Mandatory church attendance?

[Axehead]

Americans know that when the government gives you something, it is never free. Tax Exempt status, or having the status of a 501(c)3 organization is a privilege given by the US Government and not a right. The problem in America is that every time you apply for a so-called "privilege" from the US Government you are giving up some rights. You put yourself in a position of being controlled and manipulated by the government if you don't "play ball" with them.

Obamacare Targets Catholic Hospitals to Strip Them of Tax-Exempt Status

As soon as a church incorporates, seeking recognition of tax exemption under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code it becomes a commercial entity. To apply for a 501(c)3 you must agree to remain non-political and non-controversial, and if you do so you will retain your tax exempt status. Essentially, the state runs the church. If you think your pastor/rabbi/priest/minister can speak their mind, think again.

In America, Churches have always been automatically exempt from Federal Income Tax so why would a church apply for a government stamp of approval when it was already free. A church that is tax exempt is not a "tax exempt church" but a religious organization which applies for corporate status thereby going from "lawful assembly of private citizens" to that of a "legal gathering of public subjects".

Churches are automatically exempt from taxes, so how did the IRS get the Churches "in bed with them (government)? They promised tax deduction to the contributors of the church.

"Automatic Exemption for Churches Churches that meet the requirements of IRC section 501(c)(3) are automatically considered tax exempt and are not required to apply for and obtain recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS. Although there is no requirement to do so, many churches seek recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS because such recognition assures church leaders, members, and contributors that the church is recognized as exempt and qualifies for related tax benefits. For example, contributors to a church that has been recognized as tax exempt would know that their contributions generally are tax-deductible.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

Churches and religious organizations, like many other charitable organizations, qualify for exemption from federal income tax under IRC section 501(c)(3) and are generally eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions. To qualify for tax-exempt status, such an organization must meet the following requirements (covered in greater detail throughout this publication): n the organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific, or other charitable purposes, n net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder, n no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation, n the organization may not intervene win political campaigns, and n the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.

Of course the government can always change their codes and regulations. Once they have you, it's too late.
"A new provision in Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code, which takes effect under Obamacare, sets new standards of review and installs new financial penalties for tax-exempt charitable hospitals, which devote a minimum amount of their expenses to treat uninsured poor people."

"When you sup with the devil, you had better use a long spoon."

Since churches that have received 501(c)3 exemptions are by default wards of the state, they just might be successful in making church attendance mandatory. Either that, or else lose your tax exemption. They would only lose their ability to give the contributors a tax deduction, but this is very important for many churches as they believe they would receive far less if their givers were not given an incentive of a financial reward.

 

[StanJ]

Axehead, All your last post is, is Obama/Democrat bashing. If you're going to start this same inflammatory thing again, I'll ask for this thread to be closed as well.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Ah that's what I thought.

No church should be tax free, so if they lose that I'll feel no sympathy.

When a church pays taxes on donations, they're paying tax twice on the same money, first when it was earned by the members, second when the members donate to their own membership to meet local needs, pay for structure upkeep and salaries, and give to missions, any of which the members could do without being taxed for them. The tax break is actually to the membership for donating to a non profit organization (from which they receive a benefit in the way of services, counseling, etc.) Churches receive a tax break (the membership) for contributing to the community, which would be the same as contributing to the YMCA and then using the facility. Most people would consider that fair and just rather than bearing twice the tax burden. If we gave our money directly to charities rather than to an organized church, we might not receive a benefit from the charities (though we could) but we would still receive a tax break (for contributing to the community.) Those individuals who work under salary for the church still have to pay income tax, so the system is equitable and just. I'd recommend that you spend some time reading the books of the law to gain some understanding of fairness and equity from God's perspective: It goes a long way towards pleasing Him.
I take it by your comment that you aren't a member of a church and if that's the case you're easy prey for the adversary. I would advise you to find a church or visit a few and listen to not only the preaching, but attend some bible study. Perhaps when you contribute a significant portion of your income to a church body, you'll feel differently about how your money is taxed.

It would be a valid debate, especially when so many churches do NOTHING to serve the communities they are in. In any event there would need to be a change in law to improve tax free status of ANY organization. Soup kitchens/Homeless shelters do far more to warrant tax free status than huge buildings like the Crystal Cathedral.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/02/robert-schuller-dead-crystal-cathedral_n_6992686.html

I don't like the "mega-churches" that are as likely to fleece the congregation as benefit them, but unless you've been a member you have no way of knowing what any church has done for its membership, its community, or its country. In the US, much of our military is made up of young adults from Christian families who enlisted because they believed that they could make a difference in the world. This might be deluded thinking, but patriotism remains in the nature of people, many of whom are "churched" (raised in a Christian family and taught to behave like one), but not born again.
I was under the impression that you were Canadian, and if that's the case, what business is our nation's internal affairs to you? Do you think that soup kitchens and homeless shelters are entirely self funded? Where do you think the food comes from and who do you think pays the bills?

 

[JimParker]

Rep. Senator Sylvia Allen has, perhaps inadvertantly, opened a pandoras box of controversy over her remarks, however 'off the cuff' they may have been, regarding a mandatory attendance law for Sunday church attendance. http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2015/03/27/pkg-arizona-senator-church-attendance-mandatory.ktvk

Very interested in the members opinion on this. Good idea or not? Why would it be a good idea, or why not? Could this even be possible under the present constitution, or could there at some future time, under certain crcumstances, be such a legislative move be made despite the constitution?

Ah! A CNN "soundbyte" taken while completely ignoring the context or anything else she said thus giving us a perfect example of what Rush Limbaugh dubbed the "drive-by media." And they pretend to be journalists!

Since there are American citizens who attend religious services on Friday (Muslims) and Saturdays (Jews, Sabbatarians) and those who worship every day (Rastafarians smoking the Holy Ganja) and others who think believing in God is like having an "invisible friend", any such law would certainly fail the test of conflict with the government interfering in the free exercise of religion.

 

[StanJ]

I don't like the "mega-churches" that are as likely to fleece the congregation as benefit them, but unless you've been a member you have no way of knowing what any church has done for its membership, its community, or its country. In the US, much of our military is made up of young adults from Christian families who enlisted because they believed that they could make a difference in the world. This might be deluded thinking, but patriotism remains in the nature of people, many of whom are "churched" (raised in a Christian family and taught to behave like one), but not born again.
I was under the impression that you were Canadian, and if that's the case, what business is our nation's internal affairs to you? Do you think that soup kitchens and homeless shelters are entirely self funded? Where do you think the food comes from and who do you think pays the bills?

It's called experience and making oneself aware Michael.
I would say you need to corroborate this assertion about where the U.S. draws most of it's volunteers. If you are not born again, you are NOT a Christian. Just like living in a barn doesn't make one a cow or horse.
I am Canadian, as can easily be seen to the left of all my posts, and I have as much right to comment about what goes on in the U.S. as the U.S. has in getting involved in the internal affairs of others countries. Your apparent belief in "American Exceptionalism" is NOT consistent with Christianity.
I don't think about it at all Michael, I KNOW. Your adversarial nature is duly noted but not appreciated nor condoned on CB so I suggest you take a chill pill.

 

[Axehead]

Rep. Senator Sylvia Allen has, perhaps inadvertantly, opened a pandoras box of controversy over her remarks, however 'off the cuff' they may have been, regarding a mandatory attendance law for Sunday church attendance. http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2015/03/27/pkg-arizona-senator-church-attendance-mandatory.ktvk

Very interested in the members opinion on this. Good idea or not? Why would it be a good idea, or why not? Could this even be possible under the present constitution, or could there at some future time, under certain crcumstances, be such a legislative move be made despite the constitution?

A lot of things that I never thought would happen and are grossly unconstitutional are happening, today. So, never say never. I think a breaking point is not too far off in the future.


Please remember what Jefferson said: "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.". Tyranny seems to be growing and making the attending of Sunday religious services mandatory, however benign it seems, would fall on the side of tyranny. And what would the reason be for the government to do this? I don't think this government as a whole is interested in the population turning to Jesus Christ. I think her heart is in the right place but the government should concentrate on repealing cruel and oppressive laws and restoring liberty and freedom that they have usurped. And if they would concentrate on their own lives before God and keeping their oath to the Constitution, I believe justice and righteousness would return.

If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? Psa 11:3
Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. Psa 14:34

 

[StanJ]

Please remember what Jefferson said: "When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.". Tyranny seems to be growing and making the attending of Sunday religious services mandatory, however benign it seems, would fall on the side of tyranny. And what would the reason be for the government to do this? I don't think this government as a whole is interested in the population turning to Jesus Christ. I think her heart is in the right place but the government should concentrate on repealing cruel and oppressive laws and restoring liberty and freedom that they have usurped. And if they would concentrate on their own lives before God and keeping their oath to the Constitution, I believe justice and righteousness would return.

and yet the Bible tells us not to fear governments and to support them and obey the laws. Who should we listen to, Jefferson or Paul in Romans 13?

 

[Raeneske]

and yet the Bible tells us not to fear governments and to support them and obey the laws. Who should we listen to, Jefferson or Paul in Romans 13?

Depends on what you mean by that. In no case are we allowed to obey the laws of the land over and above the law of God. And in no way are we to support gay "marriage". We ought to obey God, rather than man. Homosexual "marriage" is a violation of the Word of God. We cannot support it. Sunday Sacredness Laws are in direct opposition to the Law of God. We cannot support them. Accepting the government 501c3 is the fulfillment of the prophecy regarding the image of the beast. We cannot accept nor support churches which have the 501c3. And we certainly cannot support a government bridling the tongue of the Pastors in America. All these things are things we speak out against.

So, empty the pews. As God says, "Come out of her, my people" (Revelation 18:4). We cannot change these things from the inside, but we must leave them. We exit the churches, and expose the unfruitful works of darkness. They will soon realize their ungodly ability to lobby law, and push for their Sunday Laws to be put into effect. They will propose Sunday as work free, family time, God time, and helpful to the morals of society. But really, it's the mark of the beast, that their leader in Rome just wants enforced. And, they want to silence those who are emptying their pews. But so be it. Come Lord Jesus!

 

[StanJ]

Depends on what you mean by that. In no case are we allowed to obey the laws of the land over and above the law of God. And in no way are we to support gay "marriage". We ought to obey God, rather than man. Homosexual "marriage" is a violation of the Word of God. We cannot support it. Sunday Sacredness Laws are in direct opposition to the Law of God. We cannot support them. Accepting the government 501c3 is the fulfillment of the prophecy regarding the image of the beast. We cannot accept nor support churches which have the 501c3. And we certainly cannot support a government bridling the tongue of the Pastors in America. All these things are things we speak out against.

So, empty the pews. As God says, "Come out of her, my people" (Revelation 18:4). We cannot change these things from the inside, but we must leave them. We exit the churches, and expose the unfruitful works of darkness. They will soon realize their ungodly ability to lobby law, and push for their Sunday Laws to be put into effect. They will propose Sunday as work free, family time, God time, and helpful to the morals of society. But really, it's the mark of the beast, that their leader in Rome just wants enforced. And, they want to silence those who are emptying their pews. But so be it. Come Lord Jesus!

and that is NOT what Paul teaches, as I showed you in Rom 13. Also read 1 Cor 5:9-13 and see what he reiterates. Consistently, it is to NOT judge the world. That is God's job. The issue is not about obeying the government over obeying God. Maybe you can show us where the government is forcing Christians to do things contrary to the existing laws of the land?
Also Rev 18:4 depicts Babylon, not the BOC, or the organized Church.

 

[Raeneske]

and that is NOT what Paul teaches, as I showed you in Rom 13. Also read 1 Cor 5:9-13 and see what he reiterates. Consistently, it is to NOT judge the world. That is God's job. The issue is not about obeying the government over obeying God. Maybe you can show us where the government is forcing Christians to do things contrary to the existing laws of the land?
Also Rev 18:4 depicts Babylon, not the BOC, or the organized Church.

I'd be more concerned about doing things contrary to the law of God, than the law of the land. You only obey the government when it doesn't go against the Scriptures. True Christians will walk contrary to the law of the land, when demanded to transgress, or support evil. I will not support homosexual marriage. I will not bow to the 501c3 churches. I will not support 501c3 churches. I will not bow to their Sunday sacredness. Period. God's law is clear. Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy. Not sunday holy, but Sabbath holy. And to support and obey the government on this issue, is to deem the laws of the land more important than the Law of God. The law in Daniel's day demanded they break commandment #2. The image of the beast was set up in their day, and they were commanded to worship it. They refused, and were rewarded for it, and God was glorified in that day. So in our day and age, the image of the beast found in Revelation (the church in control of a state, woman riding the beast) is set up. She simply has not exercised her power yet. But when she does, and she will, she will demand commandment #4 to be broken, for Sunday sacredness to be put in it's place. But no Christian ought to pay heed to her. Obey God instead, and be richly rewarded, much like the three worthies in Daniel's day.

Revelation 18:4 is not talking about literal Babylon. Babylon is the symbol of the apostate churches, fallen because of their sins, and their rejection of the truth. There is Babylon the Great, whom is the mother of harlots, who wants her mark enforced. And then there is babylon, her daughters who play the harlot, claiming to be Christian Churches, whilst committing spiritual adultery. She is a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. She is in fellowship with demons, submitting unto the government to give into homosexual marriage, and submitting to other spiritual deceptions. For all of the things done in her, she is showing her fruits. If she were the true church of Christ, she would bear the fruits of Christ. A good tree does not bring forth evil fruit. And yet, her fruits are "evil continually" much like in the days of Noah, when the people's thoughts were "only evil continually". God's Word is clear.

Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

It does not say, "stay in her, and partake not" but "come out of her, that ye be not partakers". To stay in is to stand in disobedience to God's commands.

Remember Lot's wife. She had the privilege or receiving the warning, and escaping out of Sodom. But, she ended up being destroyed because of her disobedience. Take heed to the warning. Do not look back. Empty the pews.

 

[StanJ]

I'd be more concerned about doing things contrary to the law of God, than the law of the land. You only obey the government when it doesn't go against the Scriptures. True Christians will walk contrary to the law of the land, when demanded to transgress, or support evil. I will not support homosexual marriage. I will not bow to the 501c3 churches. I will not support 501c3 churches. I will not bow to their Sunday sacredness. Period. God's law is clear. Remember the Sabbath Day, to keep it holy. Not sunday holy, but Sabbath holy. And to support and obey the government on this issue, is to deem the laws of the land more important than the Law of God. The law in Daniel's day demanded they break commandment #2. The image of the beast was set up in their day, and they were commanded to worship it. They refused, and were rewarded for it, and God was glorified in that day. So in our day and age, the image of the beast found in Revelation (the church in control of a state, woman riding the beast) is set up. She simply has not exercised her power yet. But when she does, and she will, she will demand commandment #4 to be broken, for Sunday sacredness to be put in it's place. But no Christian ought to pay heed to her. Obey God instead, and be richly rewarded, much like the three worthies in Daniel's day.

Revelation 18:4 is not talking about literal Babylon. Babylon is the symbol of the apostate churches, fallen because of their sins, and their rejection of the truth. There is Babylon the Great, whom is the mother of harlots, who wants her mark enforced. And then there is babylon, her daughters who play the harlot, claiming to be Christian Churches, whilst committing spiritual adultery. She is a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. She is in fellowship with demons, submitting unto the government to give into homosexual marriage, and submitting to other spiritual deceptions. For all of the things done in her, she is showing her fruits. If she were the true church of Christ, she would bear the fruits of Christ. A good tree does not bring forth evil fruit. And yet, her fruits are "evil continually" much like in the days of Noah, when the people's thoughts were "only evil continually". God's Word is clear.

Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

It does not say, "stay in her, and partake not" but "come out of her, that ye be not partakers". To stay in is to stand in disobedience to God's commands.

Remember Lot's wife. She had the privilege or receiving the warning, and escaping out of Sodom. But, she ended up being destroyed because of her disobedience. Take heed to the warning. Do not look back. Empty the pews.

That's a given as a Christian, but it doesn't negate what we ARE instructed to do.

I think you're confusing the Babylon in chapter 17 with the one in chapter 18. The first if the religious Babylon and the second is the political one, but I really don't want to take this OP off topic so I won't bother going any further with this.

 

[pom2014]

Agreed Stan. But there are many church organizations that do heaps to help the downtrodden in society. Salvation Army come to mind, and my own church has a highly effective disaster relief arm that deserve a tax break. They relieve the government of much responsibility, labor costs, and financial outlay that the small tax breaks they get are minimal by comparison.

Ah but there is one fly in their ointment.

The King, that they are supposed to follow, ordered (not suggested) that taxes be paid.

Of course none would dare do that because they love mammon as much as the pharisees did.

 

[brakelite]

Ah but there is one fly in their ointment.

The King, that they are supposed to follow, ordered (not suggested) that taxes be paid.

Of course none would dare do that because they love mammon as much as the pharisees did.

Individuals do pay tax...are you suggesting that the taxed money donated to the church should be taxed as well?

 

[pom2014]

Absolutely.

Everyone should pay their taxes. From the poor to the rich to the churches and corporations.

 

[michaelvpardo]

It's called experience and making oneself aware Michael.
I would say you need to corroborate this assertion about where the U.S. draws most of it's volunteers. If you are not born again, you are NOT a Christian. Just like living in a barn doesn't make one a cow or horse.
I am Canadian, as can easily be seen to the left of all my posts, and I have as much right to comment about what goes on in the U.S. as the U.S. has in getting involved in the internal affairs of others countries. Your apparent belief in "American Exceptionalism" is NOT consistent with Christianity.
I don't think about it at all Michael, I KNOW. Your adversarial nature is duly noted but not appreciated nor condoned on CB so I suggest you take a chill pill.

You've said that you must be born again to be a Christian, and that's actually incorrect. What scripture says is that you must be born again in order to enter into the kingdom of heaven. According to the book of the acts of the apostles, the first century disciples were first referred to as people of "the way" which is itself a reference to Isaiah 35:8. Jesus identified Himself as being the fulfillment of this prophecy. It was still in the first century when disciples were first called Christian (Christ like one) but this term was always the world's way of referring to followers of Christ and never really identified them as born again, nor can people identify others as born again except by the fruit (behavior) they exhibit. One of those characteristics is a love for the brethren which doesn't necessarily come simply by being born again or there wouldn't be a commandment to do so. Now if you can show me how attacking churches demonstrates a love for the brethren, or accusing churches or church leaders of being dishonest or thieves somehow demonstrates love for the brethren, then I might even believe that you've been born again. I recommend 2nd Peter chapter 2 in regard to making accusation about things of which you don't know. If I'm adversarial in my posting, it has always been in the way of answering foolishness with foolishness, and in this process I've uncovered many wolves. Perhaps you'll notice that I've made at least 529 prior postings with out receiving any "warning points." There's a reason for that and it isn't because I believe that we should all just get along. I was born with a shepherd's heart 39 years before I was born again by the grace of God and through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and a shepherd must always keep watch over the sheep and be prepared to use the rod to defend them from predators.
Now, what is this "experience" you have and how did you make yourself "aware" (and why are your statements so arrogant?) Have you actually ever read the scriptures? Have you received the Spirit of Christ and how do you know that you have? Do you keep His commandments and are they burdensome? Is it reasonable to lay burdens upon the children of God, such as requiring them to tithe their income? Is the workman worthy of his labor? Is God guilty of extortion? Are God's gifts irrevocable? Is God pleased by sacrifice? Is grace a reward? Inquiring minds would like to know.

P.S. I believe the number of professing Christians in the US military is about 80%, but this was based upon comments made by Jay Sekulow on a broadcast a year or two ago, when discussing disciplinary action being taken against some Air Force Cadets based upon their religious activity. Also you should note that in my post I said that these military members were from Christian families, not that they were Christian, though I've witnessed the profession of faith and baptism of at least one local boy who then joined the marines to serve in Iraq (not statistically significant of itself, but according to Jay S. a common thing.) Also note that I commonly refer to born again believers as Christian because of common usage, but I'm not very happy being identified with many of them, especially the sort that join a discussion with the intention of killing it because it doesn't fall into their limited perception of reality.

Absolutely.

Everyone should pay their taxes. From the poor to the rich to the churches and corporations.

So you hate faithful Christians enough to have them pay tax on their income twice?

 

[StanJ]

You've said that you must be born again to be a Christian, and that's actually incorrect. What scripture says is that you must be born again in order to enter into the kingdom of heaven. According to the book of the acts of the apostles, the first century disciples were first referred to as people of "the way" which is itself a reference to Isaiah 35:8. Jesus identified Himself as being the fulfillment of this prophecy. It was still in the first century when disciples were first called Christian (Christ like one) but this term was always the world's way of referring to followers of Christ and never really identified them as born again, nor can people identify others as born again except by the fruit (behavior) they exhibit. One of those characteristics is a love for the brethren which doesn't necessarily come simply by being born again or there wouldn't be a commandment to do so. Now if you can show me how attacking churches demonstrates a love for the brethren, or accusing churches or church leaders of being dishonest or thieves somehow demonstrates love for the brethren, then I might even believe that you've been born again. I recommend 2nd Peter chapter 2 in regard to making accusation about things of which you don't know. If I'm adversarial in my posting, it has always been in the way of answering foolishness with foolishness, and in this process I've uncovered many wolves. Perhaps you'll notice that I've made at least 529 prior postings with out receiving any "warning points." There's a reason for that and it isn't because I believe that we should all just get along. I was born with a shepherd's heart 39 years before I was born again by the grace of God and through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and a shepherd must always keep watch over the sheep and be prepared to use the rod to defend them from predators.
Now, what is this "experience" you have and how did you make yourself "aware" (and why are your statements so arrogant?) Have you actually ever read the scriptures? Have you received the Spirit of Christ and how do you know that you have? Do you keep His commandments and are they burdensome? Is it reasonable to lay burdens upon the children of God, such as requiring them to tithe their income? Is the workman worthy of his labor? Is God guilty of extortion? Are God's gifts irrevocable? Is God pleased by sacrifice? Inquiring minds would like to know.

No actually, Jesus said in John 3 that one must be born again to SEE the Kingdom of God as it requires spiritual eyes. Those who are born again were first called Christians in Antioch as per Acts 11:26.
I think you should really check your facts and know the scriptures BEFORE making these kind of erroneous assertions.
I have no idea what you are referring to in regards to attacking others churches?
If you make arrogant assertions, you can probably expect to get knocked down a peg or two on this site, just as Jesus knocked down those who were arrogant during His earthly ministry. I guess whether you grow or not depends how you take the rebuke?
I don't really understand what you mean by having a shepherd's heart 39 years before you were born again? I know you don't live in New Zealand so what exactly do you mean here?
My experience is just that...having been saved for over 44 years and continually studying the Bible, gives one EXPERIENCE. Questioning everything in the light of God's Word give one UNDERSTANDING.
If you have all these questions about my other posts on CB, then you should address them in the appropriate thread where they were given, and not save them all up for one post.
I don't see you making ANY inquiries, just a bunch of fallacious assertions.

 

[Axehead]

Just a polite little interjection if y'all don't mind. Getting "EXPERIENCE" is a two-fold action: Hearing the Word and Doing it. Not just Hearing (or reading, or studying).

John_7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
John_7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

James_1:23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
James_1:24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.

Ok, carry on. :)

 

[StanJ]

Just a polite little interjection if y'all don't mind. Getting "EXPERIENCE" is a two-fold action: Hearing the Word and Doing it. Not just Hearing (or reading, or studying).

John_7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
John_7:17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

James_1:23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
James_1:24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.

I totally agree with these scriptures Axehead...so how about YOU start DOING what the Word says by practising at NOT being self-righteous?

Carry on.

 

[pom2014]

@Michael V Pardo

If anyone must pay income tax they must pay it.
If they pay corporation taxes they must pay it.
If they pay property taxes they must pay it.

The King said to pay your taxes. I agree. Pay them.

The churches should not be exempt they are under the same command of the King. Pay the tax.

Do you not think God will make sure they can afford them? I do.

 

[Axehead]

I totally agree Axehead...so how about YOU start DOING what the Word says?

:)