Page 5 of 29 FirstFirst 123456789101125 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 426

Thread: Christianity in 30 Seconds

  1. #61
    The King Akamu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    720
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    The bible explains itself, huh?

    Alright..

    1) Where did Cain's wife come from? It only mentions Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel.

    2) Whats the biblical reason for killing innocents?

    3) Whats the biblical reason for killing non-believers or people who worship different GODs?

    Bible doesn't explain jack ****. Just a cop out for folks to rationalize their own evil endeavors. It's much easier to say GOD told me to do it...rather than own up to it yourself.

    ***No LAW to pay taxes you say? U ever read the 16th amendment to the US Constitution you dumbass?****

    Amendment XVI

    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


    U might want to read this!!!!

    That pretty much wraps on the tax question stupid!
    There's that ghey comment I was looking for! By the way, those are cute names you call me, I'm flattered. I was hoping you would bring up the 16 Amendment. Since you think you know everything. LOL who do you think your talking to?

    Since you want to get all technical I'll re-say what I had said. "THERE IS NO LAW SAYING THAT WE ARE OBLIGATED TO PAY INCOME-TAXES"

    1-) The Sixteenth Amendment. On Feb. 3, 1913, by the Supreme court, was RULED to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

    THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE UNITED STATES WHICH DETERMINES WHAT IS Constitutional and what is Unconstitutional. THEY DEFINE THE CONSTITUTION, ANY AND ALL COURTS UNDER THEM NEED TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUPREME COURTS RULING!

    2-) The 16th Amendment VIOLATES THE 4th AND 5th AMENDMENT!

    Ever herd of the 5th Amendment?
    "Right against self-incrimination"

    How about the 4th Amendment?
    "Right To Privacy"

    Here's the rope, now hang yourself with it:
    The 16th amendment does not give the IRS the right to collect personal income tax. Read this e-mail carefully and then check it all out. All ref to law is given.


    The first thing we're going to do is look at what the Constitution says about taxation. The limitations in the Constitution restricting the direct taxation of individuals and their property are found in Article 1 in two different sections. Both sections specifically restrict the Federal government as to how it may lay direct taxes on the citizens.


    Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 states: "Representative and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers," and Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4 states: "No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in apportionment to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."


    These basic sections of the Constitution have never been repealed or amended. The Constitution still forbids the direct taxation of individuals, their property, and their rights, unless the tax is apportioned to the State governments for collection.

    (Apportioned) - To divide and assign according to a plan.


    And Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 states: "No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marquee and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility."


    This Clause in the Constitution is why NEITHER the Federal, nor the State governments have any authority, either OVER, or TO UNILATERALLY ALTER, PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTS.


    In 1895, Congress tried to pass an Act that imposed income taxes on the interest and dividends of U.S. citizens on deposit in U.S. banks. This Act was immediately struck down in Pollock vs Farmer's Loan and Trust Co. (157 US 429), wherein the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to impose an income tax on the interest and dividends of United States Citizens on deposits in U.S. banks. The court ruled that the tax was unconstitutional because it was a direct tax that was not apportioned as required by the Constitution.This decision has never been reversed or overturned.


    Excerpts from the Pollock decision include:
    "...Ordinarily, all taxes paid primarily by persons who can shift the burden upon someone else, or who are under no legal compulsion to pay them, are considered indirect taxes; but a tax upon property holders in respect of their estates, whether real or personal, or of the income yielded by such estates, and the payment of which cannot be avoided, are direct taxes..."
    And,"...Subsequently, in 1869, .... The question arose whether the law which imposes such a tax upon them was constitutional. The opinion of the Attorney General thereon was requested by the Secretary of the Treasury.
    The Attorney General, in reply, gave an elaborate opinion advising the Secretary of the Treasury that no income tax could be lawfully assessed and collected upon the salaries of those officers who were in office at the time the statute imposing the tax was passed, holding on this subject the views expressed by Chief Justice Taney. His opinion is published in Volume XIII of the Opinion of the Attorney General, at page 161. I am informed that it has been followed ever since without question by the department supervising or directing the collection of the public revenue..."
    And; "...A tax upon one's whole income is a tax upon the annual receipts from his whole property, and as such falls within the same class as a tax upon that property, and is a direct tax, in the meaning of the Constitution...."


    And, "...We have unanimously held in this case that, so far as this law operates on the receipts from municipal bonds , it cannot be sustained, because it is a tax on the powers of the States, and on their instrumentalities to borrow money, and consequently repugnant to the Constitution.


    It follows that, if the revenue from municipal bonds cannot be taxed because the source cannot be, the same rule applies to revenue from any other source not subject to the tax; and the lack of power to levy any but an apportioned tax on real and personal property equally exists as to the revenue therefrom.


    Admitting that this act taxes the income of property irrespective of its source, still we cannot doubt that such a tax is necessarily a direct tax in the meaning of the Constitution. In England, we do not understand that an income tax has ever been regarded as other than a direct tax. In Dowell's History of Taxation and Taxes in England, given, and an income tax is invariably classified as a direct tax.."


    And, even in dissent:...that personal property, contracts, obligations, and the like, have never been regarded by Congress as proper subjects of direct tax. The United States Constitution provides Congress the power to lay and collect taxes directly only as long as it is apportioned with regard to the census or enumeration."


    ====================



    Then, in 1913 Congress passed the 16th Amendment which says, "Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

    So that changed everything, right? Well, NO ! That is not what the Supreme Court ruled. What the Supreme Court ruled, in Brushaber vs Union Pacific R.R. Co. and in Stanton vs Baltic Mining Co., is that since the provisions of Article I, requiring that direct taxes be apportioned, were not repealed, they are still in full force and effect.



    And, that since the language of the 16th Amendment specifies that the income tax is to be a tax without apportionment, then it cannot be a direct tax, because otherwise the Constitution would inherently contradict itself, which cannot be allowed to happen.


    Article I cannot prohibit direct taxation unless apportioned, while the 16th Amendment grants the power to lay direct taxes without apportionment, because then the Constitution would inherently contradict itself and could no longer serve as a valid foundation for our Law.



    So, to specifically prevent the Constitution from contradicting itself, the Supreme Court ruled that since the 16th Amendment provides for an income tax without apportionment, then the income tax cannot be a direct tax.


    But, there are only two major classes of taxation authorized in the Constitution; direct taxes and indirect taxes.



    So, if the income tax cannot be a direct tax, then it must be an indirect tax. Indirect taxes are classified into three minor categories in the Constitution: imposts, duties and excises. If you remember, the income tax started in 1861 as an Income Duty and a Federal employee "kickback", imposed only on foreign imports and Federal employees, which was contained and allowed within the Constitutional category of duties. As a duty it was only imposed on the flow of foreign goods into America, NOT DOMESTIC GOODS, NOR DOMESTIC INCOME.


    Obviously today, the income tax is not currently being enforced as a duty, so the questions are: "Did the 16th Amendment create a new congressional power to tax directly ?", and; "How did the 16th Amendment change the income tax ?".



    The answer to the first question was supplied by the Supreme Court in Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 US 112 (1916), stating:"...by the previous ruling, it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged.."


    The Supreme Court clearly states that the 16th Amendment DID NOT create a new power to tax the People in a direct fashion without apportionment, AS IS FRAUDULENTLY CLAIMED BY THE IRS.

    So, if it is not a direct tax, then it is still an indirect tax, but, possibly, no longer a duty. Then; "What kind of tax is the income tax now?" In the "previous ruling" referenced above, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. 240 US 1 (1916), the court stated:"...taxation on income was in its nature an excise ..." , and "...taxes on such income had been sustained as excises in the past...". specifically, "Moreover, in addition, the conclusion reached in the Pollock case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but, on the contrary, recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such unless and until it was concluded that to enforce it would amount to accomplishing the result which the requirement as to apportionment of direct taxation was adopted to prevent, in which case the duty would arise to disregard form and consider substance alone,..."


    The Court ruled that the 16th Amendment effectively transformed the income tax from an indirect duty to an indirect excise. It is not a direct tax without apportionment. And, if we examine the law closely, that is exactly what we find; that the income tax is imposed and applied under the law, as an indirect excise, ONLY imposed on specific entities (Federal), and sources of "taxable income" (privileged).


    So, what is an excise tax ? Fortunately, the Supreme Court used to know what it was doing, and both of these decisions, Brushaber and Stanton, refer you to another case handed down five years earlier, Flint vs Stone Tracy Co. 220 U.S. 107 (1911), in which the Supreme Court ruled that excise taxes are:"...taxes laid on the manufacture, sale or consumption of commodities within the country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations and upon corporate privileges; the requirement to pay such taxes involves the exercise of the privilege and if business is not done in the manner described no tax is payable...it is the privilege which is the subject of the tax and not the mere buying, selling or handling of goods."


    The Supreme Court effectively establishes with this ruling that excise taxes are manufacturing taxes, sales taxes, and taxes on privileges. Privileges in the form of either licenses to pursue certain occupations, corporate privileges, and any other privileges granted to the individual by the government as well. One of these other privileges, is the privilege of being protected by the United States government in a foreign country under a tax treaty. The government normally would have no jurisdiction or ability to protect you or your business interests in a foreign country, but because of the existence of the tax treaty with that foreign government, your business is protected by the U.S. government outside their jurisdictional boundaries (the United States).


    That protection, being afforded by the tax treaty, is construed to be a privilege granted to you by the government; and therefore, the income earned in that foreign country under the tax treaty, is privileged income and subject to the income tax.


    Sincerely,
    Ken Handy

    This is why Kent Hovind is not a criminal, THE IRS is the criminal. Watch "Freedom To Fascism" For more.

    Last edited by Akamu; Aug 11, 2008 at 17:46.

  2. #62
    Enlightened OGKnickfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    944
    Rep Power
    7

    Default That's the point Realz

    They're not interested in what makes sense, it's about faith, faith that lacks probability, as well as possibility. This is why, no matter what anyone says, they have a response.

    This is why people point out the slavery and murder in the bible, as well as their lack of knowledge: if any power spoke to them, why couldn't it tell them about the Chinese? Simple, because they had no source for the book, except for themselves.

    Of course they have to consider what you asked. I mean, where does creation begin and end? But, they're not interested: biblical rules, and that's it for them. They even said that you can't ask questions.

    They defend this stuff like a bully who says, "it's to beef him up," "it's just playing around." They won't admit a thing.

  3. #63
    The King Akamu's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    720
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Originally Posted by OGKnickfan
    You Christians believe for two reasons: the reward: going to heaven/paradise/financial "blessings," superiority complex, fear: you fear a final death or punishment in hell. Self preservation is what you follow. A ***** like me don't give a phuck, though.

    Real spirituality requires submission to the truth, and truth is very quiet, you can only hear it if you approach it without the burden of the years of BS that you've studied. In truth lies all of the secrets of the world that your bible, because it was written by one group of people, fails to mention. People like you can never come in contact with those gems, you spit on them. And, truth, being so gentle as it is, simply waits for the few that wish to look to her for grace.

  4. #64
    Enlightened OGKnickfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    944
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Exactly what I've been saying... you only care about one thing, yourself.

  5. #65
    Enlightened OGKnickfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    944
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Now, we're not going to pay income taxes, so that old people rot in their homes, without social security checks and medicare.

  6. #66
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    Bull**** I know plenty of Jehovah's witnesses that go to the voting booth...I work with 3 of them for crying out loud. And we discuss politics daily. And I've seen them going to the booth, and heard the lever snap back into place after they've voted.

    False Christians?

    Alright...Rather than name the false religions...

    Name me why your's is the correct one?

    First off, I was speaking about Jehovah's witnesses as a whole. On the whole, you do not hear this. However, as individuals, even Jehovah's witnesses are imperfect and do what they shouldn't. As individuals, we have to answer to God in the end for that. Just because you know the truth, does not mean you will live it.

    For instance, you said you know 3 Jehovah's witnesses who vote. But as a whole, most people know Jehovah's witnesses do not vote. Therefore, you should wonder if those three people are truly baptized and dedicated servants of Jehovah, are they acting in accord with their dedication, compared to the religion as a whole? Being a Jehovah's witness is not saying I am a witness, it's living in accord with your dedication. Being a witness is not saying I grew up in a Jehovah's witness family, It's living as a Jehovah's witness. THAT IS WHY IT'S TERMED JEHOVAH'S WITNESS. YOUR WHOLE LIFE IS A WITNESS THAT YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO LIVE FOR JEHOVAH AND NOT YOURSELF. IF ONE IS NOT LIVING IN ACCORD WITH JEHOVAH'S WILL, THEN HE IS NOT GIVING A GOOD WITNESS OF HIS DEDICATION. THEREFORE, HE OR SHE RUNS THE RISK OF NOT HAVING JEHOVAH'S FAVOR, AND HE WILL DEAL WITH THOSE PERSONS IN DUE TIME.

    No TRUE SERVANT OF JEHOVAH IS VOTING IN ANY BOOTH IN THE WORLD. Jehovah's witnesses preach the Kingdom message, which is God's actual government (like the USA, RUSSIA, CHINA, ETC) that he has set up to rule mankind the way he originally intended. So a proffesing Jehovah's witness at a voting booth is in essence saying God's Kingdom is not here, MAKING ONE OF MAIN THE BASIS OF THEIR DEDICATION INVALID, HENCE MAKING THEIR STANDING WITH JEHOVAH INVALID.

    IN OTHER WORDS, THEY ARE NOT REALLY JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES.

    As far as your next question , I'll put in another post.

  7. #67
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    False Christians?

    Alright...Rather than name the false religions...

    Name me why your's is the correct one?
    HOW TO IDENTIFY THE TRUE RELIGION


    How can Ďthe road to lifeí be found? Jesus said that the true religion would be evident in the lives of the people who practice it. "By their fruits you will recognize them," he said. "Every good tree produces fine fruit." (Matthew 7:16, 17) In other words, those who practice the true religion would be recognized by their beliefs and their conduct. Although they are not perfect and they make mistakes, true worshipers as a group seek to do Godís will. Let us consider six features that identify those who practice true religion.

    Godís servants base their teachings on the Bible. The Bible itself says: "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man [or woman] of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16, 17) To his fellow Christians, the apostle Paul wrote: "When you received Godís word, which you heard from us, you accepted it, not as the word of men, but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of God." (1 Thessalonians 2:13) Hence, beliefs and practices of the true religion are not based on human views or tradition. They originate in Godís inspired Word, the Bible.

    Jesus Christ set the proper example by basing his teachings on Godís Word. In prayer to his heavenly Father, he said: "Your word is truth." (John 17:17) Jesus believed the Word of God, and everything he taught harmonized with the Scriptures. Jesus often said: "It is written." (Matthew 4:4, 7, 10) Then Jesus would quote a scripture. Similarly, Godís people today do not teach their own ideas. They believe that the Bible is Godís Word, and they base their teachings firmly on what it says.

    Those who practice the true religion worship only Jehovah and make his name known. Jesus declared: "It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service." (Matthew 4:10) Thus, Godís servants worship no one other than Jehovah. This worship includes letting people know what the name of the true God is and what he is like. Psalm 83:18 states: "You, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." Jesus set the pattern in helping others to get to know God, as he said in prayer: "I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world." (John 17:6) Similarly, true worshipers today teach others about Godís name, his purposes, and his qualities.

    Godís people show genuine, unselfish love for one another. Jesus said: "By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves." (John 13:35) The early Christians had such love for one another. Godly love overcomes racial, social, and national barriers and draws people together in an unbreakable bond of true brotherhood. (Colossians 3:14) Members of false religions do not have such a loving brotherhood. How do we know that? They kill one another because of national or ethnic differences. True Christians do not take up weapons to kill their Christian brothers or anyone else. The Bible states: "The children of God and the children of the Devil are evident by this fact: Everyone who does not carry on righteousness does not originate with God, neither does he who does not love his brother. . . . We should have love for one another; not like Cain, who originated with the wicked one and slaughtered his brother."ó1 John 3:10-12; 4:20, 21.

    Of course, genuine love means more than not killing others. True Christians unselfishly use their time, energy, and resources to help and encourage one another. (Hebrews 10:24, 25) They help one another in times of distress, and they deal honestly with others. In fact, they apply in their lives the Bible counsel to "work what is good toward all."óGalatians 6:10.


    True Christians accept Jesus Christ as Godís means of salvation. The Bible says: "There is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved." (Acts 4:12)Jesus gave his life as a ransom for obedient humans. (Matthew 20:28) In addition, Jesus is Godís appointed King in the heavenly Kingdom that will rule the entire earth. And God requires that we obey Jesus and apply his teachings if we want everlasting life. That is why the Bible states: "He that exercises faith in the Son has everlasting life; he that disobeys the Son will not see life."óJohn 3:36.

    True worshipers are no part of the world. When on trial before the Roman ruler Pilate, Jesus said: "My kingdom is no part of this world." (John 18:36) No matter what country they live in, Jesusí true followers are subjects of his heavenly Kingdom and thus maintain strict neutrality in the worldís political affairs. They take no part in its conflicts. However, Jehovahís worshipers do not interfere with what others choose to do about joining a political party, running for office, or voting. And while Godís true worshipers are neutral regarding politics, they are law-abiding. Why? Because Godís Word commands them to "be in subjection" to the governmental "superior authorities." (Romans 13:1) Where there is a conflict between what God requires and what a political system requires, true worshipers follow the example of the apostles, who said: "We must obey God as ruler rather than men."óActs 5:29; Mark 12:17.


    Jesusí true followers preach that Godís Kingdom is mankindís only hope. Jesus foretold: "This good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come." (Matthew 24:14) Instead of encouraging people to look to human rulers to solve their problems, true followers of Jesus Christ proclaim Godís heavenly Kingdom as the only hope for mankind. (Psalm 146:3) Jesus taught us to pray for that perfect government when he said: "Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth." (Matthew 6:10) Godís Word foretold that this heavenly Kingdom "will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms [now existing], and it itself will stand to times indefinite."óDaniel 2:44.


    On the basis of what we have just considered, ask yourself: ĎWhat religious group bases all its teachings on the Bible and makes known Jehovahís name? What group practices godly love, exercises faith in Jesus, is no part of the world, and proclaims that Godís Kingdom is the only real hope for mankind? Of all the religious groups on earth, which one meets all these requirements?í The facts clearly show that it is Jehovahís WitnessesIsaiah 43:10-12.

    It's not about being better than other faiths or Christians, it is simple about just following what the BIBLE says a Christian should be. If you or anyone else wants to take that as we think we're better than anyone else mantra, that is just a weak and lame battlecry, that will prevent one from actually paying attention to the truth. There is not a more peaceful or well meaning faith on the earth, and that is not due to the people, it is due to the peoples adherence to God's will found in the bible. So it's God's will that helps them abide in the manner they do, and have the accurate knowledge they have of the bible.

  8. #68
    Enlightened OGKnickfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    944
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Jehovah's Witnesses don't prove themselves to be exceptionally compassionate, charitable or honest. In some ways, they all are obedient, however, just like a Muslim who refrains from alcohol, prays at the required times and remains sexually inactive until marriage: because they're supposed to follow rules. The problem with this is that it usually means a lack of sensitivity to WHY, which usually transcends the bible. Why be compassionate? What does it mean to be compassionate? As in the case of most other churches, Kingdom halls don't teach values in depth, insofar as true meaning and practice

  9. #69
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by OGKnickfan
    Jehovah's Witnesses don't prove themselves to be exceptionally compassionate, charitable or honest. In some ways, they all are obedient, however, just like a Muslim who refrains from alcohol, prays at the required times and remains sexually inactive until marriage: because they're supposed to follow rules. The problem with this is that it usually means a lack of sensitivity to WHY, which usually transcends the bible. Why be compassionate? What does it mean to be compassionate? As in the case of most other churches, Kingdom halls don't teach values in depth, insofar as true meaning and practice

    Have you ever been to the Kingdom hall, or studied with a Jehovah's witness for a consistent time? If you have, you would likely have a much different v iew of what you just said.

    The rule of God is to be loving. Love garners compassion joy, peace, long suffering. I don't get how you can stand and say they don't teach this.

    You do realize a True Christian patterns his life after the perfector of the faith, Christ Jesus himself right? Did Jesus not show himself to be loving, compassionate, Joyful, peaceful and such? Jesus is a Jehovah's witness' finest example of what to be like.

    Galatians 5:22 On the other hand, the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, 23 mildness, self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Moreover, those who belong to Christ Jesus impaled the flesh together with its passions and desires.

    We strive to live by these genuinely. That is how Jehovah is, that is how Jesus is, that is how true C hristians should be. If everyone in the world was striving to be this, the world would no doubt be in a much better position. But they don't . Too many people with their own theologies and Ideas that are Better than Jehovah's.

  10. #70
    Member KnicksFan4Realz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix,AZ
    Posts
    406
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by Akamu
    There's that ghey comment I was looking for! By the way, those are cute names you call me, I'm flattered. I was hoping you would bring up the 16 Amendment. Since you think you know everything. LOL who do you think your talking to?

    Since you want to get all technical I'll re-say what I had said. "THERE IS NO LAW SAYING THAT WE ARE OBLIGATED TO PAY INCOME-TAXES"

    1-) The Sixteenth Amendment. On Feb. 3, 1913, by the Supreme court, was RULED to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

    THE HIGHEST COURT IN THE UNITED STATES WHICH DETERMINES WHAT IS Constitutional and what is Unconstitutional. THEY DEFINE THE CONSTITUTION, ANY AND ALL COURTS UNDER THEM NEED TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUPREME COURTS RULING!

    2-) The 16th Amendment VIOLATES THE 4th AND 5th AMENDMENT!

    Ever herd of the 5th Amendment?
    "Right against self-incrimination"

    How about the 4th Amendment?
    "Right To Privacy"

    Here's the rope, now hang yourself with it:


    This is why Kent Hovind is not a criminal, THE IRS is the criminal. Watch "Freedom To Fascism" For more.

    If all this was so true...why is he in jail?

    And do you not pay your taxes?

  11. #71
    Veteran TunerAddict's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,183
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    I'm sorry, but my religon is the true Religion Lyfe, not yours.

    My great being created everything and has never been proven wrong. There are tomes of his deeds, and recollections that have been passed down through time. The only problem is that his greatness came down and took all of them. He has eliminated all evidence to his existence so that only the true believers will follow him into heaven. You heathens will suffer forever in the frying pan for your belief in this false idol. All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for he is our savior and the undisputed creator of this universe.

    It is all clear for us to see....that was until our greatness turned the evidence invisible and took it with him up to his spaghetti kingdom. Yet it exists. You shall see when he casts you into that boiling cauldron of wrong upon your deaths for denying his greatness. He created the hills, the trees, the animals, the midgets...It is to him we owe our faith.

  12. #72
    Veteran TunerAddict's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,183
    Rep Power
    9

    Default


  13. #73
    12th man
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Far far away from the orgy that consist of clyde, 8's, rady, smokes and rono
    Posts
    11,260
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    believe as well GOD might've been created by another GOD?...

  14. #74
    Member KnicksFan4Realz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix,AZ
    Posts
    406
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    ^^^

    I wish you'd really quote the whole thing so context doesn't get misconstrued.

    But like I said..

    If you believe GOD created the entire universe...how can you be certain GOD too was not created by perhaps a GOD greater than himself?

  15. #75
    12th man
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Far far away from the orgy that consist of clyde, 8's, rady, smokes and rono
    Posts
    11,260
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of him being God? He would just be some dude.

    God = creator of everything.
    Hence the title "God"

Similar Threads

  1. Explaining Evolution And Why GOD is NOT LIKELY
    By KnicksFan4Realz in forum Hangout
    Replies: 296
    Last Post: Jan 23, 2013, 17:16
  2. Replies: 18
    Last Post: Jul 27, 2008, 03:29
  3. The Bible - Proof that Christianity is True
    By Paul1355 in forum Hangout
    Replies: 154
    Last Post: Jul 12, 2008, 19:38

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •