Knowing a truth .

[FanthatSpark]

I you take the time required to read link and watch entire video & descriptions to grasp the enormity of a truth.

Prayed on this for days. What is the truth? Do I reveal, or let it stand? Reveal won out as I am Christian firstly. So lets delve into this meekly and lovingly. A few days ago the following link is tied to a post I made.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemen_on_the_land

It is the last sentence in the separation of "We the people" constitutional law vs corporate constitutional law (termed civil) to label a post in the last sentence of above link as a launguage. What is thought manipulation? Is it fear for own life, loss of a loved one, fear of place (jail). Those are a few in the realm of truth and thought manipulation. With that said, I'll be the huckleberry to release the hate upon as the lion of truth 's the hate. All one can do is be crucified on a cross of truth. The following link is the rebuttal to the above link. You may have to click the title (as I do) and not use the play button. In hopes , the truth is revealed in the Light. Family.

 

[AlexDTX]

Redefining terms for the public while using the legitimate definition for the law is the game lawyers and politicians play. For example, the legitimate legal definition of a driver is one who is paid to chauffeur a passenger across public roads. This is why they need a license because they are using public property for their profit. However, after WWII, they began using the term for all people using automobiles to justify requiring a license and registration of the user and car. The psalmist says that all men are liars. The church has naively believed that we are ruled by honest people. We are not. We are ruled by liars.

 

[FanthatSpark]

Redefining terms for the public while using the legitimate definition for the law is the game lawyers and politicians play. For example, the legitimate legal definition of a driver is one who is paid to chauffeur a passenger across public roads. This is why they need a license because they are using public property for their profit. However, after WWII, they began using the term for all people using automobiles to justify requiring a license and registration of the user and car. The psalmist says that all men are liars. The church has naively believed that we are ruled by honest people. We are not. We are ruled by liars.

There is a truth in that post of Romans 3:10 to me too. There is no good in me. With that knowledge comes glory to God.
Glory to these absolutes of God:Truth, Light, Christ, Love Agape, Compassion, Morality, Grace, Forgiveness etc. These are not in none, as said in Romans 3:10 to encompass all those absolutes in a term of righteousness. Connect that verse to these... Babies through children must be taught Gods absolutes in their environments. Thus, Luke 17:2 verse of the children for they are empty vessels seeking guidance of the glorious absolutes of God to the soul.

Whewww, with that said, what is accountability to our actions? The Law.

What shields and provides double standard of law ?

If person has no law upon its flesh. Combined with no morality training & further combined with unlimited wealth... What is that?
No, not a Trump for you jokers out there, lol. Its more systemic than that and much older than a Trump.

I will leave the question open...

Be well in your endevours.

 

[Brotherly Spirit]

The Wikipedia page has that Freemen on the land believe they're only bound to statue law (written law) if they consent. Also that they're independent of the rule of law, except common law (case law) which is their own interpretation of it. There's a series of cases listed below where people were clearly doing something they shouldn't. More obvious is the case of Wilfred Keith Thompson and two others who were charged with serious offenses of breaking, entering, and theft plus firearms.

So few questions on mind are: Does statue law include everything from a constitution to laws as a result, if so how are we to uphold and enforce both when anytime a person can deny consent or refusal to recognize authority? What about a statue law against murder, is the murder's consent necessary? Left to case law would their consent and interpretation be necessary?

Guess the questions are above is trying to get a clearer understanding of what's actually believed versus what Wikipedia claims. It seems to excuse harmful and wrongful acts, which risk serious consequences not only to themselves but others. To clarify I support localizing authority and limiting government, but I believe having written laws and enforcing those laws are necessary.

You mention God's law which I think you're comparing it to commercial/business law. That the difference is the former doesn't separate a person from their actions, while the latter does so liability and consequences are avoided. Example is owners and shareholders not held liable personally, but as a whole the corporation which finances the paying away of liability issues. Is this correct, also if the actual people were hold liable, what form of punishment or penalty other than money would be acceptable?

Considering as believers the respect for authority, for example Matthew 22:19-21 which has Jesus saying what is Caesar's is to be paid (taxes). But the case Gavin Kayhlem he claimed to be a freeman not having to pay his council tax debts and Mark Bond who didn't pay his tax claimed he was no longer a citizen of the United Kingdom. Considering Romans 13:1-2 too, what do Freemen on the land actually belief about authority? Is it compatible with Christianity, which acknowledges authority and law of God plus being written (ex: the Bible and the Ten Commandments)?

 

[FanthatSpark]

The Wikipedia page has that Freemen on the land believe they're only bound to statue law (written law) if they consent. Also that they're independent of the rule of law, except common law (case law) which is their own interpretation of it. There's a series of cases listed below where people were clearly doing something they shouldn't. More obvious is the case of Wilfred Keith Thompson and two others who were charged with serious offenses of breaking, entering, and theft plus firearms.

So few questions on mind are: Does statue law include everything from a constitution to laws as a result, if so how are we to uphold and enforce both when anytime a person can deny consent or refusal to recognize authority? What about a statue law against murder, is the murder's consent necessary? Left to case law would their consent and interpretation be necessary?

Guess the questions are above is trying to get a clearer understanding of what's actually believed versus what Wikipedia claims. It seems to excuse harmful and wrongful acts, which risk serious consequences not only to themselves but others. To clarify I support localizing authority and limiting government, but I believe having written laws and enforcing those laws are necessary.

You mention God's law which I think you're comparing it to commercial/business law. That the difference is the former doesn't separate a person from their actions, while the latter does so liability and consequences are avoided. Example is owners and shareholders not held liable personally, but as a whole the corporation which finances the paying away of liability issues. Is this correct, also if the actual people were hold liable, what form of punishment or penalty other than money would be acceptable?

Considering as believers the respect for authority, for example Matthew 22:19-21 which has Jesus saying what is Caesar's is to be paid (taxes). But the case Gavin Kayhlem he claimed to be a freeman not having to pay his council tax debts and Mark Bond who didn't pay his tax claimed he was no longer a citizen of the United Kingdom. Considering Romans 13:1-2 too, what do Freemen on the land actually belief about authority? Is it compatible with Christianity, which acknowledges authority and law of God plus being written (ex: the Bible and the Ten Commandments)?

B,

First again, is glory to God as two powerful minds sharpen each other in iron, to the will of God . As me and you discussed in your thread which I derailed several times. Please forgive me in that brother, .

We may need to catch people up to our previous conversation by linking your thread in your answer to my response here. That is your decision to make after you have read this reply. However, some things need to be shared to the walker by reader. B's. thread puts on the Christian hat firstly and views the matrix/politics . He has a must watch video (Highly recommended you guys out there watch it not in a dem vs rep mode but as a Christian first).

All right my brother lets begin our sharpening in meekness and willing to learn a thing or two for both of us.

This thread has fermented here for a reason. It is in hopes that readers see the breakdown of labels in OP . The classic polarization to divide is apparent by design. I want people to think for themselves and wake up. Its not in the label of the two links in OP it is in the lesson . Labels are easy yet not based in truth for both links. Thus, if one is Christian firstly these labels offend the senses based in love.

The OP is the five stages of grief in denial of each other. Classic .

So, lets address the verse of the tax. For me, I view it in comforter not yet released. Morality in action is Jesus has not been killed by humanity . Today, morality is the absolutes of God and we are legion. We are termed religion. What is left out is good morals are love, compassion etc... and these surpass religions beliefs in the first part of morals as a label in ,good.

I am with you that it does not require violence as it seems people extract from this thread and the one that inspired this thread. Heavens no, what the gist of the OP that stemmed from the systemic lie that there is such a thing as We the People applied to a lie of dem vs rep where a world of people think that system still exists need to look at policy... Whewww thats a long sentence.

For me , I see that human created world (Politics/Matrix) as Geneses relates to the original creation. All one has to do is rebrand. It looks like this...

Let there be politics/light. We judge it as good. We separate republican/day from democrat/night. We create a platform/American Politics/firmament/Eden . We the People.., it/Adam & Eve and give one commandment, do not eat of Corporation/Tree. The profit/Serpent is more subtle than any beast in the field and is promoted to the skin of a person/constitution and has a voice/money and has generational patience to later acquire rights/citizens united...Yadda Yadda . First be recognized , wait a generation so people die then get rights.

It was that truth that this system (once was good) is a lie that caused the first link applied to my ...language. However, some get stuck on that horrifying term not seeing it is classic polarization to divide.

People state GOOD feelings here but feelings matter not to that which usurped the constitution. If truth be told we kill for profit in our names .

Local is the way to go,, B . I screamed to the Bernie people go republican as the gateway not to the party first but to (in secret) get that constitution back and revamp the voting process . Any one can can dawn a label of republican but inside they are Christian and have only one mission...Get that constitution back.

Be well.

 

[Brotherly Spirit]

Not sure where to begin, but I agree that "We the People" is a myth. Especially at the Federal level as it has many interests from fifty states. Not only corporate interest but self-interest of people. I'm not sure if there's such a thing as "We the People" by state, as self-interest seems to be put first. This self-interest includes those elected to power and managing corporations. So self-interest and special interest can't be separated, I'm doubtful any government can truly be democratic and representative. An exception is possibly a local government of similar people within a small area, as they would have more in common.

This problem of self-interest isn't limited to certain people. Even as Christians we suffer from the flaws of our humanity. Just as there's not a single government truly representative of all Americans, there's not a single church for Christians. How many denominations exist and of them the differing beliefs of their members? Your similarities are great examples of what should be for the good of people, but because people aren't willing to compromise their own beliefs or interests it doesn't. Who's to say what beliefs and interests should be compromised? I think it's easy for those at the top with power to divide and conquer an already divided people.

I'm not sure what your position is for taxation. Are you saying intentionally not paying your taxes is right under certain circumstances? That certain parts of Christianity more related to morality supersede other parts, if so how is this decided since it's all closely related to God who tells us what's good? What separates Christian morality from Christian religion?

Thread link:
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ibility-getting-politically-involved.8054809/

Video post link:
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...g-politically-involved.8054809/#post-72576511

 

[FanthatSpark]

Not sure where to begin, but I agree that "We the People" is a myth. Especially at the Federal level as it has many interests from fifty states. Not only corporate interest but self-interest of people. I'm not sure if there's such a thing as "We the People" by state, as self-interest seems to be put first. This self-interest includes those elected to power and managing corporations. So self-interest and special interest can't be separated, I'm doubtful any government can truly be democratic and representative. An exception is possibly a local government of similar people within a small area, as they would have more in common.

This problem of self-interest isn't limited to certain people. Even as Christians we suffer from the flaws of our humanity. Just as there's not a single government truly representative of all Americans, there's not a single church for Christians. How many denominations exist and of them the differing beliefs of their members? Your similarities are great examples of what should be for the good of people, but because people aren't willing to compromise their own beliefs or interests it doesn't. Who's to say what beliefs and interests should be compromised? I think it's easy for those at the top with power to divide and conquer an already divided people.

I'm not sure what your position is for taxation. Are you saying intentionally not paying your taxes is right under certain circumstances? That certain parts of Christianity more related to morality supersede other parts, if so how is this decided since it's all closely related to God who tells us what's good? What separates Christian morality from Christian religion?

Thread link:
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...ibility-getting-politically-involved.8054809/

Video post link:
https://www.christianforums.com/thr...g-politically-involved.8054809/#post-72576511

Praises to God, Amen...

Thank you for linking in your thread with this one good sir. With the deconstructing of truth from the internet (See OP Video...GONE!) Yet it made us stop and think for ourself when we watched it, correct?

What is a Quaker? In freeman link in OP it is a terrorist, right? I get the individual (label) to the freeman but a freeman is a group too in social construct.

A Quaker seen as a terrorist is folly. These do not seek outside of themselves. This thread was dedicated to the label of terrorists on both sides of the debate. Law was provided in the Video to rebut the premise of the Citizen.

The Citizen/Freeman by nature seeks others. These form a church and follow Biblical Law or Common Law (Insert 10 Commandments here). Thou shalt not kill: <--- That is terrorists by an institution labeled FBI ? The common law is basis for all law, correct? To turn said law to label the weak as terrorists in above label calling.

It is a shame that rebuttal was taken down for censorship... Must be hitten the target eh?

 

[Brotherly Spirit]

Praises to God, Amen...

Thank you for linking in your thread with this one good sir. With the deconstructing of truth from the internet (See OP Video...GONE!) Yet it made us stop and think for ourself when we watched it, correct?

What is a Quaker? In freeman link in OP it is a terrorist, right? I get the individual (label) to the freeman but a freeman is a group too in social construct.

A Quaker seen as a terrorist is folly. These do not seek outside of themselves. This thread was dedicated to the label of terrorists on both sides of the debate. Law was provided in the Video to rebut the premise of the Citizen.

The Citizen/Freeman by nature seeks others. These form a church and follow Biblical Law or Common Law (Insert 10 Commandments here). Thou shalt not kill: <--- That is terrorists by an institution labeled FBI ? The common law is basis for all law, correct? To turn said law to label the weak as terrorists in above label calling.

It is a shame that rebuttal was taken down for censorship... Must be hitten the target eh?

Government shouldn't be allowed to prematurely without a trial of guilty parties label them terrorists. Then it's left to the political opinion of those in power to decide who the terrorists are or aren't. But I do think there should be monitoring of potential groups who pose a severe threat. I guess the difference is people who do the terrorism are terrorists, not an entity that could be judged as a unit. Something that would allow for bias assumptions and broad judgments against people by association, not actual crimes they did.

Never thought of God's law(s) as common law, I have as natural law which is inherent by observation. Same as your example, if a community accepted killing as the norm it wouldn't exist long after. For it to continue it would require basic rights that all would accept and agree to honor, plus all people exist to pursue and fulfill their lives (survive and thrive) and death would take away that one life we have here. So it's something to be valued and protected.

According to Common Law - Definition: What's Common Law, it says cases are decided by customs and principles of society (precedent). But also that it covers what's not covered by civil law (statues), and uses the United States as an example of having common law. Actually below I notice it says the United States has a combination of the two (Systems of Common Law vs Civil Statutory Law), do you think a balance is worth pursuing or a system of mainly if not purely common law is preferable? What do you think of constitutions which codify customs and principles as supreme law(s), are they necessary if courts used precedent?