes, "There is none righteous, no, not one". But he
> fails to cite that particular authority.
Paul spoke by authority of the Holy Spirit. There was no need to cite
his authority.
> Psalms 125:3 For the rod of the wicked shall not rest upon the lot of the
> righteous; lest the righteous put forth their hands unto iniquity. Do good,
> O LORD, unto those that be good, and to them that are upright in their
> hearts.
Yes, righteous acts or character. Men of good acts or good character.
But good acts and good character will not make me righteous before God.
> That seems to contradict your assertion that EVERYONE is not righteous.
Jesus said in Mat 5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks on a woman
to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Is a man that looks upon a woman with lust in his heart righteous in the
sight of God, even if outwardly he has good character and does good
acts? No, because God knows his heart.
> It is true that Jesus denounced the scribes and Pharisees who appeared
> righteous outwardly, while hiding their hypocrisy and iniquity. But I can
> find no cite where Jesus claims ALL MEN are not righteous.
Read past Romans 3:10 up to and beyond 3:23. Keep reading up past Romans
5:12. You should get the point by seeking out Romans 3:23 and 5:12. Take
a book apart passage by passage, and you have a bunch of passages. Read
the whole book and you get the meaning.
> In Luke 23:50, Joseph of Arimathaea is called a "good man and just".
Ok, I think he was.
> And the most important one, is Matthew 13:38:
> The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom;
> but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them
> is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world and the reapers are the
> angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so
> shall it be in the end of this world. The Son of man shall send forth his
> angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend,
> and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire:
> three shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous
> shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to
> hear, let him hear.
There is only one way to be righteous in the eyes of God, through His
Son Jesus Christ. Joh 14:6 Jesus said to him, I am the Way, the Truth,
and the Life; no one comes to the Father but by Me.
> It's plain enough, isn't it?
Is this plain enough?
> Those who offend and do iniquity are cast out. Those who are righteous shall
> shine forth. I think Paul is less of an authority on righteousness, than is
> Jesus. Ergo, there ARE righteous men, and they shall shine forth.
Righteous outwardly, righteous only in the eyes of God through Jesus Christ.
> Not correct. But that's beating a dead horse. In today's economic system,
> debt instruments (FRNs) are being used in lieu of real money, which being
> finite, are incapable of facilitating trade at the level we have now.
What does this have to do with the price of eggs in China? I was
speaking hypothetically that if I owe you money, and offer a service in
exchange to repay the debt, no new money was created to repay the debt.
> You may be unaware that prior to national socialism, federal reserve notes
> were subject to objection, as a tender in payment of debt. After 1935, one
> could no longer object.
I'm going to forgo the discussion about the government. Everyone sees
that things are a mess. Even still, we live in the best country in the
world.
> I disagree. It is within our control.
Are you going to repay it? Thank you! Problem solved.
> Incorrect. Usurers would have no business if righteous people stopped
> contracting with them. The same is true for government.
And there would be no poor people if there were no rich people. You and
I cannot control the destiny of this world. The path for this world was
set long before you and I existed.
> I trust that God gave us Free Will, which implies that he isn't going to
> "steer" anyone to do good, who doesn't wish to do so. To impose "goodness"
> upon those who are offensive and evil, is against "policy".
You do worship the same God I do, right? Yahweh - Jehovah - The Father
of Jesus Christ? I am steered by God all the time to do goodness, but
none of which I claim to be righteous for. God gave me the "Free Will"
to listen to or reject the steering of the Spirit. When I reject the
steering of the Spirit, nothing good comes from it. When I accept the
steering of the Spirit, things just shy of miracles happen. I can give
you testimony upon testimony if you like.
> It's your turn to choose: usury or not usury.
And it's you turn to accept: Grace or no grace
>>>What is the consequence of usury?
>>>To be cursed by Allah, God, Jesus, The Lord, etc., etc.
I just caught this. Surely your answer here does not imply that Yahweh -
Jehovah, Allah, Buhda <SP>, The Lord are all one in the same?
> Every American has the FREE CHOICE not to engage in usury, nor participate
> in national socialism. There is no law in Title 18 United States Code that
> punishes one for failure to participate, nor is there a law compelling
> participation. It is 100% voluntary. He who consents cannot complain.
As I said, I'll forgo the national socialism discussion. Besides, those
choices were made for me.
> Interesting side issue. Those who aren't participants in national socialism
> aren't required to pay the socialist income tax levies (Title 26). All those
> folks who are annoyed with the government's support for iniquity have
> always had the means to legally STOP funding that which is against their
> religious beliefs.
>
> In fact, unnumbered Christians aren't permitted to accidentally engage in
> usury with a Federal Reserve bank, nor open an interest bearing stock
> account under the authority of the Securities and Exchange committee.
>
> Aren't they nice....
Makes sense to me, you reject the system and you reject the benefits of
the system also. You accept the system, you reap the benefits of the system.
> I am a child of God, and He's my Father. In spirit, all are brethren.
> Christians are fellow-citizens in the kingdom of heaven, and ambassadors for
> Christ.
Jesus stated quite clearly, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no
one comes to the Father but by Me. Brethren to me means a bit more, not
to be found in Webster's dictionary. Brethren to me means common
brothers in Christ and in Spirit. We are all children of God. And God
desires that we all should live eternally. However, we are like sheep
being led to slaughter. Among the sheep are wolves, and many will be
devoured by the wolves.
> However, failure to "sin no more" seems to be conclusive evidence
> that one is not a Christian in good standing.
And really is what you or I believe important to God? Sin means "the
miss the mark or target". We all have sinned by definition. We all have
fallen short of the glory of God. No, this does not mean it's okay to
continue to miss the target. It means we are human. And Jesus said in
Mat 26:41 Watch and pray that you enter not into temptation. The spirit
indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
Mar 14:38 Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation. Truly the
spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.
Since the Father and the Son are one in Spirit, this tells me 'God
understands'.
> Putting one's faith in Jesus and acting against his teachings is
> contradictory. I believe that is what Jesus called hypocrisy.
I agree.
> Attending Church and performing sacred rituals won't erase one's intentions.
These are acts, not faith.
> Yup. And as he stated, THE RIGHTEOUS shall shine forth, while those
> abominations (usurers, etc) are cast into the fire...
>
> Can't keep dancing with devil, and skip paying the piper.
Agreed. And when you focus on your whole being instead of "usury" only,
that board will come out of your eyes.
> IF you mean that judging and condemning others, binds their trespass upon
> them, yes. And furthermore, we are reminded to forgive those who trespass
> against us. However, that doesn't mean we are now permitted to trespass, or
> do evil. To continue to do evil, while claiming to be saved / redeemed is
> beyond reason and contrary to His teachings.
And let me ask you this, how many times are we to forgive? The bible
says seventy times seven. How many times is this - 490?
Mat 18:21 Then Peter came to Him and said, Lord, how often shall my
brother sin against me and I forgive him? Until seven times? Mat 18:22
Jesus said to him, I do not say to you, Until seven times; but, Until
seventy times seven.
I can forgive any trespass, yet I am not the only one who must forgive.
> John 5:14 ... Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing
> come unto thee.
Again, before the crucifixion, sin was defined solely by law.
> John 8:11 ... Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Again, before the crucifixion, sin was defined solely by law.
> Romans 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of
> righteousness.... For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from
> righteousness.
One passage selectively chosen is a Michael Moore (Farenheit 911) trick.
> In short, if you want to "sin no more", it's important to cease engaging in
> usury.
If you define sin by the Old Testament. Under the new covenant, I am
free from (not of) sin. Jesus died once at the cross. Every time I have
a 'sin problem' can I crucify Christ? No way. Jesus said before dying at
the cross, "It is finished". Knowing my spirit is willing but my flesh
is weak, my sin was crucified at the cross with Jesus. Jesus went the
distance for me and all that accept these teachings of Christ.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been joined together in the likeness of His
death, we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection; Rom 6:6
knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him in order that the
body of sin might be destroyed, that from now on we should not serve
sin. Rom 6:7 For he who died has been justified from sin. Rom 6:8 But
if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him,
Rom 6:9 knowing that when Christ was raised from the dead, He dies no
more; death no longer has dominion over Him. Rom 6:10 For in that He
died, He died to sin once; but in that He lives, He lives to God. Rom
6:11 Likewise count yourselves also to be truly dead to sin, but alive
to God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Rom 6:12 Therefore do not let sin
reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. Rom
6:13 Do not yield your members as instruments of unrighteousness to
sin, but yield yourselves to God, as one alive from the dead, and your
members as instruments of righteousness to God. Rom 6:14 For sin shall
not have dominion over you, for you are not under Law, but under grace.
Rom 6:15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under Law, but
under grace? Let it not be! Rom 6:16 Do you not know that to whom you
yield yourselves as slaves for obedience, you are slaves to him whom you
obey; whether it is of sin to death, or of obedience to righteousness.
Rom 6:17 But thanks be to our God that you were the slaves of sin, but
you have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were
delivered. Rom 6:18 Then being made free from sin, you became the
slaves of righteousness. Rom 6:19 I speak in the manner of men because
of the weakness of your flesh; for as you have yielded your members as
slaves to uncleanness, and to lawless act unto lawless act, even so now
yield your members as slaves to righteousness unto holiness. Rom 6:20
For when you were the slaves of sin, you were free from righteousness.
Rom 6:21 What fruit did you have then in those things of which you are
now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. Rom 6:22 But now,
being made free from sin, and having become slaves to God, you have your
fruit to holiness, and the end everlasting life. Rom 6:23 For the wages
of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus
Christ our Lord.
bluskie
> Pastor Frank wrote:
> >
> > "Ken Smith" <k...@maths.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
> > news:cnbcpt$a1a$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> >>
> >> Since the Senate of the University of Queensland resolved some years
> >> ago that Chaplaincy Services should move towards being multi-faith,
> >> some of us have been reading the sacred texts of non-Christian
> >> religions, and been somewhat surprised to find that on social issues
> >> they have a lot in common with parts of the New Testament
> >>
> > Please show us how you came to that conclusion.
> >
> > Pastor Frank
>
> LOL. You gotta be kidding me, Fake. You're
> still pretending you're a real pastor?
> Still holding the receipt for your
> mail order pastor certificate Pastor Fake?
>
No, he's not pretending, he really thinks he is a pastor, God elected
him to the status, and you cant argue with Gods will you know, that
would be heresy and blasphemy deserving a severe punishment, how about
a crucifixion?
Pastor Frank
>
> Frank, there are no such things as "palestinians." The racist
> invaders of Israel to whom you refer are not Jewish and therefore the
> religious court has no authority over them. The civil courts do have
> authority to deport these illegal aliens who inveded the Jewish
> homelend after the end of the Brittish occupation of Israel.
>
land ever since Rome expelled the Jews 2000 years ago. See below for the
truth.
Pastor Frank
Famous Zionist Quote (back when the Zionists were really cocky):
"Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not
even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because
those Arab villages were destroyed and don't exist any longer, nor do the
maps which showed them, for they were destroyed also and replaced
with Israeli maps showing only Israeli names.
Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta;
Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushu'a in the place of
Tal al-Shuman. There is not one single place built in this country that did
not have a former Arab Population."
--Moshe Dayan, Address to the Technion, Haifa (as quoted in
Ha'aretz, 4 April 1969) http://www.birzeit.edu/crdps/village@.html
http://www.jerusalemites.org/crimes/destroyed_villages/list.htm
Pastor Frank
not
> just the New....the whole Bible.
>
Christ? Most OT believers think that Jesus was an impostor and a fraud. Do
you? See below
Pastor Frank
Jesus was born a Jew. Most believing in Him are Gentiles and not Jews.
Jesus kept the law but did not preach it, for He considered Himself the
fulfillment of the law. This makes the law of no effect and obligatory upon
us any longer. In other words in HIM the law is fulfilled, finished and done
with. Yet we are to heed the commandments of Christ if we want to be
Christian, meaning followers of Christ, for only those seeking to do the
will of the Father which is in heaven will find redemption in Christ
shedding His blood for them.
The underlying theme of the gospels is the conflict between Jesus and the
religious leaders of Judaism. Jesus defied them, cursed them, contradicted
their teachings and their rituals, and warned his followers against them, as
He thought their teachings insidious, and like yeast able to infect the
entire populace. He warned people to be on guard against the leavening of
the Jewish religious establishment, as it would prevented them from entering
the Kingdom of Heaven.
As a direct result of those perceived heresies the Jews arranged to have
jetgraphics
past 12/3 for some reason. I am using Google's reader for this response.
>> OmegaTime wrote:
> No question was avoided. The scriptural denouncement of usury is found in
> many sections of the bible.
But the question was, if those in power in the earlier eras saw it
advantageous to change the definition of USURY, then why did they not
change the bible also? I see no response to this question, therefore the
question was avoided.
[JG] Apparently, someone DID change the definition of usury to allow it.
From NIV:
Ezekiel 18:13
He lends at usury and takes excessive interest. Will such a man live? He
will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he will surely
be put to death and his blood will be on his own head.
Note that usury is now "excessive interest", instead of gain (interest).
KJV Reference:
/Ezek 18:13/ Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he
then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall
surely die; his blood shall be upon him.
- - - -
> Actually, the "worth" of the dollar bill, since 1933, has been "no par
> value". That's nothing RIGHT NOW. A federal reserve note is not a dollar.
> No judge will ever rule that it is. (I asked a few, myself).
So why not just reply, "Agreed"?
[JG] Because the "dollar bill" is a misnomer. A federal reserve note, though
paper, is not the same as a certificate of deposit (silver or gold
certificate "dollar bill"). Accuracy prevents confusion. A tender of a
certificate is legal tender in all cases. A tender of a repudiated note is
only legal if the creditor is the obligated party (via enrollment into
social security).
> That's incorrect reasoning. That which is traded, goods and labor, are
> increasing, but they ARE finite. The supply of money tokens, though
equally
> finite, are not increasing in proportion, thus straining the system.
No matter how many words you capitalize, it doesn't change my logic.
Money tokens may be limited, but only by the money regulators (ie: the
Federal Reserve).
[JG] Federal Reserve Corporation is not a "regulator". It's a private bank,
acting for other banks, who own the stock of the banks, etc., etc. And no,
it's not part of the U.S. government. See white pages. The Federal Reserve
is not listed in the blue government directory pages.
Thus, when more money tokens are introduced into the
market, inflation occurs.
[JG] Money tokens aren't "introduced". Each and every one is borrowed, at
usury, into existance. Each new emission requires Congress to increase the
deficit. Modern inflation has not been "too much money chasing too few
goods". But that's a topic far from the current one, and I will demur.
Because the dollar has been sold down in value.
[JG] The silver dollar (1789) is still one dollar (2004). The Federal
Reserve note (no par value) has no par value with regard to real money.
It's a repudiated note. If it wasn't for the millions who are signed up
with national socialism, the notes couldn't circulate as legal tender.
If you are a farmer growing grain and need a tractor to harvest your
grain. I have tractors, I'm sure you would be willing to trade some
amount of grain for a tractor.
[JG] Barter is one means of trade. However, most if not all use current
monies as their guideline. And since the current monies are based upon the
fraud of usury, it's a slippery standard at best. For example, if one
really priced things in "dollars" and not notes, the actual price would be
1/20 to 1/50 of the current price. A 20,000 frn car would cost 1000
dollars, silver.
> But that explanation doesn't dispute that USURY was an abomination.
> Nor does it negate the fact that Jesus whipped the USURERS from the
temple.
Never implied that it did. It was the reason that Jesus whipped the
usurers from the temple. Before Jesus came, sin was defined by what was
written in the bible. After Jesus was crucified, sin has been crushed by
the believer.
Cite, the thief at the cross. The thief had sinned, no doubt by what was
written the thief had sinned. Because he only believed in Jesus as the
Son of God, Jesus said, 'Today we will be in paradise.'
[JG] I think it was more than just "belief" in Him. If I recall, the thief
didn't condemn those who were crucifying him (forgiveness) and was
contrite.
However, while alive, He did whip the usurers from the temple.
> As long as the Bible says usury is evil, a good God cannot command his
> followers to do evil. To do so, would be against His nature. Much in the
> same vein, one cannot do good, by evil means. The end DOES NOT justify the
> means. Beating the devil with evil, is a win for the "other side".
Evil is conceived in the hearts of men. If men conceive that God
commanded them to do evil, then they are mistaken. You are right. Yet in
this parable of God as the master - he states in essence, 'You did
nothing with my money except buried it, I might as well given it to the
usurers that it might increase.' He commanded nobody to give it to
usury, he made a statement that made the impacted point, 'You failed to
do your job as my servant.'
[JG] That's incorrect.
Matthew 25:24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord,
I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown,
and gathering where thou has not strawed: And I was afraid, and went and
hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine. His lord
answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest
that I reap where I sow not, and gather where I have not strawed: Thou
oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my
coming I should have received mine own with usury.
Of course the NLT sanitizes the "usury":
Matt 25:24 "Then the servant with the one bag of gold came and said, `Sir, I
know you are a hard man, harvesting crops you didn't plant and gathering
crops you didn't cultivate. I was afraid I would lose your money, so I hid
it in the earth and here it is.'
"But the master replied, `You wicked and lazy servant! You think I'm a hard
man, do you, harvesting crops I didn't plant and gathering crops I didn't
cultivate? Well, you should at least have put my money into the bank so I
could have some interest.
But then look at what Ezekiel 18:13 changes into:
"and lends money at interest. Should such a sinful person live? No! He must
die and must take full blame." (NLT)
Or NIV:
Ezekiel 18:13
" He lends at usury and takes excessive interest. Will such a man live? He
will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he will surely
be put to death and his blood will be on his own head."
- Contemporary English Version:
" and charges high interest when lending money. An evil man like that will
certainly not live. He is the one who has done these horrible sins, so it's
his own fault that he will be put to death." (CEV)
For reference on the "change" in the definition of "legal usury":
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-693709,00.html
"The Aristotelian view of money as a "barren" means of exchange was
developed by Aquinas and not liberalised for centuries. The Roman Catholic
Church opposed usury, as did Luther and other Protestant reformers, with
the exception of Calvin.
Civil law broke away from canon law on this issue in England in 1571 and
moderate interest could be charged."
Isn't that interesting? For 1,571 years, usury was evil. Suddenly secular
law said it wasn't.
---
re: Catholic Church
http://www.acton.org/publicat/randl/article.php?id=124
"Christ's parable of the talents, in which the unenterprising servant does
not use the money entrusted to him profitably, and did not at least invest
it with bankers (Matt. 25:27), was disregarded by most Catholics."
"....In the period between the two World Wars, the old ban on usury,
officially lifted only in 1918..."
For the Catholic Church, usury was banned for 1,918 years.
---
Another reference:
http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp?number=370009
"Throughout much of Church history, usury (exacting of interest on money
that has been loaned) was condemned, in keeping with the general belief
that only the amount loaned should be repaid. The condemnation was
established first in the Old Testament with the prohibition proclaimed in
Exodus (22:25) and Deuteronomy (23:19). It was also the subject of
examination by Aristotle who argued the theory of the "barrenness" of money
as nothing more than a medium of exchange. On this basis, Christian
theologians, in particular St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologiae,
proposed that as it is purely a medium of exchange for good and articles
intended for consumption, the attachment of interest was a sin against
commutative justice. Money that was loaned did not have the assumed sense
of investment opportunities that is common today, and a loan implied that
the money would not be used for any other purpose. Attaching interest was
thus seen to be improper as it was, presumably, not needed.
Early Church councils at Arles (314) and Nicaea (325) made it illegal for
clerics to attach interest to loans. The prohibition was extended to
laypeople by the first council of Carthage (348) and the council of Aix
(789). Formal condemnation of usury was passed by the third Lateran Council
(1179) and the second Council of Lyons (1274)."
-----
From Wikipedia
"Usury (in the original sense of any interest) is scriptually and
doctrinally forbidden in many religions. Judaism forbids a Jew to lend at
interest to another Jew. It's forbidden in Islam. The most recent Catholic
teaching on usury is by Pope Benedict XIV in his Vix Pervenit from 1745
which strictly forbids the practice, though many Jews, Catholics and
Muslims break their own laws in this matter.
While Jewish law forbids the charging of interest to another Jew, Jews are
not forbidden to charge interest on transactions to non-Jews. Throughout
history, the interest attached to loans by Jews to non-Jews is widely
considered to have been a central issue in causing a perception of usury,
and contributing to a climate of anti-Semitism: Forceful confiscations of
property, and discrimination toward Jews in business practice."
---------------------------------
"...though many Jews, Catholics and Muslims break their own laws in this
matter."
---------------------------------
Need more be said?
Aaron
wrote:
>"Aaron" <an...@home.net> wrote in message
>news:n3g2r09t2e5t04m30...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Frank, there are no such things as "palestinians." The racist
>> invaders of Israel to whom you refer are not Jewish and therefore the
>> religious court has no authority over them. The civil courts do have
>> authority to deport these illegal aliens who inveded the Jewish
>> homelend after the end of the Brittish occupation of Israel.
>>
> Nobody believes that idiotic propaganda, that Israel was uninhabited
>land ever since Rome expelled the Jews 2000 years ago. See below for the
>truth.
Frank, by "here" you can only mean in the little room you are in. Of
course you have already displayed the fact that you are both stupid
and insane. so, this is no surprise.
>
>Pastor Frank
>
Aaron
This takes just a few minutes to read. It makes sense and it's not
slanted.
1. Nationhood and Jerusalem: Israel became a nation in 1737 BCE, two
thousand years before the rise of Islam.
2. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a
Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the
modern State of Israel.
3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1472 BCE, the Jews have had dominion
over the land for one thousand years with a continuous presence in the
land for the past 3,300 years.
4. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 CE lasted no more
than 22 years.
5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital.
Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity.
Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make
it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit.
6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy
Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran.
7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to
Jerusalem.
8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward
Jerusalem.
9. According to the Koran, Al Aksa mosque is not even on earth, it is
the farthest place in the universe where the name of Alah is praised.
The building that is now called "Al Aksa" is the ruins of the "Shrine
of Saint Mary," formerly a Catholic church.
10. Arab and Jewish Refugees In 1948: The Arab refugees were
encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land
of Jews. Sixty-eight percent left without ever seeing an Israeli
soldier.
11. Historically Israel was 60% Jewish in 1920 under the British
occupancy of Israel, before Jewish immigration from Europe and Asia,
back to Israel began.
12. The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to
Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms.
13. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated
to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands
is estimated to be the same.
14. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into
the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory.
Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only
refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated
into their own peoples' lands. Jewish refugees were completely
absorbed into Israel, a country no larger than the state of New
Jersey.
15. The Arab-Israeli Conflict: The Arabs are represented by eight
separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one
Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost.
Israel defended itself each time and won.
16. The PLO's charter still calls for the destruction of the State of
Israel. Israel has given the Palestinians most of the West Bank land,
autonomy under the Palestinian Authority, and has supplied them with
weapons.
17. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the
Jews were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all
Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to
people of all faiths.
18. The UN Record on Israel and the Arabs of the 175 Security Council
resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel.
19. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429
were directed against Israel.
20. The UN was silent while 58 Jerusalem Synagogues were destroyed by
the Jordanians.
21. The UN was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated
the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives.
22. The UN was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like
policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the
Western Wall.
These are incredible times. We have to ask what our role should be.
What will we tell our grandchildren we did when there was a turning
point in Jewish destiny, an opportunity to make a difference?
bckwrds
No, I believe that Jesus is my true Father. And I also believe that Jesus
is the son of God. And where is God's laws? In the Old Testiment.
You are one sicko person, PF. Some day I pray you not only see but
learn the truth.
Pastor Frank
> On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 08:27:20 +0800, "Pastor Frank" <P...@christfirst.com>
> wrote:
> >"Aaron" <an...@home.net> wrote in message
> >news:i840r0prb29qijfka...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> Frank you keep denying what Jesus taught and calling it "Judaism."
> >> Do you actually think that all Christians are anti-Semitic enough to
> >> automatically reject the Gospel just because you call it "Judaism"?
> >> Silly Racist! You sound like you would reject Jesus Himself just
> >> because He is Jewish.
> >>
> > Do you mean like Jews rejecting all Germans because Hitler was a
German?
>
> Frank, sonce this has not happened your lie has not value.
>
> >At least Germans are repentant of their holocaust of the Jews, but Jews
are
> >still proud of their genocide of their fellow Semites, the entire native
> >population of Israel, in fact "all that breatheth", which was a holocaust
of
> >gigantic proportions.
>
> Another lie. Israel was invaded by Arabs in 1948 after the end of the
> Brittish occupation of Israel. Yet you want to pretend that these
> invaders were in Israel before they entered Israel on their mission of
> genicide. The Muslim attampt to commit a seconf holocaust was
> thwarted by God. Frabnk since you oppse God in other matters it is no
> wonder that you oppse Him in this.
>
holocaust of all times, by killing "all that breatheth" in an entire country
and are still proud of it to this day. See below and learn
Pastor Frank
Deuteronomy 20:16-17 But of the cities of these people, which the Lord
thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing
that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them; the Hittites, and the
Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites
as the Lord thy God has commanded thee."
Ezekiel 32:5 "I will strew your flesh upon the mountains, and fill the
valleys with your carcass. I will drench the land even to the mountains with
your flowing blood..."
Ezekiel 9:5 "Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall
not spare and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and
maidens, little children and women...'"
Deut. 7:1 (KJV)When Yahweh your god has settled you in the land you're
about to occupy, and driven out many infidels before you...you're to cut
them down and exterminate them. You're to make no compromise with
them nor show them any mercy.
Joshua 10:40 - BBE So Joshua struck all the land, the hill-country, and
the South, and the lowland, and the slopes, and all their kings: he left
none remaining, but he utterly destroyed all that breathed, as God, the God
of Israel, commanded."
1 Samuel 15:3 - BBE Now go and strike Amalek, and utterly destroy all
that they have, and don't spare them; but kill both man and woman, infant
and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."
Isaiah 13:16 - BBE Their infants also will be dashed in pieces before
their eyes. Their houses will be ransacked, and their wives raped."
Hosea 13:16 - BBE Samaria will bear her guilt; For she has rebelled
against her God. They will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed
in pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open."
Moses in Numbers 31:17-18 Now therefore kill every male among the
little ones, and kill every woman, that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the female children, that have not known man by lying with him,
keep alive for yourself.
OmegaTime
This logic of this debate is backwards. The more you write, the more you
prove my point. The more I write, the more I find myself overlooking
critical words. But where my eyes deceive me the Spirit compensates. I
stand by the translation and definition of USURY - to mean excessive
interest. I stand by the meaning of the parable in Matthew 25
1.) You are 100% correct in regards to my last statement about Matthew
25 (that the master said, 'I should have...invested for interest'). It
does in fact read as you say, ('you should have...invested for interest').
a.) This tells me in fact that my interpretation of the parable
demonstrates that the master being God, defines that it is better to
invest for reasonable interest, than to bury your money tokens.
b.) Defining that nominal interest is not sin, excessive interest is.
I submit that lending money to the poor at higher than usual rates (not
necessarily excessive) is also within the definition of sin. I believe
it is wrong to lend my to any family member with any interest.
I believe your next assertion will be that I'm making the parable fit my
belief. No, I've had numerous Christians read and reread this same
parable. They read it the same as I do, without any input from me. They
interpret the 'whos' the same as I do. Since I've read this parable from
the first time, this was my interpretation.
2.) I submit that we were both wrong about usury. You stated a
definition to include any interest. I stated that the definition had
been changed to excessive interest. The problem is in the translation,
thus changing the definition.
a.) You cite translations of the bible that translate "usury" in the KJV
to "excessive interest" in the NIV, the NLT, and the CEV. I cited that
it is also termed as "excessive interest" in other translations such as
the MKJV, LITV, and WEB (Word English Bible).
b.) Translation is not easy, nor is it accurate. On the History Channel,
there was a show that asserts that the "Red Sea" of Exodus should have
been translated to the "Reed Sea". In my profession I have to deal with
many foreigners. Translation to technical terms is very difficult. The
task of explaining a "gear" to someone can turn into a two hour job. I
can say the word "gear" to someone who speaks English and they say, "Oh,
you mean a 'COG'".
Therefore, we (as Christians) are led by the Spirit to interpret the
intent and the spirit of intent.
To assert that there has been a conspiracy from the church to change the
bible or a group of conspirers with intent in nonlogical. Especially for
the reason of making the term "Usury" acceptable in society. The church
would then face the wrath of the Creator and for every sin thereafter
committed they would be held accountable. In other words, the one to
which they claimed to serve they would betray. To make this assertion,
we then have little chance for any truth, because there are special
interests in many areas (ie: Homosexuals). For a group of conspirers to
change the bible would require influence within the church and within
the publishers of Webster's dictionary.
I assert that the translation was never intended to mean "usual
interest", it was meant to be "excessive interest" from the beginning. I
think this was translation, not intentional by any means.
The writers of the other bible translations do their research before
printing. To suggest they print lies, then we are all condemned. Jesus
Christ is our only hope.
BTW, I do not attribute any credibility to websites with information or
the National Inquirer, Star, or any other publication which is known to
print contraversy for the increase in sales.
I could start a website, name it www.theabsolutetruth.org and fill it
with lies. I don't recognize any of the sites you listed as credible
sources of information. Not conveniently, because it's the truth.
jetgraphics
> Yes, there is a lot to be said. <snipped>
You agree with the modern interpretation of usury, and support and defend
gain / interest / usury. You claim "Spirit" supports your interpretation.
I agree with the older interpretation of usury, and denounce usury. I claim
"Spirit" supports mine.
Stalemate?
For most of the two thousand years of Christianity, usury was condemned.
Suddenly, "enlightened" men decide otherwise, and you concur.
(1) If usurers are innocent, then the prohibition was wrong.
(2) If usurers are guilty, then the prohibition was correct.
In case #1, then Ezekiel was wrong, as were the numerous cites that denounce
usury (any gain / increase).
In case #2, Ezekiel was right, as were the numerous cites that denounce
usury.
Which level of understanding is closer to the time in which scriptures
refer?
The past?
The present?
But there's a very good reason (mathematical) why usury IS abominable.
Let me illustrate with a parable:
Imagine a friendly poker game where each player gets 100 chips from the
host. But the host requests that you pay him 101 chips at the end of the
night, in gratitude for using his chips. And if you fail, you pledge
something of value for default.
As the night wears on, some win, some lose. The winners can pay, and depart.
But the folks who lost cannot pay the gratuity, the interest, the usury,
nor even repay the original capital. Each defaulter then forfeits his
property in lieu of the 101 chips (capital and interest). And worse, he
blames himself for his failures instead of the real culprit - usury!
Since the host knows that there is only a fixed amount of chips, the
requirement to pay usury is impossible for all players.
That is why usury is despicable, for it not only is impossible to pay, in a
finite money system, but the usurer wants the victim to be grateful that he
is allowed to grow back his skin - after being skinned alive!
---
Schemes to cheat are not moral!
I know how hard it is to open spiritual eyes to the abomination of usury. I
was trained to calculate present worth, annuities, and future worth. I
learned all the mechanics of banking. I accepted the propaganda that
investing for gain was good. It was a shock to realize that everything I
was taught ignored the basic fundamental issue of usury - that it IS evil,
and prohibited by scriptures of all major religions.
---
In regard to the New Testament, Luke 6:35 is a reference to lending without
expecting gain:
"But love ye your enemies, and do good, and LEND, hoping for nothing again;
and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the
Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil."
But what leads one to presume that "hoping for nothing" is in reference to
usury?
Ans: The preceding section -
Luke 6:34
"And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to RECEIVE, what thank have ye? for
sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again."
To engage in usury is a sin. To loan money and receive gain is usury.
--------------------
http://www.newsreview.com/issues/sacto/2001-07-19/news.asp
"Usury is [currently] defined as the act or practice of lending money for
interest above the legal or socially acceptable rate. The term seems
archaic and mostly irrelevant in the deregulated, free-market world of
payday loans. And it is even harder to fathom that for most of its history,
the word referred to the practice of charging any interest in excess of
the principal amount of a loan.
Historians trace the practice of usury back approximately 3,500 years, and
for the vast majority of that time, it has been repeatedly condemned,
scorned and prohibited for moral, ethical, religious and economic reasons.
Since well before biblical times, lending money for profit has been
essentially forbidden by the tenets of Christianity, Judaism, Islam,
Hinduism and Buddhism. "
- - -
Recent "change" in the definition of "legal usury":
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-693709,00.html
" The Aristotelian view of money as a "barren" means of exchange was
developed by Aquinas and not liberalised for centuries. The Roman Catholic
Church opposed usury, as did Luther and other Protestant reformers, with
the exception of Calvin.
Civil law broke away from canon law on this issue in England in 1571
and moderate interest could be charged."
Isn't that interesting? For 1,571 years, usury was evil. Suddenly secular
law said it wasn't.
---
re: Catholic Church
http://www.acton.org/publicat/randl/article.php?id=124
"Christ's parable of the talents, in which the unenterprising servant does
not use the money entrusted to him profitably, and did not at least invest
it with bankers (Matt. 25:27), was disregarded by most Catholics."
"....In the period between the two World Wars, the old ban on usury,
officially lifted only in 1918..."
For the Catholic Church, usury was banned for 1,918 years. Even though they
were confused over the parable of the talents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury
Biblical injunctions against Usury
Exodus 22:25 If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee,
thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him
usury.
Leviticus 25:36 Take thou no usury of him, or increase: but fear thy God;
that thy brother may live with thee.
Leviticus 25:37 Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him
thy victuals for increase.
Deuteronomy 23:19 Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of
money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:
Deuteronomy 23:20 Unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury; but unto thy
brother thou shalt not lend upon usury: that the LORD thy God may bless
thee in all that thou settest thine hand to in the land whither thou goest
to possess it.
Nehemiah 5:7 Then I consulted with myself, and I rebuked the nobles, and the
rulers, and said unto them, Ye exact usury, every one of his brother. And I
set a great assembly against them.
Nehemiah 5:10 I likewise, and my brethren, and my servants, might exact of
them money and corn: I pray you, let us leave off this usury.
Psalm 15:5 He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward
against the innocent. He that doeth these things shall never be moved.
Proverbs 28:8 He that by usury and unjust gain increaseth his substance, he
shall gather it for him that will pity the poor.
Isaiah 24:2 And it shall be, as with the people, so with the priest; as with
the servant, so with his master; as with the maid, so with her mistress; as
with the buyer, so with the seller; as with the lender, so with the
borrower; as with the taker of usury, so with the giver of usury to him.
Jeremiah 15:10 Woe is me, my mother, that thou hast borne me a man of strife
and a man of contention to the whole earth! I have neither lent on usury,
nor men have lent to me on usury; yet every one of them doth curse me.
Ezekiel 18:8 He that hath not given forth upon usury, neither hath taken any
increase, that hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, hath executed true
judgment between man and man,
Ezekiel 18:13 Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he
then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall
surely die; his blood shall be upon him.
Ezekiel 18:17 That hath taken off his hand from the poor, that hath not
received usury nor increase, hath executed my judgments, hath walked in my
statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely
live.
Ezekiel 22:12 In thee have they taken gifts to shed blood; thou hast taken
usury and increase, and thou hast greedily gained of thy neighbours by
extortion, and hast forgotten me, saith the Lord GOD.
Quranic injunctions against Usury
Al-Baqarah 2:275 Those who charge usury are in the same position as those
controlled by the devil's influence. This is because they claim that usury
is the same as commerce. However, God permits commerce, and prohibits
usury. Thus, whoever heeds this commandment from his Lord, and refrains
from usury, he may keep his past earnings, and his judgment rests with God.
As for those who persist in usury, they incur Hell, wherein they abide
forever
Al-Baqarah 2:276-280 God condemns usury, and blesses charities. God dislikes
every disbeliever, guilty. O you who believe, you shall observe God and
refrain from all kinds of usury, if you are believers. If you do not, then
expect a war from God and His messenger. But if you repent, you may keep
your capitals, without inflicting injustice, or incurring injustice. If the
debtor is unable to pay, wait for a better time. If you give up the loan as
a charity, it would be better for you, if you only knew.
Al-'Imran 3:130 O you who believe, you shall not take usury, compounded over
and over. Observe God, that you may succeed.
Al-Nisa 4:161 And for practicing usury, which was forbidden, and for
consuming the people's money illicitly. We have prepared for the
disbelievers among them painful retribution.
Ar-Rum 30:39 The usury that is practiced to increase some people's wealth,
does not gain anything at God. But if you give to charity, seeking God's
pleasure, these are the ones who receive their reward many fold.
OmegaTime
> OmegaTime wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, there is a lot to be said. <snipped>
>
>
> You agree with the modern interpretation of usury, and support and defend
> gain / interest / usury. You claim "Spirit" supports your interpretation.
Interest that is allowed by law and within a reasonable rates. Defining
reasonable I suggest to be less than 20% based on my own moral judgment.
> I agree with the older interpretation of usury, and denounce usury. I claim
> "Spirit" supports mine.
>
> Stalemate?
Agree - stalemate.
Pastor Frank
Please post flames and Judaism to the right NGs, not our pristine Christian
one's. I will post you over to some
Pastor Frank
> "Pastor Frank" <P...@christfirst.com> wrote in message
> news:1102314261.00dfe88fd597e0ec1be1aa437f320378@teranews...
> >
> > impostor and a fraud. Do you? See below
>
> No, I believe that Jesus is my true Father. And I also believe that Jesus
> is the son of God. And where is God's laws? In the Old Testiment.
> You are one sicko person, PF. Some day I pray you not only see but
> learn the truth.
>
beliieve you on your word alone? If you want to make sense you need to
reference what you say to the Bible. Read the below and comment for or
against it.
The Last Liberal
wrote:
> "Aaron" <an...@home.net> wrote in message
> news:u6r8r01olk9lj4uu5...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 18:48:56 +0800, "Pastor Frank" <P...@christfirst.com>
> > wrote:
> > >"Aaron" <an...@home.net> wrote in message
> > >news:n3g2r09t2e5t04m30...@4ax.com...
> > >> Frank, there are no such things as "palestinians." The racist
> > >> invaders of Israel to whom you refer are not Jewish and therefore the
> > >> religious court has no authority over them. The civil courts do have
> > >> authority to deport these illegal aliens who inveded the Jewish
> > >> homelend after the end of the Brittish occupation of Israel.
"Invaders of Israel?!" LOL! Funny!
> > > Nobody believes that idiotic propaganda, that Israel was uninhabited
> > > land ever since Rome expelled the Jews 2000 years ago. See below for the
> > > truth.
> > Frank, by "here" you can only mean in the little room you are in. Of
> > course you have already displayed the fact that you are both stupid
> > and insane. so, this is no surprise.
> That's flaming Aaron and tells us you have reached your mental limit.
You haven't shown any saner behavior, "Pastor Frank."
"Every Scientologist on the planet praises 'the bridge,' but not one has
crossed over it. Now brother, *that's* brainwashing." -- Gerry Armstrong
Aaron
Liberal) wrote:
>On Tue, 7 Dec 2004 12:56:58 +0800, "Pastor Frank" <P...@christfirst.com>
>wrote:
>
>> "Aaron" <an...@home.net> wrote in message
>> news:u6r8r01olk9lj4uu5...@4ax.com...
>
>> > On Sun, 5 Dec 2004 18:48:56 +0800, "Pastor Frank" <P...@christfirst.com>
>> > wrote:
>
>> > >"Aaron" <an...@home.net> wrote in message
>> > >news:n3g2r09t2e5t04m30...@4ax.com...
>
>> > >> Frank, there are no such things as "palestinians." The racist
>> > >> invaders of Israel to whom you refer are not Jewish and therefore the
>> > >> religious court has no authority over them. The civil courts do have
>> > >> authority to deport these illegal aliens who inveded the Jewish
>> > >> homelend after the end of the Brittish occupation of Israel.
>
>"Invaders of Israel?!" LOL! Funny!
You may find the facts funny, but ther are historically accurate.
Aaron
wrote:
Frank according to the Old Testament, It was GOD who drove the Pagans
from Israel. You are giving the Jews credit for God's work. I have
corrected your anti-Semitic, Anti-Jesus twisting of the verses below
on several occasions. Since you keep reposting the same lies, I had
the foresight to save the text so I can "cut-and-paste" too.
Please pay attaention this time.
>
>Pastor Frank
>
> Deuteronomy 20:16-17 But of the cities of these people, which the Lord
>thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing
>that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them; the Hittites, and the
>Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites
>as the Lord thy God has commanded thee."
So, the Bible makes it clear that there were NO "palestinians" in
Israel. Good; that means that they have no legal claim to Israeli
land today. That having been esablished lets look at the rest of
your position.
Didn't you even read this before you posted it? It directly says
that God Himself commanded the execution of the idolater who occupied
Israel.
You want to condemn Israel for what God COMMANDED?????
You are calling God's actions evil.
Are you a Satanist???
> Ezekiel 32:5 "I will strew your flesh upon the mountains, and fill the
>valleys with your carcass. I will drench the land even to the mountains with
>your flowing blood..."
Yes, this is part ot the message that God sent to the Pharoah of
Egypt. Are you trying to call God "evil"???
Frank, I thought you were an Atheist, but you sound like a Satanist.
> Ezekiel 9:5 "Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall
>not spare and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and
>maidens, little children and women...'"
Yes, God did command an angel to slay any Jew who had converted to any
religion other than Judaism.
What exactly is your point? You claimed that these verses were about
the Jews taking action against a people which did not exist when these
books of the Bible were written. Your claim was foolish to begin
with, but your quotes make no sence at all. Did you think that people
would be too stupid to look up the verses to see if you were taking
quotes out of context, or maybe even making things up completely? if
so, you were wrong. You have been caught attempting to use the Word
of God to promote your lie.
> Deut. 7:1 (KJV)When Yahweh your god has settled you in the land you're
>about to occupy, and driven out many infidels before you...you're to cut
>them down and exterminate them. You're to make no compromise with
>them nor show them any mercy.
Are you sure that the King Jimmy Translation calls the Pagans
"Infidels"?? You are using Islamic terminiology that does not apply
to these Pagans. Since the Pagan nations never knew God, they could
not be unfaithful (infidel) to Him. The Bible calls them "Goyim,"
which is Hebrew for "nations/Pagans."
Additionally, the actual Bible uses the word "brit" where you have
typed "compromise." "Brit" means "covenant." So, God forbid Israel,
His People, from making a deal with pagans. You could apply this to
today's situation meaning that God forbids Muslims from living in
Israel and forbids anyone who believes in God from making a peace
treaty that allows these pagans to take any Israeli land.
> Joshua 10:40 - BBE So Joshua struck all the land, the hill-country, and
>the South, and the lowland, and the slopes, and all their kings: he left
>none remaining, but he utterly destroyed all that breathed, as God, the God
>of Israel, commanded."
So, God commanded all the pagans to be exected for defiling His land
and attempting to take it away from the Jews. God is the one in
charge of the Universe, so He can do that. To proove this fact, in
Joshua 10:12, God allows Joshua to issue a command to the Sun that it
stop in the sky until the battle was completed and then God caused the
Sun to obey Joshua's command. Obviously Joshua was nothing more than
a servant of God. Joshua obeyed God. It was God who decreed the
deaths of the Pagans who were living in Israel before the Jews took
possesion of the land that God gave to the Jews for all time. I would
not argue with God. Do you actually hate the Jews enough to claim God
sinned by ordering them to destroy these pagans? If so, go tell God
that you think that He is evil. LOL. We are all tired of hearing you
make these silly accusations against God.
> 1 Samuel 15:3 - BBE Now go and strike Amalek, and utterly destroy all
>that they have, and don't spare them; but kill both man and woman, infant
>and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."
Frank, you left off verse 2.
"So Said HaShem, Master of Legions: 'I have remembered what Amalek did
to Israel - the ambush he emplaced against him on the way as he went
up from Egypt"
So you are complaining about something that God did!
If you don't like God or think that He has committed any evil action,
take it up with Him when you go to be judged, but don't blame the Jews
for what God said and did. Personally, I trust God, and believe that
since He commanded it, it must have been the right thing.
> Isaiah 13:16 - BBE Their infants also will be dashed in pieces before
>their eyes. Their houses will be ransacked, and their wives raped."
LOL
So, now you are blaming the Jews for what Darius the Meade did!
Frank, God chose to pay back Babylon for what they did to the Jews.
However he did not want to make the Jews do it. The Jews were/are not
violent enough to execute the sentance that God passed upon Babylon;
so, God made the Meades destroy Babylon. Haven't you bothered to read
the Bible?
> Hosea 13:16 - BBE Samaria will bear her guilt; For she has rebelled
>against her God. They will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed
>in pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open."
Yes, the Jews in Samaria were horribly treated by the Assyrians. And
Yes, this happened because they stoped practicing Judaism and adopted
Pagan worship. I am not sure how this is supposed to illustrate Jews
hurting anyone since the Jews were the ones being hurt and killed.
Did you even bother to read the chapter before using this quote? Of
course we also know that Got destroyed Assyria for doing this - just
chek a political map of the world, and you will see that Assyria is
not there anymore.
> Moses in Numbers 31:17-18 Now therefore kill every male among the
>little ones, and kill every woman, that hath known man by lying with him.
>But all the female children, that have not known man by lying with him,
>keep alive for yourself.
In Numbers 31:2, God ordered the execution of the Midianites; in
versees 17 & 18, Moses had to rebuke the Jews for being too merciful.
Frank, the Bible is full of incidents where the Jews are too merciful
to their enemies, just as we see today in the modern nation of Israel.
OmegaTime
> "OmegaTime" <craj...@Alpha.net> wrote in message
> news:M5OdnfWmHtA...@adelphia.com...
>
> The amount of interest, like the cost of everything else is always
> "excessive", and that's why we always look for bargains. So what is your
> point?
Frank,
A quick rundown of this thread branch.
Jet, I'm not trying to speak for you, just summarizing.
The point here was the definition of usury. Jetgraphics and I were
debating whether usury was defined as 'any interest' or 'excessive
interest'.
Throughout the old testament, usury is declared as an abomination to
God. Without doubt, Jetgraphics is correct in this manor. Following the
discussion, I am and clearly claim to be a Christian saved by the blood
of Jesus Christ, born again, and assured of my salvation.
Jetgraphics was pointing out, 'How can I claim to be a follower of
Christ and continue usury with even a .5% checking account?' Usury is
the gain of any interest on monies by his / her definition.
The definition by Webster's dictionary is to mean 'excessive interest'
in it's modern day term. But Jetgraphics has a valid point, at one time
usury was defined to mean 'any interest'. He / she claims the definition
was changed for the gains of those which would benefit the most from the
practice of usury.
Jet pointed out Jesus threw out the usurers from the temple (KJV).
My point was that the exchange of money at the unreasonable rates they
were charging was unacceptable and at the temple was the point Jesus was
so against.
Therefore, Jet inferred (beleiving usury to mean 'any interest') that
anyone practicing usury (to mean any form of interest) continues to sin
without repentance. Thus, how can they be a Christian?
Some translations of the bible state usury to mean 'excessive interest.'
Some translations state it to mean 'any form of interest.' Therefore, I
feel the problem is in translation.
In the process I pointed out the parable of Matthew 25. I feel in this
parable that God is the master. When the master gets to the third
servant, he calls the servant 'evil and slothful' and the master states
that 'he would have been better off having the servant give the money to
usury for gain.'
Jet disagrees with my interpretation of the parable. God is not the
master of the parable, because God would not command anyone to 'sin'.
My point is regardless, my sins are forgiven: past, present, and future.
We could not agree, thus we agreed to disagree.
> What someone wants to rent out his money, a car, an apartment or video
> disks, is irrelevant. The only thing relevant is what someone is willing to
> pay for it. I want a million bucks for my house, but I know I would only get
> a small fraction of that.
> But more serious. When I am old and live on what I get from renting out
> my life-savings, I will I pray to God, that someone will want to borrow it
> at a decent rate, so I can pay my bills. If interest is low I'll starve. So
> don't tell pensioners, that government etc. should use force to keep
> interests low. Government already does enough damage by running their money
> printing machines over-time, creating a constant over-supply of brand new,
> freshly printed and cheap Dollars.
I'm with you on the interest rate when I'm older. And I agree on the
government degrading the value of the dollar. I also agree on the return
for my investments and the value to which someone will pay.
The bible points out in the old testament that gain from usury is an
abomination. Whether you take this to mean 'any interest' or 'excessive
interest' is debatable depending on which translation you use.
> Pastor Frank
>
> The most important, yet most ignored commandments of Christ:
> THE ROYAL LAW OF CHRIST
> **Jesus in Mk 12:30: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy
> heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy
> strength: this is the first commandment.
> **31: And the second is alike, namely this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour
> as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
> **Jesus in Mat 22:40 "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two
> commandments."
> THE GOLDEN RULE OF CHRIST
> Jesus in Matt. 7:12: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men
> should do to you, do ye even so to them...."
>
>
If you follow the thread back, I think you'll find what I've said to be
true. This is my side, Jet may have a different view. Jump in Jet if I
am mistaken, I have made one mistake before, but then I only thought I
was mistaken...LOL.
Pastor Frank
news:M5OdnfWmHtA...@adelphia.com...
>
> This logic of this debate is backwards. The more you write, the more you
> prove my point. The more I write, the more I find myself overlooking
> critical words. But where my eyes deceive me the Spirit compensates. I
> stand by the translation and definition of USURY - to mean excessive
> interest. I stand by the meaning of the parable in Matthew 25
>
"excessive", and that's why we always look for bargains. So what is your
point?
disks, is irrelevant. The only thing relevant is what someone is willing to
pay for it. I want a million bucks for my house, but I know I would only get
a small fraction of that.
But more serious. When I am old and live on what I get from renting out
my life-savings, I will I pray to God, that someone will want to borrow it
at a decent rate, so I can pay my bills. If interest is low I'll starve. So
don't tell pensioners, that government etc. should use force to keep
interests low. Government already does enough damage by running their money
printing machines over-time, creating a constant over-supply of brand new,
freshly printed and cheap Dollars.
Pastor Frank
Pastor Frank
> Pastor Frank wrote:
> >
> > The amount of interest, like the cost of everything else is always
> > "excessive", and that's why we always look for bargains. So what is your
> > point?
>
> true. This is my side, Jet may have a different view. Jump in Jet if I
> am mistaken, I have made one mistake before, but then I only thought I
> was mistaken...LOL.
>
finite, for it was precious metal. Now that the supply of money is mere
paper it's unlimited and now usury does not apply unless the supply of
currency becomes again finite.
Pastor Frank
**Jesus in Jn:16:2-3 They shall put you out of their houses of worship: Yea,
the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God
service. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known
the Father, nor me.
Pastor Frank
Jesus in Mt:25:27: Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the
exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with
usury.
Jesus in Lk:19:23: Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the
bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?
Pastor Frank
> On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 22:40:37 +0800, "Pastor Frank" <P...@christfirst.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > There you go again calling OT a lie. Jews committed the most gigantic
> >holocaust of all times, by killing "all that breatheth" in an entire
country
> >and are still proud of it to this day. See below and learn
>
> Frank according to the Old Testament, It was GOD who drove the Pagans
> from Israel.
>
killed near "all that breatheth" with a great flood.
I think you are just spreading lies for Satan. See below who did the
killing, and don't keep on lying in our pristine Christian NGs.
Pastor Frank
Deuteronomy 20:16-17 But of the cities of these people, which the Lord
thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing
that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them; the Hittites, and the
Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites
as the Lord thy God has commanded thee."
Ezekiel 32:5 "I will strew your flesh upon the mountains, and fill the
valleys with your carcass. I will drench the land even to the mountains with
your flowing blood..."
Ezekiel 9:5 "Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall
not spare and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and
maidens, little children and women...'"
Deut. 7:1 (KJV)When Yahweh your god has settled you in the land you're
about to occupy, and driven out many infidels before you...you're to cut
them down and exterminate them. You're to make no compromise with
them nor show them any mercy.
Joshua 10:40 - BBE So Joshua struck all the land, the hill-country, and
the South, and the lowland, and the slopes, and all their kings: he left
none remaining, but he utterly destroyed all that breathed, as God, the God
of Israel, commanded."
1 Samuel 15:3 - BBE Now go and strike Amalek, and utterly destroy all
that they have, and don't spare them; but kill both man and woman, infant
and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."
Isaiah 13:16 - BBE Their infants also will be dashed in pieces before
their eyes. Their houses will be ransacked, and their wives raped."
Hosea 13:16 - BBE Samaria will bear her guilt; For she has rebelled
against her God. They will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed
in pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open."
OmegaTime
> You are not mistaken, but that was said, when the supply of money was
> finite, for it was precious metal. Now that the supply of money is mere
> paper it's unlimited and now usury does not apply unless the supply of
> currency becomes again finite.
And this was another area to which we discussed. The monetary system is
not an area that I pretend to be highly educated in. This to me kinda
says what the value of a dollar is. A printing press and some paper. But
I don't place my values in this world.
> Pastor Frank
>
> **Jesus in Jn:16:2-3 They shall put you out of their houses of worship: Yea,
> the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God
> service. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known
> the Father, nor me.
> Pastor Frank
Sounds like terrorism to me.
> Jesus in Mt:25:27: Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the
> exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with
> usury.
> Jesus in Lk:19:23: Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the
> bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?
Again, I believe we are in agreement here.
jetgraphics
> You are not mistaken, but that was said, when the supply of money was
> finite, for it was precious metal. Now that the supply of money is mere
> paper it's unlimited and now usury does not apply unless the supply of
> currency becomes again finite.
>
> Pastor Frank
Incorrect assumption. The "supply of money" is not unlimited. According to
Title 12 United States code, Sec. 411, EVERY federal reserve note (FRN) is
an obligation of the U.S. to pay REAL MONEY (silver or gold dollars).
In 1933, the Government repudiated their debt, making the notes unredeemable
for real money. In 1935, the Federal Insurance Contribution Act (Social
Security) made every participant (duly numbered) into a surety upon that
debt, allowing the government to continue operations, in a state of
emergency due to their bankruptcy.
Since ALL FRNs are borrowed, at interest, they are not unlimited, nor can
they ever be redeemed, since the money doesn't exist to pay the interest
and principle. That's usury at work.
The national debt is a burden upon every national socialist, who is pledged
as a surety upon that debt. Without the pledged property (human resources),
the IMF would not grant Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) to the United States
government.
It's no coincidence that if one is not a participant in Social Security, one
is not allowed to engage in usury with a member bank of the federal reserve
corporation, nor open a stock account. Furthermore, one is not a "person
liable" for the individual income tax on wages.
refences:
Title 12 United States Code Sec. 411 ?The [Federal Reserve notes] shall be
obligations of the United States and shall be receivable by all national and
member banks and Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other
public dues.... Federal Reserve Notes ... shall be redeemed in LAWFUL MONEY
on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of
Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal reserve bank".
LAWFUL MONEY - "The terms 'lawful money' and 'lawful money of the
United States' shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the
United States..." Title 12 USC Sec. 152.
House Joint Resolution 192, March 1933, suspended the redemption of FRNs
with real money. FRNs have no par value (worthless).
?Dollars, or units; each to be of the value of a Spanish milled as the same
is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and
four-sixteenths parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains
of standard, silver." Sec. 9, Coinage Act of 1792, January 1792.
According to Title 31 of the U.S. code:
Section 5112. Denominations, specifications, and design of coins
(e)(1) ...weight 31.103 grams;
(e)(4) have inscriptions ... 1 Oz. Fine Silver ... One Dollar.
[NOTE: 3/4 troy ounce = one ounce avoirdupois = 31.103 gms.]
Conclusion: A silver dollar of 1792 and of 2004 are still identical in
composition and value. A federal reserve note (dollar bill) is worthless,
since the obligated party, the United States, won't redeem them. However,
those who are equally liable (contributors via FICA) are obligated to
accept these worthless IOUs, as tender in payment of debt. Those who are
not contributors (unnumbered Christians, for example) can object to their
tender.
Aaron
wrote:
>"Aaron" <an...@home.net> wrote in message
>news:qtocr09utakjsp6l5...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 22:40:37 +0800, "Pastor Frank" <P...@christfirst.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > There you go again calling OT a lie. Jews committed the most gigantic
>> >holocaust of all times, by killing "all that breatheth" in an entire
>country
>> >and are still proud of it to this day. See below and learn
>>
>> Frank according to the Old Testament, It was GOD who drove the Pagans
>> from Israel.
>>
> Show Biblical reference where God did that all by Himself, like He
>killed near "all that breatheth" with a great flood.
I Have posted the biblical references many times, but since they
disporrve your attempts to blame Israel for God's actions, you keep
snipping them from your replies. This is just one more instance of
your dishonesty.
> I think you are just spreading lies for Satan. See below who did the
>killing, and don't keep on lying in our pristine Christian NGs.
Frank, you know that I have already disproven what you post below, but
you keep posting it and lying. Don't worry though, I will answer
again. There can be no "pristine Christian NCs" as long as you keep
posting your accusations against God.
>
>Pastor Frank
>
>
> Deuteronomy 20:16-17 But of the cities of these people, which the Lord
>thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing
>that breatheth. But thou shalt utterly destroy them; the Hittites, and the
>Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites
>as the Lord thy God has commanded thee."
So, the Bible makes it clear that there were NO "palestinians" in
Israel. Good; that means that they have no legal claim to Israeli
land today. That having been esablished lets look at the rest of
your position.
Didn't you even read this before you posted it? It directly says
that God Himself commanded the execution of the idolater who occupied
Israel.
You want to condemn Israel for what God COMMANDED?????
You are calling God's actions evil.
Are you a Satanist???
> Ezekiel 32:5 "I will strew your flesh upon the mountains, and fill the
>valleys with your carcass. I will drench the land even to the mountains with
>your flowing blood..."
Yes, this is part ot the message that God sent to the Pharoah of
Egypt. Are you trying to call God "evil"???
Frank, I thought you were an Atheist, but you sound like a Satanist.
> Ezekiel 9:5 "Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall
>not spare and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and
>maidens, little children and women...'"
Yes, God did command an angel to slay any Jew who had converted to any
religion other than Judaism.
What exactly is your point? You claimed that these verses were about
the Jews taking action against a people which did not exist when these
books of the Bible were written. Your claim was foolish to begin
with, but your quotes make no sence at all. Did you think that people
would be too stupid to look up the verses to see if you were taking
quotes out of context, or maybe even making things up completely? if
so, you were wrong. You have been caught attempting to use the Word
of God to promote your lie.
> Deut. 7:1 (KJV)When Yahweh your god has settled you in the land you're
>about to occupy, and driven out many infidels before you...you're to cut
>them down and exterminate them. You're to make no compromise with
>them nor show them any mercy.
Are you sure that the King Jimmy Translation calls the Pagans
"Infidels"?? You are using Islamic terminiology that does not apply
to these Pagans. Since the Pagan nations never knew God, they could
not be unfaithful (infidel) to Him. The Bible calls them "Goyim,"
which is Hebrew for "nations/Pagans."
Additionally, the actual Bible uses the word "brit" where you have
typed "compromise." "Brit" means "covenant." So, God forbid Israel,
His People, from making a deal with pagans. You could apply this to
today's situation meaning that God forbids Muslims from living in
Israel and forbids anyone who believes in God from making a peace
treaty that allows these pagans to take any Israeli land.
> Joshua 10:40 - BBE So Joshua struck all the land, the hill-country, and
>the South, and the lowland, and the slopes, and all their kings: he left
>none remaining, but he utterly destroyed all that breathed, as God, the God
>of Israel, commanded."
So, God commanded all the pagans to be exected for defiling His land
and attempting to take it away from the Jews. God is the one in
charge of the Universe, so He can do that. To proove this fact, in
Joshua 10:12, God allows Joshua to issue a command to the Sun that it
stop in the sky until the battle was completed and then God caused the
Sun to obey Joshua's command. Obviously Joshua was nothing more than
a servant of God. Joshua obeyed God. It was God who decreed the
deaths of the Pagans who were living in Israel before the Jews took
possesion of the land that God gave to the Jews for all time. I would
not argue with God. Do you actually hate the Jews enough to claim God
sinned by ordering them to destroy these pagans? If so, go tell God
that you think that He is evil. LOL. We are all tired of hearing you
make these silly accusations against God.
> 1 Samuel 15:3 - BBE Now go and strike Amalek, and utterly destroy all
>that they have, and don't spare them; but kill both man and woman, infant
>and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."
Frank, you left off verse 2.
"So Said HaShem, Master of Legions: 'I have remembered what Amalek did
to Israel - the ambush he emplaced against him on the way as he went
up from Egypt"
So you are complaining about something that God did!
If you don't like God or think that He has committed any evil action,
take it up with Him when you go to be judged, but don't blame the Jews
for what God said and did. Personally, I trust God, and believe that
since He commanded it, it must have been the right thing.
> Isaiah 13:16 - BBE Their infants also will be dashed in pieces before
>their eyes. Their houses will be ransacked, and their wives raped."
LOL
So, now you are blaming the Jews for what Darius the Meade did!
Frank, God chose to pay back Babylon for what they did to the Jews.
However he did not want to make the Jews do it. The Jews were/are not
violent enough to execute the sentance that God passed upon Babylon;
so, God made the Meades destroy Babylon. Haven't you bothered to read
the Bible?
> Hosea 13:16 - BBE Samaria will bear her guilt; For she has rebelled
>against her God. They will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed
>in pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open."
Yes, the Jews in Samaria were horribly treated by the Assyrians. And
Yes, this happened because they stoped practicing Judaism and adopted
Pagan worship. I am not sure how this is supposed to illustrate Jews
hurting anyone since the Jews were the ones being hurt and killed.
Did you even bother to read the chapter before using this quote? Of
course we also know that Got destroyed Assyria for doing this - just
chek a political map of the world, and you will see that Assyria is
not there anymore.
> Moses in Numbers 31:17-18 Now therefore kill every male among the
>little ones, and kill every woman, that hath known man by lying with him.
>But all the female children, that have not known man by lying with him,
>keep alive for yourself.
In Numbers 31:2, God ordered the execution of the Midianites; in
Aaron
Jehovah Jirah is a place, specifically, the Temple mount in Jerusalem.
See Genesis 22:14.
OmegaTime
>
> Jehovah Jirah is a place, specifically, the Temple mount in Jerusalem.
> See Genesis 22:14.
>
Almighty one, Jehovah.
OmegaTime
Jehovahjireh is a place mentioned in Genesis.
Michael Ejercito
way.
You think?
Michael
Aaron
wrote:
Wrong.
The Bible specifically states that it is the name of a place.