Should Churches Pay Taxes?

[OWB]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...p;dopt=Abstract

That was an article from 1992... :banghead:

 

[smoke_em06]

My point is, if you take the Bible 100% literally, the earth is only roughly 6000 year old, and science has a lot of evidence that is not the case.

Metaphors and allegory, man.

The bible does state that man was created 5 days after the earth. Other scriptures point to the earth being about 10,000-6000 years old. But all I said was I don't know. No one knows. However, if I had to guess, I would say about 8,000 years old. I don't definitely don't think that the earth is 64,000,000,000 years old like some scientists. I can't wait to find out though. That will be exciting!!!

 

[allvol123]

That was an article from 1992... :banghead:

wow, that is practically the stone ages. this culture prefers to tell people that they are not at fault for anything that happens to themselves. i feel no one learns anything from that method.

 

[therealUT]

God has made it very clear to us about creation. I don't care what a theologian might say. My God is awesome and I am created in HIS IMAGE!!!! Not an Ape.

In that case, apparently the following theological (and I believe more extraordinary) take on the creation stories in Genesis means nothing to you:

What we mean by the 'days' we know in experience are those that have a morning because the sun rises and an evening because the sun sets. But the first three 'days' of creation passed without the benefit of sun, since, according to Scripture, the sun was made on the fourth day. Of course, there is mention in the beginning that 'light' was made by the Word of God, and that God seperated it from darkness, calling the light day and the darkness night. But no experience of our senses can tell us just what kind of 'light' it was and by what kind of alternating movement it caused 'morning' and 'evening.'

Scripture never mentions the word 'night' when speaking of those days one after the other. Nowhere does it say: "There was night," but: "There was evening and morning, the first day." It is as though the meaning were: The knowledge of a created thing, seen just as it is, is dimmer, so to speak, than when the thing is contemplated in the wisdom of God, as in the art by which it was made...to the praise and love of its Creator.

When the creature does this in the knowledge of itself, this is the first day; when it does so in the knowledge of the firmament--the heavens between the waters above and the waters below--this is the second day. So, too, in the knowledge of the earth and sea and of all vegetation on the earth, this is the third day; in the knowledge of the sun and moon and of all the stars, this is the fourth day; in the knowledge of all the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, this if the fifth day; in the knowledge of all terrestrial animals and , lastly, of man himself, this is the sixth day.

The statement that God rested from all His works on the seventh day and sactified it should not be interpreted in a childish way, as if God had labored in His operations.

 

[OWB]

wow, that is practically the stone ages. this culture prefers to tell people that they are not at fault for anything that happens to themselves. i feel no one learns anything from that method.

It was 14 years ago, the research in addiction has grown tremedously since then.

But whatever, I'm done with this subject. Like Ron White has often said, you can't fix stupid.

 

[smoke_em06]

In that case, apparently the following theological (and I believe more extraordinary) take on the creation stories in Genesis means nothing to you:

STORY!!! Simple as that.

 

[therealUT]

STORY!!! Simple as that.

Then I guess you don't care that was and still is the story behind the creation story as taught to all Christians until the reformation...

 

[smoke_em06]

Then I guess you don't care that was and still is the story behind the creation story as taught to all Christians until the reformation...

There is no story behind the creation story. I could make up anything about the creation that I wanted to and believe that it is right. Wait, that would make me a theologian.

 

[smoke_em06]

Then I guess you don't care that was and still is the story behind the creation story as taught to all Christians until the reformation...

I don't need a thelogian to tell me what he thinks. I'll stick with the words of God. But you go right ahead.

 

[smoke_em06]

Genesis 1:1 says “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth…” Later, in Genesis 2:4, it seems that a second, different story of Creation begins. However, close examination of the text will show that what is recorded in 1:1-2:3 is an introductory summary of the events of creation, and that what begins with verse 2:4 is a more detailed account of the Creation of mankind. There is nothing in the two Creation accounts that contradicts. Genesis 2:4-25 should be understand as a further explanation of what happened in Genesis 1:26-31. It is comparable to taking a magnifying glass to Genesis 1:26-31 to take a closer look at the Creation of mankind.

 

[therealUT]

Genesis 1:1 says “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth…” Later, in Genesis 2:4, it seems that a second, different story of Creation begins. However, close examination of the text will show that what is recorded in 1:1-2:3 is an introductory summary of the events of creation, and that what begins with verse 2:4 is a more detailed account of the Creation of mankind. There is nothing in the two Creation accounts that contradicts. Genesis 2:4-25 should be understand as a further explanation of what happened in Genesis 1:26-31. It is comparable to taking a magnifying glass to Genesis 1:26-31 to take a closer look at the Creation of mankind.

Way to copy and paste from this website and then try to pawn off the material as your own.

 

[smoke_em06]

Way to copy and paste from this website and then try to pawn off the material as your own.

I had no intention of pawning this off as my own. Why should I retype something that I totally agree with. That article just solidified my point that there is only one creation story. I would have posted it as a link if I knew how.

 

[therealUT]

Are you really going to tell me that these stories do not contradict:

First Story of Creation

Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it. God saw how good it was. Evening came, and morning followed--the third day...

Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground..." the sixth day

Gn 1:11-13, 26-31.


The Second Story of Creation

While as yet there was no field shrub on earth and no grass of the field had sprouted, for the Lord God had sent no rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the soil, but a stream was welling up out of the ground--the Lord God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being.

Then the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and he placed there the man whom he had formed. Out of the ground the Lord God made various trees grow.

Gn 2:5-9

So, according to chapter 1, God made the vegetation first, and according to chapter 2, man before vegetation.

 

[therealUT]

I had no intention of pawning this off as my own. Why should I retype something that I totally agree with. That article just solidified my point that there is only one creation story. I would have posted it as a link if I knew how.

You should have put it inside quotations, as it is not your original thought.

 

[smoke_em06]

You should have put it inside quotations, as it is not your original thought.

Sorry real, we all can't be perfect like you. no, but it certainly solidifies my thought.

 

[OWB]

Way to copy and paste from this website and then try to pawn off the material as your own.

 

[therealUT]

Sorry real, we all can't be perfect like you. no, but it certainly solidifies my thought.

No, it does not. Just because there are others out there who also cannot seem to see that vegetation being created prior to man in one story and post man in another is contradictory, in no way solidifies your thought. It just means that, yes, there are more idiots out there.

 

[volinbham]

Did I miss the part of this thread about taxes? :blink:

 

[therealUT]

Did I miss the part of this thread about taxes? :blink:

I think you will find anything concerning taxes in the posts prior to Smoke Em's entry.

 

[therealUT]

Sorry real, we all can't be perfect like you. no, but it certainly solidifies my thought.

Or if you want me to use the KJV verses:

First Story

And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and morning were the third day.

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...the sixth day.

Gn 1:12-23, 26-31

Second Story

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed life...And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden...And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight...

Gn 2:7-9

Game, Set, Match.

 

[smoke_em06]

No, it does not. Just because there are others out there who also cannot seem to see that vegetation being created prior to man in one story and post man in another is contradictory, in no way solidifies your thought. It just means that, yes, there are more idiots out there.

Real, you just have a problem with anyone who does not see your point of view and say "you know what, you're right." Well, I think that you are wrong so deal with it. If you want to call me and everyone else who believes the same as I an idiot then go ahead. It makes no difference to me. However, I stand firm in my belief that Genesis 2 is just a more indepth summary of Genesis 1.

 

[smoke_em06]

Or if you want me to use the KJV verses:
Game, Set, Match.

To Smoke_Em

 

[therealUT]

In that case Smoke, did God plant the trees and grass, see that it was good, and then pull them up, only to replant them again after he created man? In which case, God would have been mistaken in planting vegetation in the first place, therefore he would be fallible and mutable. Your choice, either an infallible God or an allegorical Bible...

 

[allvol123]

It was 14 years ago, the research in addiction has grown tremedously since then.

But whatever, I'm done with this subject. Like Ron White has often said, you can't fix stupid.

I am sure the research has grown tremendously. Anything they can label a disease will get more money thrown at it. have they researched low will power?

I guess you consider stupid a disease also? maybe if we throw enough money at it we can fix it. Thoughts from bad comedians are pretty weak repsonses.

 

[therealUT]

I am sure the research has grown tremendously. Anything they can label a disease will get more money thrown at it. have they researched low will power?

I guess you consider stupid a disease also? maybe if we throw enough money at it we can fix it. Thoughts from bad comedians are pretty weak repsonses.

You can't fix stupid, just ask Smoke Em.