Hypocrisy Among American Fundamentalists

The discussion wasn't about voting for people who preach the gospel, it was specific to pastors politicking. I said that I thought it was inappropriate. You are free to disagree with that. I'm not suggesting that it should be outlawed but as a general rule of thumb it would be nice if they refrained from it.

According to kbertsche it's not a tax dodge. You should read his Message 100abe: P.S. In case you won't see them, I removed the offending personal remarks in the previous posts to you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Phat, you are just trying to palm the pea, con the rubes, move the goal posts.Is something I make (other than a child) living?Is what I write living? Okay, so you have studied the subject.How do you test to see if something is the will of God?How do you test to determine if something is the Plan of God?What are the tests? Do any of the tests require some prior conditions of YOUR personal beliefs?Can the tests be done with consistent results whether the tester is a believer or non-believer?Compare what you describe to what scientists do.It is irrelevant what the tester believes the answer should be, the results are what the testing device shows.The testing device itself is tested before and after the test to remove any artifacts that are the result of the device itself.And there are outside independent folk that are also testing and their results must match the earlier results or there is a full stop until the discrepancies are explained and understood.Edited by Admin, : Fix typo in 2nd sentence: "I" => "Is"

I am aware of churches that forgo tax exempt status for this reason, and I have also been in churches where the pastor spoke of the need to follow the rules. I don't think fixing that is going to happen. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Perhaps Americans have the same problem.

No, I've got to agree with Faith and ICANT here. The gospel is the good news about Jesus Christ. And this is not merely technically accurate, but in all my experience it is the colloquial usage too. The book of Jeremiah, for example, is not "the gospel", and an Orthodox Jew expounding on that book would not be preaching the gospel.

I think his message addressed only the issue with the purchaser's taxes. If you make a donation, you are required to deduct the value of the book. What was left undiscussed is the impact on the taxes for the person offering the book. Can that person now escape paying taxes on the revenue from accepting a donation of the book, when they would have had to pay taxes on a sale of the book? I don't think kbertsche addressed the issue. It turns out that the answer is extremely complicated requiring a many factored legal analysis, but a church selling a religious book may not have to pay taxes either way.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

A quick search turns up about lots of articles about churches fearing losing their tax exempt status due to opposition to gay marriage, something which has not happened. However I did find an article discussing a federal appellate court upholding a decision by the IRS to pull the status of a church that spent lots of money on ads in an attempt to make sure Bill Clinton was not elected.Appeals Court Says IRS Was Right to Strip Church’s Tax Exemption

quote:

---

The I.R.S. revoked the tax exemption of Branch Ministries -- operating as the Church at Pierce Creek -- in early 1995. The service said the ads, which ran in USA Today and The Washington Times four days before the 1992 presidential election, were examples of the church's illegal partisan politicking.

​

Under the headline: "Christians Beware. Do not put the economy ahead of the Ten Commandments," the advertisements listed Mr. Clinton's stand on abortion, homosexuality, and other issues. The ads concluded: "Bill Clinton is promoting policies that are in rebellion to God's laws."

​

The fine print at the bottom of the ads informed readers: "Tax-deductible donations for this advertisement gladly accepted."

---

Sounds like the words of an honest agnostic to me.
When we read Tom Sawyer, we expect the words of Mark Twain to come through the characters. If we simply said that many unknown folks wrote Tom Sawyer, would the stories IMPACT be any less?
Heck, what if computers "wrote" it? How would we test the truthfulness of the words,phrases and stories against "reality"? Is it possible for a computer to be truthful? Is it possible for a computer to lie? Is it possible for a computer to have an ulterior motive?

I wonder if our Creator cares who we vote for or how we decide?

Yet all your post does is avoid answering the question (just as in the post I was replying to). Phat, you are just trying to palm the pea, con the rubes, move the goal posts.The post you quote was a reply to one of your posts where you claimed:

quote:

---

Lets take a recent Bible Study i had-how to differentiate the will of God from the plan of God.

---

You took the class. What were the answers?How do you test to see if something is the will of God?How do you test to determine if something is the Plan of God?What are the tests? Do any of the tests require some prior conditions of YOUR personal beliefs?Can the tests be done with consistent results whether the tester is a believer or non-believer?

Granted, your "argument" is pure sophistry (to elevate it far higher than it deserves). Nobody would attribute "many unknown folks" to a work whose author is well known. It is when the authors of a work are much less well known that any questions arise. I am far too accustomed to creationists lying through their teeth; I would hope that you are not similarly inclined.Granted, I read far more of Mark Twain's other works, such as Roughing It, The Innocents Abroad, and Letters from the Earth. I believe that it was in Huckleberry Finn that his most racist and pro-slavery statements were made. Was that Mark Twain "coming through the characters" to endorse racism and slavery? Or was he presenting a clear picture of someone steeped in racism and slavery expressing how he thought so that we "normals" could see it for the abomination that it actually is?Answer Jar's question.

You always say this, and yet I honestly am unconscious of any motivation to fool anybody. What I think is happening is our old source vs content argument that you attempted to show me some years back. I was merely attempting to show that source matters and that human beings are capable of truthful content if inspired by the right source. Also that hypothetically a computer can neither be inspired nor uninspired. I suppose you could argue that facts are facts and reality is reality and if I move the goalposts in order to win that one, it is intellectually dishonest. You know of my belief in a necessary source to inspire and/or illuminate content.Im still trying to work through this philosophy.
ABe: Perhaps you would argue that even if Source was tales told around a campfire, Content can still be important and valid. Am I close?Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Now you have me pulling out the Dictionary again to see what sophistry is! And what does my argument deserve? In your eyes, what precisely is my argument? I need some help hereABe: My argument may certainly be fallacious...but who decides? Also I have no intention of deceiving anyone.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

My argument is that every source can be wrong, can lie, can be mistaken, can mislead, can word replies to make them intentionally ambiguous.It is never smart to simply believe what you are told regardless of the source.And I agree that it is very likely you do not do it on purpose but what happens is instead of answering questions you change the subject.Look at the post in question.Here is is entirely:

quote:

---

Yet all your post does is avoid answering the question (just as in the post I was replying to). Phat, you are just trying to palm the pea, con the rubes, move the goal posts.

​

The post you quote was a reply to one of your posts where you claimed:

​

quote:

---

Lets take a recent Bible Study i had-how to differentiate the will of God from the plan of God.

---

​

You took the class. What were the answers?

​

How do you test to see if something is the will of God?

​

How do you test to determine if something is the Plan of God?

​

What are the tests? Do any of the tests require some prior conditions of YOUR personal beliefs?

​

Can the tests be done with consistent results whether the tester is a believer or non-believer?

---

I was asking you to tell us what you learned in the class you claimed to have just taken. What were the techniques they taught you to use to discriminate between the will of God and the plan of God?