"God's" will, my will, free will ?

Etu Malku

Mercuræn
Messages
1,439
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Right, your case. Very well:

In your opinion, who are you having greater Faith in: your self, your wife, or me?
In your opinion, who is having greater Faith in you: your self, your wife, or me?
Relax . . . I have more to do than spend all my time on these forums.
I do not believe in faith, for it means not to have belief.
I believe in MySelf and I believe in my wife and children . . . You, I have faith in.
 

Ben Masada

Well-Known Member
Messages
999
Reaction score
1
Points
0
:( Don't understand, but accept your veracity (evidence of my faith in you).

:confused: So what would "faith in people" mean, to you?

Pax et amore omnia vincunt!


To me, faith in people means blind trust. A big mistake, if we consider what happened to the faithtuls of Jim Jones, when almost a thousand of them ended their lives in a massive act of forced suicide. If they had known a little better the insane man they were following, that casstastrophe would have been avoided. Hence, knowldege brings life and faith brings death. No wonder Hosea 4:6 says that people perish for lack of knowledge.
Ben
 

Bhaktajan II

Hare Krishna Yogi
Messages
2,277
Reaction score
115
Points
63
To me, faith in people means blind trust. A big mistake, if we consider what happened to the faithtuls of Jim Jones, when almost a thousand of them ended their lives in a massive act of forced suicide. If they had known a little better the insane man they were following, that casstastrophe would have been avoided. Hence, knowldege brings life and faith brings death. No wonder Hosea 4:6 says that people perish for lack of knowledge.
Ben


To me, faith in people means blind trust.

Yes. And thus the blind person awaits for rescue ---at it finally arrives.
It's the (Blind) waiting that seems interminable.

A big mistake

To the mistake maker comes hard lessons and chastisement both ---for Exceedily-Fine does Karma's wheel turns of actions' instructs.


Consider what happened to the faithtuls of Jim Jones:

A thousand of them ended their lives in a massive act of forced suicide.
If they had known a little better the insane man they were following, that casstastrophe would have been avoided.

They found themselves in a gathering of Ghosts ---I don't think they could communicate as we do, but they should have been able to sense eachother's freshly devolved "Ghost-entity-bodies; aka, astra-bodies; aka, "Subtile-body of mind/intelligence/ego (mana, buddhi, ahankara)"

But the castastrophe was *evidently destined* to end as it did, No?
Each persons' fate since they were born was destined for the path that ultimately is ascribed to their biographies, each and everyone's, No?

The foolish acts (due to a lack of knowledge; or alternatively said, due to an overabundance of ignornace; or alternatively said, due to bereftment of Intelligence).

Similarly, yet different, a soldier follows orders ---placing his faith in the Judgement and accumen of the Generals and the Ministors of the "Goal".

When performing one's simple duites self-lessly, even if sudden death comes, performers of alloted duties do not perish without the merit of "intentions" ---the hard lessons learnt is such gross round-about ways can harden the soul or humble it; but these are mundane affairs that keep one in the realm of mundane affairs. The lessons are for the eyes of the beholders to learn . . . depending and/or inaccord with the cultivated level of Spiritual-Knowledge of the "Self", plus, their past karma, and mother-natures skills ant multi-tasking the dispatchment of these folks.

We have a case of Mother-nature's Karma meeting up the maxim: "For Every Season there is a time and place under heaven"
 

luecy7

Well-Known Member
Messages
892
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Luecy, what is your definition(s) of faith?

Let's say your car runs out of gas on a rural Iowa highway. (Not that this has ever happened to me :)) You have no cell phone, the sun is starting to set, and you're literally hours from your house (where your wife is). Who do you have more faith in to get you back on the road before dark: 1.) God, 2.) your wife, 3. "we the people" (government, i.e. a highway patrolman/police officer), or 4.) a stranger in a nearby farmhouse?
Well this has happened to me. I was on an autobahn in Germany, asleep, and the kid who was driving did not understand how the gas gauges work. This particular vehicle showed 1/4 tank left when the yellow light came on, and he was preferring to believe the gauge over the light. In this case we had a cell phone, but did not have too many contacts nearby to call, especially since neither of us spoke deutsch. So we hiked it and came across a phone on the freeway, which immediately calls someone, and who fortunately spoke American. :D Though it was something just under 200 euro for the help and a liter, this diesel engine required spraying some juice into the intake manifold to get it started, so the man was certainly helpful getting us back on the road.

If you can extend "We the people" to all people, especially foreigners, then perhaps it was a case of faith in "We the people". Sadly, "We the people" gets used to mean faith in a government over others, especially foreigners, but even the increasing absence of faith between people within the USA.

Early this year I foolishly got stuck in the snow just outside of Dallas, venturing off the road a bit to avoid some traffic that was slipping and sliding. It was that time of the late evening when snow melt became treacherous ice. My vehicle had no problem with the ice, but it proved to be a disaster going off the beaten pavement. The tow trucks and police were plenty busy. Being a very long distance from my destination, well stocked and with a full tank of gas, I was prepared to wait it out until the next day. At least I was off the road. I don't know if I overtly prayed, but I mentally said that if a good samaritan wants to stop by, then great; otherwise, I was going to enjoy and make use of the time. We belong to AAA so if I wanted to ask for help, I easily could have. I got on the phone for a bit to let family know, then laid back to get some rest. Sure enough, a couple of kids with duallys and chains stopped by. After we unstuck my vehicle, I talked with them for a bit. The one kid said the other helped him, so he decided to join him with helping others for the night. I expressed my appreciation for their behavior with praise and money, and did say a prayer of thanks.

I have been the good samaritan in a similar situation by helping give rides to people who were stranded in their vehicles because they could not make it up the hills. Some people refuse, and I could see on their faces that they really wanted to, but they had to refuse because they are fearful of trusting a stranger. Perhaps what they don't realize is, I likewise had to trust them. Those who could trust me received a ride home. "We the people", right? :D Many people prefer to trust a uniform and a gun.
 

Bhaktajan II

Hare Krishna Yogi
Messages
2,277
Reaction score
115
Points
63
Originally Posted by Etu Malku
Are you gonna pass that little plate around grubbing for money?

“The bigger they are the harder they fall” ---Alfalfa.

Grubs, for some, are for eating, No?
grubs1.jpg


Bhaktajan's cooments:
The dedicated performers of allotted duties do not perish without the merit of "intentions" ---the hard lessons learnt is such gross round-about ways can harden the soul or humble it ---depending on the cultivated level of Spiritual-Knowledge of the "Self", plus, their past karma (karma-phalam, aka, fruits of actions).

Grubs, for some, are social-canbalism, No?
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/


 

Nick the Pilot

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,837
Reaction score
72
Points
48
Location
Tokyo, Japan
"Aren't religious organizations tax exempt?"

--> Not when religion turns into political speech

When religion turns into political speech - Religious News ArcaMax Publishing

WASHINGTON (UPI) -- With the American political season nearly in full venom, the U.S. Supreme Court is being given the chance to decide when a religious organization wanders off course into the realm of political advocacy, endangering the organization's tax-exempt status.

Also in the petition bringing that question to the high court: Whether the Internal Revenue Service can avoid a constitutional ruling by refunding taxes back to the non-profit organization while at the same time maintaining the taxes were correctly assessed.

The case involves Catholic Answers Inc. and its founder, Karl Keating, and an uncharacteristically timid IRS. But the organization said the IRS policy involved "affects the speech of hundreds if not thousands of non-profit organizations."

If the Supreme Court agrees to review the case, it should be of particular interest to abortion rights advocates (code words for "Democrats"), who may feel the heat from powerful Catholic institutions.

Catholic Answers Inc. is a non-profit religious corporation organized under California law, with headquarters in El Cajon near San Diego.

The organization produced a voters' guide in 2004 advising readers of the Catholic way to vote (without naming specific candidates), and Keating posted two "e-letters" questioning whether Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the presumptive Democratic nominee and a professed Catholic, should be denied Holy Communion because of his support for abortion rights.

In its petition to the Supreme Court, Catholic Answers said Kerry received communion at an African Methodist Episcopal church in April 2004 and a week later took Holy Communion at a Catholic mass.

"Keating published an e-letter on Catholic Answers' Web site that discussed the events and why Senator Kerry, a Catholic, should have been rebuked for taking communion from a community that lacked a valid sacrament of [holy] orders [the AME church]. ... Keating was also critical of Senator Kerry's views on abortion," the petition says, "and suggested that he should be denied holy communion. ... Keating published a second e-letter ... again discussing Senator Kerry and the Catholic church's teachings on abortion and the eucharist."

Enter the IRS.

The agency asked Catholic Answers a number of questions -- "73 questions, including 28 discrete subparts" the petition said -- then ruled the voters' guide did not constitute a political expenditure because it didn't contain "express advocacy," but Keating's postings on Kerry and communion did contain express advocacy. The IRS ordered Catholic Answers to cough up excise taxes on the e-letters for 2004 and 2005 -- totaling a little more than $100.

As a precaution, even though it was ruled non-political, Catholic Answers moved production of the voters' guide to a newly created sister organization.

Catholic Answers filed papers protesting the assessment. "Specifically, CA does not believe that the statements contained in the e-letters constitute 'participation in, or intervention in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office,'" the group said in asking for its money back. "Accordingly, CA is entitled to a refund of taxes ... because it did not make a 'political expenditure.'"

On March 27, 2009 -- the last day before the six-month wait period expired under federal law -- the IRS said it was going to "abate" the excise taxes and credit Catholic Answers' account, with interest, because the "political intervention ... was not willful and flagrant," the petition says. In other words, the IRS rejected Catholic Answers' administrative refund claim, reaffirmed the prior finding that the e-letters constituted political expenditures but said it would return the taxes.

"Catholic Answers would like to engage in substantially similar issue advocacy in the future but will not [do] so long as it can have taxes assessed against it, be subject to another grueling investigation and possibly have its tax-exempt status revoked for such speech.

"Because the IRS did not change its position on whether Catholic Answers' e-letters [were] a political expenditure and gave it an abatement rather than the refund it requested," the petition told the Supreme Court, "Catholic Answers has no assurance that this scenario will not happen again, and thus is chilled from engaging in substantially similar political speech."

Catholic Answers went to federal court to bring the IRS to heel, but a judge ruled in part Keating lacked standing to bring suit -- couldn't show an injury; that Catholic Answers' claims became moot when the IRS abated and returned the excise taxes, and that Catholic Answers could not raise any arguments related to "express advocacy" or the return of funds to Keating because the doctrine of variance barred it.

A federal appeals court panel agreed with the judge, and the full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused a rehearing.

The legal doctrine of variance says a taxpayer, when seeking to get back tax from the IRS, must include every conceivable argument in his or her refund claim. If the taxpayer later has to sue for the refund, any arguments that substantially vary from the refund claim will be dismissed by a judge for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Conversely, the IRS is free to raise any new grounds in court, even if it did not raise those grounds in the original notice of deficiency to the taxpayer.

In other words, the doctrine makes the taxpayer the one-legged man in any rear-end kicking contest with the IRS.

But the doctrine isn't absolute, and a taxpayer may still argue that a variance is minimal.

"The IRS routinely seeks to avoid judicial review of its administrative decisions by giving in without renouncing the policy that gave rise to the dispute with the taxpayer," CA's petition says in arguing that the Supreme Court should review. The statute on jurisdiction allows such tactics because a taxpayer cannot file a refund suit until the taxpayer has paid a tax and filed an administrative refund claim. The petition argued the 9th Circuit's decision insulates the IRS from judicial review even when the taxpayer has followed the refund procedures mandated by Congress.

"In this case, abatement has been used to prevent judicial determination of whether the IRS policy violates the First Amendment rights of groups and individuals and has the effect of chilling future political speech because the determination remains, and will forever remain, unresolved," the petition says.

It adds: "The underlying legal issue of Catholic Answers' refund claim involves core political speech and the application of a vague and indeterminable IRS standard to that political speech. Currently, the IRS is able to silence core political speech by trickery.

"Catholic Answers is left in the same position now as when it first spoke on its Web site about the application of religious teachings to a political official," the petition says. CA engaged in core political speech and was subject "to a grueling IRS investigation," it said. Then the IRS determined that Catholic Answers' speech violated the law by engaging in political intervention "under the IRS's vague and indeterminable 'facts and circumstances' test."

When CA contested the penalty, the IRS "waited until the last possible moment to give Catholic Answers its money back," but did not change its position on whether the tax should be imposed. And now, because of rulings by the judge and the court of appeals, "Catholic Answers is left without any access to judicial review," the petition said.

Worse, if CA engages in similar speech in the future it faces a penalty, "only to have the IRS give its money back if Catholic Answers again seeks judicial review. This type of trickery, which leaves the constitutionality of the underlying statute untouchable, affects the speech of hundreds if not thousands of non-profit organizations," the petition says.

The IRS, of course, will have a significantly different story to tell when it files a response brief to the petition.

One question unlikely to be answered in the case, even if the Supreme Court grants review, is why the IRS picked on Catholic Answers as an enforcement example.

Far more powerful entities appeared to be working within the Catholic church in 2004 for Kerry's defeat, but did not receive similar IRS attention.

In an Oct. 28, 2004, commentary in the Los Angeles Times, "Amazing Gall: The Catholic Attack on Kerry," writer Margaret Carlson contends the George W. Bush campaign worked hand in glove with Catholic bishops to attack the Democratic candidate for being a secular Catholic.

Among her examples: Only weeks before the presidential election, the bishop of the Diocese of Wheeling, W.Va., "sent letters to 86,000 Catholics warning that it would be a 'grave evil' to vote for someone who condoned legal abortion. Several bishops said if Kerry came to mass, they would deny him communion."

West Virginia, long a Democratic stronghold, went for Bush by about 100,000 votes.
 

radarmark

Quaker-in-the-Making
Messages
3,212
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Location
Yellow Springs Ohio USA
Nick, nor should they. Even when the pulpit is "providing guidance" (crypto-speak for endorsing a candidate or position, I like non-missionary myself) their status should be revolked. I wish that evangelicals and fundamentalists in my country (U.S.A.) had stayed "a people apart" (the position taken after Scopes) and not re-integrated into the political mainstream. They have found so many loop-holes in the wall between chrch and state that it looks like what they say the Southern Border is like. I even have problems with polling places being set in steeple houses. In New England it really made no difference (after abbout Jackson's time) because it was so impolite and personal to discuss religion. But nowdays that is not the case.

Pax et amore omnia vincunt!
 
Top