New Revenue Ruling?

[Nikki]

But what good is a heaven without card games or dancing?

[grixit]

A

Among my other less-interesting-to-you accomplishments, some time back I cracked the ecclesiastical code of the 16th-century Council of Trent and solved the entire Catholic-Protestant rift

Actually, several years ago, the Roman Catholic Church and one of the lutheran churches (the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, i think, but it might have been another one) issued parallel statements. The catholics asserted that, without speaking of the past, they find that the lutheran practices of today do not fall under the condemnation of the Council of Trent. The lutherans asserted, without speaking of the past, they find that the catholic practices of today do not fall under the condemnation of the 95 Theses. There's been a similar approach to the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church. Now we need to tackle Calvin's Institutes and The Fundamentals.

Of course the most significant result of such acts of detente is to provoke hardcore reactions in each church against such "selling out of the truth", along with threats of schism.

[grixit]

They can only condemn distortions of CtC, and hope that CtC is distorted as often as possible. If they were to condemn the in-context language of CtC itself, they would expose the IRS to greater risk than Pete.

Determining the context of CTC language is next to impossible. There are passages in CTC that are the verbal equivalence of the Penrose Triangle.

Hmm, it never occurred to me that Pete might be a postmodernist TP, using obscurity to masquerade as profundity.

Um, aren't all tps postmodernist?

[Cpt Banjo]

Um, aren't all tps postmodernist?

I was really referring to writing style. PoMo'ists are characterized by a pathological inability to write basic declarative sentences in English (or French, for that matter). Most TP idiots -- I know, that's redundant -- are comprehensible at least, albeit wrong ("There is no law"; "The 16th was never ratified"; "Congress can only tax within the territories and D.C."; " 'employee' means only corporate officers and governmental personnel"). If Pete's sentences are the verbal equivalent of a Penrose Triangle, they must be as opaque as the writings of Foucault, DeMan, Derrida, et al.

Of course, some of Bulten's ravings make DeMan read like a Dick and Jane book.

[notorial dissent]

Um, aren't all tps postmodernist?

Most TP idiots -- I know, that's redundant --

I think the word you want is oxy-moronic, or in John's case, just plain moronic.

[Nikki]

To Captain Kickback:

You are Catholic, but you never said a Hail Mary, not even once? I find that rather hard to believe.

To Nikki:

Consider this analogy...depending on environmental conditions, water can be either a solid, liquid, or a gas. So it can take three different forms, but at the molecular level it is still always H20.

It is completely inappropriate to pose rational arguments when arguing theology. Theological disagreements are only suitable to resolution via sword or scimitar.

[LPC]

Determining the context of CTC language is next to impossible. There are passages in CTC that are the verbal equivalence of the Penrose Triangle.

I have begun thinking of what Bulten, Hendrickson, and most of the LH crowd writes as "contextual gibberish," which is different from run-of-the-mill gibberish, which is nonsensical on its face, while contextual gibberish is only gibberish when read in context.

The context of CtC and LH is that they have redefined so many words to suite their pre-conceived conclusions that statements that might appear sensible are actually gibberish.

For example, the statement "I did not earn any wages last year" might seem like a sensible statement, except that CtCers do not consider value paid for labor to be "wages." Whether they believe that compensation for labor is "earned" is also uncertain.

Given the uncertainties in meaning of everything that Bulten writes, it is unintelligible gibberish even when it appears coherent.

[silversopp]

Plus, ANY place with that many women (with the exception of Valhalla and the Islamic Paradise) is, by definition, hell.

I'd prefer my heaven NOT be a sausage-fest. As a Mormon, my religion teaches that those women in heaven will have "perfected bodies". Grin grin snap snap wink wink nudge nudge say no more!

[Kimokeo]

This is a shameless plug for the link.

I think the link should be removed.

Nope. By posting it here, a number of people in law enforcement are now looking at that site.

Makes sense.

[LPC]

Plus, ANY place with that many women (with the exception of Valhalla and the Islamic Paradise) is, by definition, hell.

I'd prefer my heaven NOT be a sausage-fest. As a Mormon, my religion teaches that those women in heaven will have "perfected bodies". Grin grin snap snap wink wink nudge nudge say no more!

Many Quakers would describe ideas about an after-life as "notions," which is a usually dismissive term meaning something having no present relevance.

[John J. Bulten]

Actually, several years ago, the Roman Catholic Church and one of the lutheran churches (the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, i think, but it might have been another one) issued parallel statements. The catholics asserted that, without speaking of the past, they find that the lutheran practices of today do not fall under the condemnation of the Council of Trent. The lutherans asserted, without speaking of the past, they find that the catholic practices of today do not fall under the condemnation of the 95 Theses.

Publish or perish!

Now those of us of the true, Reformed, predestinarian faith (i.e., the Presbyterian Church USA), do not have to worry about such trivial disputes, having been predestined to salvation.

(Okay, I know they changed the Book of Order 75 years or so ago, but hey, I'm still a faithful follower of that ever charming French lawyer, John Calvin -- not to mention Oliver Cromwell.)

Greetings, Prof, from us "separated brethren" in the PCA, six-point Calvinists bringing forth the generations of frozen chosen since 1973. (I haven't published the sixth point yet.)

So you can see why I prefer the conciliar decrees to "The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments". In those days, the labyrinth hedges were so much better-trimmed, and a charming lawyer with a Key could navigate them blindfolded.

So I can ignore everything I hear daily about Calvin being a domestic terrorist?

[buck09]

Greetings, Prof, from us "separated brethren" in the PCA, six-point Calvinists bringing forth the generations of frozen chosen since 1973. (I haven't published the sixth point yet.)

So you can see why I prefer the conciliar decrees to "The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments". In those days, the labyrinth hedges were so much better-trimmed, and a charming lawyer with a Key could navigate them blindfolded.

So I can ignore everything I hear daily about Calvin being a domestic terrorist?

From one PCA member to another, I'm disappointed but not surprised... Which Church in Tulsa are you a member of, Christ Presbyterian or Redeemer? (Edit...The address you listed on Bob Schulz's Petition puts you about 6 blocks from Christ Pres, but I see you transferred membership to Lake Osborne Presbyterian in 2006...)

1. Is your session aware of your views on taxation?
2. Is your session aware of your theological views that may be out of accord with the confessional standards of the church?
3. Is your session aware that you are active in promoting views on taxation that have resulted in civil and criminal penalties for people who have followed them?

Simple declarative responses would be nice, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Prof]

Actually, several years ago, the Roman Catholic Church and one of the lutheran churches (the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, i think, but it might have been another one) issued parallel statements. The catholics asserted that, without speaking of the past, they find that the lutheran practices of today do not fall under the condemnation of the Council of Trent. The lutherans asserted, without speaking of the past, they find that the catholic practices of today do not fall under the condemnation of the 95 Theses.

Publish or perish!

Now those of us of the true, Reformed, predestinarian faith (i.e., the Presbyterian Church USA), do not have to worry about such trivial disputes, having been predestined to salvation.

(Okay, I know they changed the Book of Order 75 years or so ago, but hey, I'm still a faithful follower of that ever charming French lawyer, John Calvin -- not to mention Oliver Cromwell.)

Greetings, Prof, from us "separated brethren" in the PCA, six-point Calvinists bringing forth the generations of frozen chosen since 1973. (I haven't published the sixth point yet.)

So you can see why I prefer the conciliar decrees to "The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments". In those days, the labyrinth hedges were so much better-trimmed, and a charming lawyer with a Key could navigate them blindfolded.

So I can ignore everything I hear daily about Calvin being a domestic terrorist?

Yes, Bulten, given your analytical skills, your intransigence in the face of authority, your reading comprehension skills, and your willingness to blithly lead the more ingnorant into error and financial difficulty with the IRS, I think that predestinarianism is your only hope.

By the way, as an ex-history professor,ex-law professor, and ex-judge, I find your analysis of the word "includes" nothing less than breathtakingly silly. You can take it to "Monty Python," but I do not advise you to take it to court.

However, as I repeatedly asked Steviepoo, if you think so much of this argument, take it to tax court; then appeal to the District and Circuit courts, as appropriate. If you are very nice, and phrase the issue very straightforwardly, those judges might not sanction you. Then, when the Supremes decline to grant cert., you can petition the Congress/executive, along with Schultz.

In any event, unless a court agrees with your non-sensical analysis, or Congress changes the statute, or the Executive re-interprets the law to your liking, you have to give up -- because those are the only avenues in our Constitutional Republic/Democracy. That is to say: Congress makes the laws; the Executive enforces; the judges interpret and determine consitutionality.

By the way, if you can find anything in the 5th and 14th making wages not subject to taxation (something that has happened on the State and Federal level over and over since the middle of the 19th century), I'll eat my copy. Of course, there is the takings clause, but that is well-satisfied by the Congressional enactment of the statutes making up the IRC and the continued availability for judicial and congressional review/revision.

As to predestinarianism itself, I am firmly in the other camp, as is PCUSA -- predestinarianism being a dead-end theologically and intellectually. In fact, I do not admire that part of Calvin's Institutes; Cromwell, of course, was a bloody dictator, who did his best to exterminate the Irish, etc. Certainly, if there is a hell, ............. Zwingli probably felt much the same about the Frenchman. You, Calvin, Cromwell, and I probably do have one thing in common: Without predestination, all four of us stand little chance of escaping our just punishment for our sins.

With little regard, Prof.

[Demosthenes]

Geez guys, everyone knows the jew are the Chosen People......that's why they control everything......

Speaking of which, my husband is knee deep in helping a cousin do the family genealogy right now and I just found out that I married into one of the nine Jewish banking families! I'll qualify for that 40th level of illuminati masonry conspiracy yet.

Personally, I think my side of the family is way more cool. I've got Christopher Reeve, Benjamin Spock, and Edward Gorey as distant cousins on the plus side and Mitt Romney and Donny and Marie Osmond on the negative.

[wserra]

illuminati masonry conspiracy

Would that be the Wailing Wall?

[John J. Bulten]

those are the only avenues in our Constitutional Republic/Democracy.

Besides the rapidly shrinking right to petition, the People reserve 9th and 10th amendment rights to other avenues, such as jury nullification and independence from government abuse. "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." —George Washington

You, Calvin, Cromwell, and I probably do have one thing in common: Without predestination, all four of us stand little chance of escaping our just punishment for our sins.

Mercy and justice kiss; and we will all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God.

1. Is your session aware of your views on taxation?
2. Is your session aware of your theological views that may be out of accord with the confessional standards of the church?
3. Is your session aware that you are active in promoting views on taxation that have resulted in civil and criminal penalties for people who have followed them?

1. No, why would I need to inform them specially of my intent to uphold the law?
2. Yes, I object only to parts of WCF 19.3 and 21.7.
3. No, no civil or criminal penalty has ever been sustained for following the law (as explained in CtC) to my knowledge.

Would you care to post your full name and church as well?

[Joey Smith]

Besides the rapidly shrinking right to petition

The Right to Petition has not been restricted at all, nor has the government's right to simply ignore petitions . . .

the People reserve 9th and 10th amendment rights to other avenues, such as jury nullification

Jury nullification was never, ever considered a constitutional right. That is the purest of fantasy.

No, no civil or criminal penalty has ever been sustained for following the law

Only as the law has been recognized or interpreted by the courts. Plenty of people have gone to jail because they really, really, really, really believed that the law said X but the courts held that it said Y instead. Irwin Schiff, who will doubtless die in prison, still fervently believes that he was just following the law as he interprets it. Unfortunately for Irwin, you, and other TPs, your interpretation of the laws isn't worth the proverbial hill of beans.

[buck09]

Would you care to post your full name and church as well?

No thanks, I tend to encounter a lot of violent militia nuts similar to your mailbombing guru, Pete Hendrickson. Putting more personal information about myself online would only result in harassment. I've had people of Pete's ilk make outright threats against me in other places.

You, however, put your personal information in the public square, so it's fair game. There's plenty of other information I dug up with that little bit of Googling, but I won't ever post it, as I don't think you intentionally put it out there.

As for the comment you made regarding no criminal prosecutions resulting from people following CTC, that is simply not true and you know it. Unfortunately, if you actually recognized those losses for what they are, you would have to feel morally culpable, something that doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

Tell you what, invite your Pastor to read the past threads you've engaged in, here and on LostHorizons. Let me know how he reacts.

[grixit]

As to predestinarianism itself, I am firmly in the other camp, as is PCUSA -- predestinarianism being a dead-end theologically and intellectually.

B-but, what if i choose to believe in predestination?

Anyway, i can't see Bulten as a tulip sniffer. That position leaves no room for arguing that "elect" is a term of expansion.

[Imalawman]

As to predestinarianism itself, I am firmly in the other camp, as is PCUSA -- predestinarianism being a dead-end theologically and intellectually.

B-but, what if i choose to believe in predestination?

Anyway, i can't see Bulten as a tulip sniffer. That position leaves no room for arguing that "elect" is a term of expansion.

You're wrong there. I'm sure Bulten will say that Elect is a term of expansion. It means everything otherwise considered within the meaning of the term "elect". Thus, many people are in the elect making it an expansive term.

This is dangerously close to being spun off into a discussion of predestination vs. arminianism. For now I'll hold my peace on this topic, but if comes up again, no promises.