Saw Kent Hovind

[Ukulelemike]

Last Saturday, took some folks from the church to hear Kent Hovind speak. Wasn't thrilled with the church he spoke at, and I suspect he wasn't either-it was a 6-hour meeting, broken into four parts, and before the first and between each, their 'worship band' played THREE songs. yeah, bad. The worst part was that some of the sings weren't THAT bad, had very good lyrics, but HAD to have a heavy drumbeat, especially at places it wasn't appropriate even for a rock song, and the rock guitar riffs. It really served to cause the subject matter to be so broken up that it lost most cohesiveness. They kept him on a tight leash time-wise.  

As well, even though we are both post-trib/pre-wrath in our rapture view, (not open for discussion in this thread, we have enough otherwise), there were some areas I am in disagreement with him. However, I also know that it is a theory he is still working on.

One thing I found interesting, and something that I had come to myself, IN THEORY-is the Antichrist having ties to Islam AND Israel, possibly even showing himself as the 12th Imam, with his false jesus as the false prophet. But he went a step further and believe it is possible that the 4th kingdom represented by the iron legs of the statue of Nebuchadnezzar's dream to be the Ottoman Empire, not Rome, since Rome had no hold in that part of the world, whereas the Ottoman Empire, being Muslim, both did, and is growing again as a world power-he believes the two legs may represent the Suni and Shite, or possibly the feet part of iron and part of clay, that can't mix and are weak together, are Sunis and Shia, since they hate each other, but hate Israel and the west even more, so are willing to work together at times.

Still, it was an interesting take, and while I disagreed with some areas, and would much rather have been there for his Creation/Evolution teachings, it was fun and a positive experience for the youngsters that came along, both to help them learn some discernment in what Hovind taught, and in the way that the modern church behaved itself.

[Alan]

Thank you for the update on Kent Hovind and what is sadly happening in some of the churches.

[Ukulelemike]

8 minutes ago, Alan said:

Thank you for the update on Kent Hovind and what is sadly happening in some of the churches.

it was rather ironic that Brother Kent spoke on the dangers of modernism and worldliness creeping into the churches, while in a church where that very things is happening. I hope they get it.

[John81]

Very interesting ideas.

Most churches, when receiving warnings, will notice and respond to the warnings they are already aware of or concerned about, but will not recognize those they are already comfortable with.

[Ronda]

Kent Hovind.
I DO believe he has done an excellent job of standing up for creationism and the truth that God created the heavens and the earth  (and all that therein dwells) in 6 literal days... I also have the same stance on abortion, it's murder.

However, I do NOT agree with MUCH of what the man says otherwise (and no, I am not JUST referring to his post-trib viewpoint which he arrived at in prison). I think it's ironic that HE spoke "modernism and worldliness" altogether!

In the following video, He tells us that "the prison system shouldn't exist" (approx.min.5:08-5:10)
He states how "awful" it is that the wives of those who were in prison had left them! (approx.min.4:42-5:20)
He tries to push one of his books for sale he wrote IN prison called "The Kennel".

Awww... poor fella... all those poor fellas... they went to PRISON "and their wives left them" boohoo... sob.
REALLY? Sorry, but I can't muster up any sympathy in that regard. Do the crime, do the time!
MAYBE (and I suppose this would be a novel idea in this day and age) but MAYBE those "poor mistreated prisoners" should have thought about the ramifications of doing crime BEFORE they got caught committing crimes and got sentenced to prison.
MAYBE... those "poor prisoners" should have thought that it was a very REAL possibility that if they WILLFULLY CHOSE to break the law that they very well COULD lose their spouses because of it when they ended up in prison.
Tax evasion is a crime. Over 3 million dollars in PERSONAL income tax evasion alone! 
Then for his business ventures, massive amounts of unpaid taxes, (for FICA: Social security and Medicare) which are NOT tax exempt.

Then later on (around minutes 9:50) he pushes a series of children's library of coloring books that he drew IN PRISON that he wants to sell a package of for $200!
Wow! What a "testimony"... he drew coloring books in PRISON... and now he want filthy lucre to propfit off of his prison work!

NEXT, is his opinion on marijuana. (around minute 11:54). Then he goes off topic...tells of the movie Mrs. Doubtfire? (Why would THAT would come into the answer... a WORLDLY movie? to help him answer a biblical question) 
Some more off topic, and then finally back to the marijuana topic (around minute 19:40) WHOOPS... another off topic,
He then attempts to sell a DVD.
Then back to the marijuana issue 
(around minute 21:09) He says he "doesn't see anything wrong with it" then he says he "doesn't think it's the government's job to regulate that stuff". 
He then totally contradicts himself because he says marijuana can lead into other drugs, destroy their minds, and then "who is going to feed them?" he says.
So then it's not the marijuana that's the problem, but he says "the problem is the government welfare that lets people get by with doing that kind of stuff".
He said if "they shut down all welfare" and had "individuals do it, like the families, churches, or neighbors" THEN "you could let people do whatever drugs they wanted to do!!!"

He said "we have to shut down medical welfare for people who don't take care of their health!!!) (around minute 22:18)
Then he claims that "70% of ALL illnesses are self-induced"!!! He then points at the camera and says "you did it to yourself"
(Maybe he should do a little research on Juvenile diabetes-Type 1, Multiple Sclerosis, Alzheimers, Childhood cancer, breast cancer, Syringomyelia, and likely a hundred more diseases which are non-discriminatory diseases. Those which can affect anyone! INCLUDING those who ate healthy and maintained a healthy weight and exercised/were fit.)

Then he points out that people who have illicit sex with 40 different people and get some kind of sexually transmitted disease can expect to end up with an expensive disease. (And yes they CAN).
BUT the  HYPOCRISY coming from him is astounding (even more so because he can't see it!)
He CAN see the fact that having sex with multiple partners is likely to bring ramifications.
BUT he CAN'T see (or claims not to see) that his 10 year PRISON sentence is directly related to HIM not obeying the law... by HIM failing to pay taxes, by HIM obstructing federal agents, and by HIM structuring cash transactions and hiding assets.
He was convicted of 58 FELONIES! But that (supposedly) must not be a ramification of anything he did wrong??? 

What does the BIBLE say about taxes?

Matt 22:19-21
19 "Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny."
20 "And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?"
21 "They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

Back to the video
(Minutes 25:45 approx) He says "we shouldn't even HAVE a DEA" (drug enforcement agency).
*Minutes 26:20 approx) He says he "doesn't see a scriptural reason against "it" (marijuana)
He then says he "doesn't even see a common sense reason against "it" (marijuana)
But then he does concedes it "might have some negative effects on your health"
But his MAIN concern was that HE himself might have to pay for it by paying for their healthcare. (as if drug users are the only ones who receive medicare/medicaid)

THEN he has the AUDACITY to whine that he can "barely even be able to pay for what" he has himself. (PUH-LEEZE)
He then reiterates that HE doesn't think the Bible is against "it" (marijuana)
ANd he says he "thinks the laws are stupid" BUT admits it IS the law, and then tells him he should "obey the law" 
**( I guess that's a "do as I say, not as I do" tidbit of advice he's throwing out there)
And again says he "thinks it's a dumb, dumb law".

(approx. min. 27:52) where he then attempts to tell everyone to "get on as many juries as you can", "sit there an listen to the boring stuff going on for a week" and then at the end he tells them to say "not guilty" (** to me this would effectively THROW OFF justice by claiming "not guilty" if you actually thought the person WAS guilty!) and then he tells them to "not give them a reason WHY you voted 'not guilty'" to anger them!?!?!

That man has some deep rooted problems!
Does that sound like good Christian advice to give? It sounds like blatant DECEIT to me!

In summary, I do agree with his teaching on creationism, I also agree that giving the gospel to the lost SHOULD be the main priority, I agree with his anti-abortion stance.
And with all that said, I do have to say one more thing... There are a LOT of TV evangelists who also give the gospel and or teach against abortion... but I also don't agree with much else they say either!
I think he has ruined his testimony with the tax evasion problem alone.
Besides the very unsavory and deceitful advice he gives to those who would sit on a jury!

MANY of the characteristics of leadership do's and do not's are found in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1
 (and if I remember correctly, I believe many of these were applied to Mr. Ruckman as to why HE should have been excluded from being a pastor and I agreed.)
Here are some which I believe he no longer qualitifes for:
"blameless"
"of good behavior"
"not greedy of filthy lucre"
"One that ruleth well his own house"
"Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without"
"not selfwilled"
" just"

The fact that he tried to sell a dvd, multiple books (some of which he wrote in prison and one ABOUT prison) coloring books (he drew IN prioson as well) ALL in the same short video (only approx. 33 minutes long)
does NOT set a good example, and smacks of filthy lucre.

He DOES promote salvation (but so do 90% of the TV evangelists who are also money grubbing flock fleecers... that's how they get their hand in the wallets by promoting truth alongside a LOT of unsound, unscriptural teaching).

I believe I was accused of being a "Ruckmanite" (before I even knew he he really was and had never heard any of his sermons).
AND I am sure there were many of those verses used which were applied to that Mr. Ruckman. 
Wonder if it's only "applicable" here to apply them to whomever the popular vote sides with?

No matter.
Galatians 1:10 "For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ."

P.S. There were MANY more videos like these... giving his opinion (especially on why he thinks marijuana should be legalized).
But a couple of them was all I could stomach. Everyone has the right to "like" whichever teacher they prefer... I choose NOT to "like" this one at all.

 

 

[Ukulelemike]

7 hours ago, Ronda said:

Kent Hovind.
I DO believe he has done an excellent job of standing up for creationism and the truth that God created the heavens and the earth  (and all that therein dwells) in 6 literal days... I also have the same stance on abortion, it's murder.

However, I do NOT agree with MUCH of what the man says otherwise (and no, I am not JUST referring to his post-trib viewpoint which he arrived at in prison). I think it's ironic that HE spoke "modernism and worldliness" altogether!

In the following video, He tells us that "the prison system shouldn't exist" (approx.min.5:08-5:10) The system as it stands, should not exist. I am a former 'insider', having worked for the prison system, and I can say it is a joke-too often the inmates run things. I could write a book on it myself, as well, but I will leave that to others more writing-inclined.
He states how "awful" it is that the wives of those who were in prison had left them! (approx.min.4:42-5:20) He being one of them.
He tries to push one of his books for sale he wrote IN prison called "The Kennel". What is wrong with that? Maybe you ought to read it, it might open your eyes, get your brain out of the status quo position it is in.

Awww... poor fella... all those poor fellas... they went to PRISON "and their wives left them" boohoo... sob.
REALLY? Sorry, but I can't muster up any sympathy in that regard. Do the crime, do the time!
MAYBE (and I suppose this would be a novel idea in this day and age) but MAYBE those "poor mistreated prisoners" should have thought about the ramifications of doing crime BEFORE they got caught committing crimes and got sentenced to prison.
MAYBE... those "poor prisoners" should have thought that it was a very REAL possibility that if they WILLFULLY CHOSE to break the law that they very well COULD lose their spouses because of it when they ended up in prison.
Tax evasion is a crime. Over 3 million dollars in PERSONAL income tax evasion alone!  Kent didn't go to prison for tax evasion-he was, in fact, found innocent of that. He went to prison for 'structuring', which in reality, ISN'T a crime-structuring is a sign there MAY be a crime going on, but it isn't a crime. It just means you use your money in small enough amounts that the IRS isn't told of the amounts being used. However, all he did was pay his staff and construction people in cash rather than checks-they saw this as a hint he might be money laundering. However, he was found innocent of all that, so they put him in prison for the structuring, which ISN'T a crime. Again, stop listening to the nay-sayers and do some research.
Then for his business ventures, massive amounts of unpaid taxes, (for FICA: Social security and Medicare) which are NOT tax exempt. His "unpaid taxes" weren't very much and it was all repaid when he lost his properties. Remember when Sun Myung Moon went to prison for tax evasion in the 80's? He owed far more and got 18 months and didn't serve that much. But then he was a big political contributor-Hovind made the wrong people angry for saying what he said and they put him away for it, and tried to put him away for another 20 but failed.

Then later on (around minutes 9:50) he pushes a series of children's library of coloring books that he drew IN PRISON that he wants to sell a package of for $200!
Wow! What a "testimony"... he drew coloring books in PRISON... and now he want filthy lucre to propfit off of his prison work! Again, what is wrong with that? Just because one is a preacher or a Christian, should we not have the right to live off of what we have a talent to do? If I make a CD of my uke music, should I give it away for free, or do I have a right to sell it? Should all pastors serve as pastors for no pay because they are pastors? Not seeing your issue with someone making money for what they do.

NEXT, is his opinion on marijuana. (around minute 11:54). Then he goes off topic...tells of the movie Mrs. Doubtfire? (Why would THAT would come into the answer... a WORLDLY movie? to help him answer a biblical question) 
Some more off topic, and then finally back to the marijuana topic (around minute 19:40) WHOOPS... another off topic,
He then attempts to sell a DVD.
Then back to the marijuana issue 
(around minute 21:09) He says he "doesn't see anything wrong with it" then he says he "doesn't think it's the government's job to regulate that stuff". 
He then totally contradicts himself because he says marijuana can lead into other drugs, destroy their minds, and then "who is going to feed them?" he says.
So then it's not the marijuana that's the problem, but he says "the problem is the government welfare that lets people get by with doing that kind of stuff".
He said if "they shut down all welfare" and had "individuals do it, like the families, churches, or neighbors" THEN "you could let people do whatever drugs they wanted to do!!!"

In fact he is correct. The federal government has no constitutional jurisdiction to tell the states anything about marijuana or any other drug-if it isn't delineated in the constitution to give the federal government a certain power, then that power, by default, belongs to the states. The feds have no legal jurisdiction in regulating drugs, or anything.

He said "we have to shut down medical welfare for people who don't take care of their health!!!) (around minute 22:18)
Then he claims that "70% of ALL illnesses are self-induced"!!! He then points at the camera and says "you did it to yourself"
(Maybe he should do a little research on Juvenile diabetes-Type 1, Multiple Sclerosis, Alzheimers, Childhood cancer, breast cancer, Syringomyelia, and likely a hundred more diseases which are non-discriminatory diseases. Those which can affect anyone! INCLUDING those who ate healthy and maintained a healthy weight and exercised/were fit.)

Again, in fact, he is correct. Most diseases are NOT nondiscriminatory, but are the result of deficiencies in diet, or eating or ingesting garbage one way or another. That includes even alzheimers, most cancers MS and others.. They can be caused by that person, or by their parents. Now I may not agree with his view there on taking away healthcare, but since when is ANY welfare a right? That is liberal-speak. Get government out of healthcare and we would see costs go down and treatments get better and more kinds of healthcare more available.

Then he points out that people who have illicit sex with 40 different people and get some kind of sexually transmitted disease can expect to end up with an expensive disease. (And yes they CAN).
BUT the  HYPOCRISY coming from him is astounding (even more so because he can't see it!)
He CAN see the fact that having sex with multiple partners is likely to bring ramifications.
BUT he CAN'T see (or claims not to see) that his 10 year PRISON sentence is directly related to HIM not obeying the law... by HIM failing to pay taxes, by HIM obstructing federal agents, and by HIM structuring cash transactions and hiding assets.
He was convicted of 58 FELONIES! But that (supposedly) must not be a ramification of anything he did wrong??? 

What does the BIBLE say about taxes?

Matt 22:19-21
19 "Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny."
20 "And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?"
21 "They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."  This is not taxes being spoken of here, it is TRIBUTE paid to a conquering enemy! NOT taxes. Taxes are fine, but we are taxed far more than even the tax code allows. Again it is an issue with the law and the government overstepping of the laws of the nation and constitution.

Back to the video
(Minutes 25:45 approx) He says "we shouldn't even HAVE a DEA" (drug enforcement agency). Unconstitutional to have one.
*Minutes 26:20 approx) He says he "doesn't see a scriptural reason against "it" (marijuana)
He then says he "doesn't even see a common sense reason against "it" (marijuana)
But then he does concedes it "might have some negative effects on your health"
But his MAIN concern was that HE himself might have to pay for it by paying for their healthcare. (as if drug users are the only ones who receive medicare/medicaid)

THEN he has the AUDACITY to whine that he can "barely even be able to pay for what" he has himself. (PUH-LEEZE)
He then reiterates that HE doesn't think the Bible is against "it" (marijuana)
ANd he says he "thinks the laws are stupid" BUT admits it IS the law, and then tells him he should "obey the law" 
**( I guess that's a "do as I say, not as I do" tidbit of advice he's throwing out there)
And again says he "thinks it's a dumb, dumb law".

(approx. min. 27:52) where he then attempts to tell everyone to "get on as many juries as you can", "sit there an listen to the boring stuff going on for a week" and then at the end he tells them to say "not guilty" (** to me this would effectively THROW OFF justice by claiming "not guilty" if you actually thought the person WAS guilty!) and then he tells them to "not give them a reason WHY you voted 'not guilty'" to anger them!?!?! It is called Jury Nullification and it is legal and constitutional. A jury can believe a law is wrong and judge according to that. Every day people are given bad sentences based on terrible, overbearing laws. Do you know, I can guarantee that you, Rhonda, break multiple laws every day, enough to spend your life in prison, and you don't even realize it? The government produces so many new laws almost daily that it is quite impossible to just live day by day without breaking something.

That man has some deep rooted problems!
Does that sound like good Christian advice to give? It sounds like blatant DECEIT to me!

In summary, I do agree with his teaching on creationism, I also agree that giving the gospel to the lost SHOULD be the main priority, I agree with his anti-abortion stance.
And with all that said, I do have to say one more thing... There are a LOT of TV evangelists who also give the gospel and or teach against abortion... but I also don't agree with much else they say either!
I think he has ruined his testimony with the tax evasion problem alone.
Besides the very unsavory and deceitful advice he gives to those who would sit on a jury!

MANY of the characteristics of leadership do's and do not's are found in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1
 (and if I remember correctly, I believe many of these were applied to Mr. Ruckman as to why HE should have been excluded from being a pastor and I agreed.)
Here are some which I believe he no longer qualitifes for:
"blameless"
"of good behavior"
"not greedy of filthy lucre"
"One that ruleth well his own house"
"Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without"
"not selfwilled"
" just"

The fact that he tried to sell a dvd, multiple books (some of which he wrote in prison and one ABOUT prison) coloring books (he drew IN prioson as well) ALL in the same short video (only approx. 33 minutes long)
does NOT set a good example, and smacks of filthy lucre.

He DOES promote salvation (but so do 90% of the TV evangelists who are also money grubbing flock fleecers... that's how they get their hand in the wallets by promoting truth alongside a LOT of unsound, unscriptural teaching).

I believe I was accused of being a "Ruckmanite" (before I even knew he he really was and had never heard any of his sermons).
AND I am sure there were many of those verses used which were applied to that Mr. Ruckman. 
Wonder if it's only "applicable" here to apply them to whomever the popular vote sides with?

No matter.
Galatians 1:10 "For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ."

P.S. There were MANY more videos like these... giving his opinion (especially on why he thinks marijuana should be legalized).
But a couple of them was all I could stomach. Everyone has the right to "like" whichever teacher they prefer... I choose NOT to "like" this one at all.

 

 

Rhonda, I say YOU have some deep-rooted problems, in that you don't know the laws of the land, nor the constitution of the United States. You don't seem to understand that the federal government is not a monarchy and we are not obliged to keep unjust or unbiblical or illegal laws. I don't agree with all Kent Hovind has to say these days in some areas, and personally I'd like to see him get back on the issue of creation vs evolution, where he has been most effective, but that doesn't mean that he is wrong in everything. I just think, right now, those things are a distraction from what he does, and has done, best in his work for the Lord. 

[heartstrings]

Romans 13: 1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

 

Bro. Romans 13 doesn't mention a "conquering enemy": it says  "higher powers"  "powers that be", "rulers" and "minister of God" which in our case the US government is it.

Edited June 14, 2016 by heartstrings

[heartstrings]

(Minutes 25:45 approx) He says "we shouldn't even HAVE a DEA" (drug enforcement agency).

Unconstitutional to have one.

 

It may or may not be "unconstitutional" but it is Biblical, according also to Romans 13;3 where it says 3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.because the sale and use of of illicit drugs is certainly evil.

[John81]

2 hours ago, heartstrings said:

 

 

 

It may or may not be "unconstitutional" but it is Biblical, according also to Romans 13;3 where it says 3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.because the sale and use of of illicit drugs is certainly evil.

While the principle is biblical, it is required to be conducted lawfully and that's impossible at the federal level as things currently stand. Individual States and localities may have the authority (depending upon how their constitutions and laws are set forth) to establish a drug enforcement agency, but not the federal government.

The federal government was never meant to be the main ruler of the land nor the main law establisher or enforcer. Those matters were left to the States and people of each State.

[Ukulelemike]

4 hours ago, heartstrings said:

Romans 13: 1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 7Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

 

Bro. Romans 13 doesn't mention a "conquering enemy": it says  "higher powers"  "powers that be", "rulers" and "minister of God" which in our case the US government is it.

Tax is paid to a rightful government, tribute is paid to a conquering king. The fact that God was currently judging Israel by allowing them to be ruled by Rome doesn't change it. They were the ruling authority.  The difference is that we are not ruled by a king that conquered America, to whom we pay tribute, we have a government and a constitution by which they do what they do-that is the law of the land-our government isn't like that of Israel 2,000 years ago. We obey our laws, and that includes our government. Rome was the higher power, they were obligated to give tribute. We are not obligated to give tribute.  Per Webster's 1828, "TRIB'UTE, n. [L. tributum, from tribuo, to give, bestow or divide.]
1. An annual or stated sum of money or other valuable thing, paid by one prince or nation to another, either as an acknowledgment of submission, or as the price of peace and protection, or by virtue of some treaty. The Romans made all their conquered countries pay tribute, as do the Turks at this day; and in some countries the tribute is paid in children."

Let me ask: when the various kings of Israel went whoring after false idols, was it right then for the people to follow them into idol worship, because they were to follow the rulers? Of course not! Israel had a law, THE law, given on Sinai, and they should have been following that law, as should the kings, and when the kings went away from following the law, the people sinned by following them.

So our government has a law and it is based upon the US Constitution, and the government is required to conduct itself by that law. When they break the law, and given themselves authority that is against the law, we are not obliged to follow them in such things. WE follow the law of the land, unless it goes against the word of God.

3 hours ago, heartstrings said:

It may or may not be "unconstitutional" but it is Biblical, according also to Romans 13;3 where it says 3For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.because the sale and use of of illicit drugs is certainly evil.

Being constitutional is the LAW of the land. Whether it is good or bad is irrelevant. By the law, the authority not explicitly given to the federal government through the Constitution belong to the states. Therefore, the states should be making that decision for each state. And as the state makes those decisions, it is more often the people who vote to decide, again, that is the law of the land. And this is what Christians ought to be seeking: to follow the law, right? Are you ready to give up your constitutional right to have a gun is Hillary gets in office and declares guns illegal? Are you ready to give up free speech as the Liberal thought Nazis decide it is illegal to say anything wrong about homosexuals/Democrats/transgenders/whomever?

[DaveW]

The word "tribute" in Romans 13:6

G5411

Original: φόρος

Transliteration: phoros

Phonetic: for'-os

Thayer Definition:

1. tribute, especially the annual tax levied upon houses, lands, and persons

Origin: from G5342

TDNT entry: 10:18,1

Part(s) of speech: Noun Masculine

Strong's Definition: From G5342; aload (as borne), that is, (figuratively) atax (properly an individual assessmenton persons or property; whereasG5056 is usually a general toll on goods or travel): - tribute.

 

Just to add to the Websters definition above. 

By the way, was there a nunber 2 and 3 etc in the Websters definition, or ONLY  a number 1?

 

Note: I make no comment on Hovind in any way.

Edited June 14, 2016 by DaveW
Added note.

[Ukulelemike]

Go to the Bible for reference. With the exception of a tribute to God, (which is appropriate as He IS ruling and reigning king), the only time we see a tribute laid out or paid, is from a conquered nation to the conquering king. Once we see King Rehoboam, after Israel had split, attempt to lay a tribute on those who had left, and they stoned the messenger and threatened Rehoboam.  This is the context in the Bible that it is used. The Israelites gave God tribute, but otherwise, nations Israel conquered gave them tribute, and sometimes nations that conquered Israel were paid tribute from Israel. that includes Rome. never is a tribute in the Bible seen as a tax laid on their own people.

[HappyChristian]

interestingly enough, Romans 13 tells us one principle thing: that God ordained government. It does NOT give us style of government. And so...in the US, the STYLE of government leaves the authority in two places: the Constitution and we the people. And that is how the country is to be run. If something is unconstitutional, by virtue of the STYLE of government we have, it would be unbiblical to allow unconstitutional "departments" to continue to exist, as well as other unconstitutional things. There is a proper way to fight it, but too many American Christians don't understand it.

[DaveW]

46 minutes ago, Ukulelemike said:

Go to the Bible for reference. With the exception of a tribute to God, (which is appropriate as He IS ruling and reigning king), the only time we see a tribute laid out or paid, is from a conquered nation to the conquering king. Once we see King Rehoboam, after Israel had split, attempt to lay a tribute on those who had left, and they stoned the messenger and threatened Rehoboam.  This is the context in the Bible that it is used. The Israelites gave God tribute, but otherwise, nations Israel conquered gave them tribute, and sometimes nations that conquered Israel were paid tribute from Israel. that includes Rome. never is a tribute in the Bible seen as a tax laid on their own people.

Mike, if this is directed at me then please note that all I did was quote a definition, and ask if your definition included other information.

I actually quoted the entire definition from my source, and it does not include any such reference that your definition includes.

I suspect that you included only that part of the definition which suppotred your position, because tge definition you quoted starts with a "1.", indicating there is most likely a "2." at least.

My point was ONLY  that the definition of the Greek word used in that particular instance and from my source (Mysword android app in this instance) was not the same as your Websters definition. 

However, since mine is Bible word specific and a complete reference, I am personally inclined to take it over your general, non-specific, and (I assume) incomplete definition. (If you included all possible definitions listed in Websters then I unequivocally withdraw this assumption with apologies. Please let me know.)

And again, I make no comment at all about Kent Hovind one way or the other. I have an opinion, but do not think it is expedient to stand between two people who are so vehemently opposed on what is an unimportant matter.

[Ronda]

 

 

 

12 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

I am a former 'insider', having worked for the prison system, and I can say it is a joke-too often the inmates run things. I could write a book on it myself, as well, but I will leave that to others more writing-inclined.

I have 3 life-long friends who now work as prison guards, and I can tell you the prisoners do NOT "run" the prison.
(If so they wouldn't BE IN prison, they would just let themselves OUT!)
They do, however have a horribly evil code of conduct amongst themselves, INCLUDING trading HOMOSEXUAL acts for "protection" from gangs.
No federal prison inmate will likely leave prison WITHOUT committing homosexual acts.
And so when Mr. Hovind SAYS that he has not had sexual relations with any other WOMAN that may be true... but I seriously DOUBT that he has not has homosexual relations with MEN after being imprisoned for so long a time. But regardless, the answer was in refute to your claim that prisoners "run things", and if that were the case, they would just "set themselves free". There IS a reason for prisons, there IS a reason for courts, there IS a reason for laws, there IS a reason for the authority God placed over mankind. Who are you, or I, or Mr. Hovind to rebel against something God has ordained?

Daniel 4:32 "...the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will"

12 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

get your brain out of the status quo position it is in.

I also find it amusing that I am told to "get my brain out of the 'status quo'" If you haven't noticed yet, I do not give one iota about public opinion. 
What I DO care about very much is what God's word has to say. HIS word is the final authority, not whatever 'status quo' or 'politically correct' wind happens to be blowing.
(BTW I would say the SAME THING if it were my 'favorite' pastor or teacher who had done these things!) There are those whom I admire for their devotion and their understanding of God's word, as well as the God-given blessing to be able to teach and convey God's word well. BUT if one of 'my favorite' pastors/teachers were to err against Gods word (and also be defiant during and even AFTER doing do), I would have no problem calling them out on it. My loyalty is not to mankind but to Christ.

So while I do NOT 'have my brain' in the 'status quo' (as you suggested), I DO have my brain (and heart) in the Bible and what God's word says obeying government (whether we AGREE with the government or not).
In ANY of the following Bible accounts, do these men (imprisoned) men of God complain because they were 'wrongfully imprisoned'? 
Do they later write books about how to "beat the system" and how horrible "the system" (of government) is? (and gain filty lucre by selling it?)
Do they not instead TRUST GOD that it is God's will. 
Do they not COMPLY with God's ordained governments (whether they, themselves think it's right or wrong)?

There are SEVERAL accounts of imprisonment in the Bible and in NONE of these cases do the imprisoned try to weasel their way out of the charges, nor do they write books for profit about their horrific experiences and complain about the injustices done them.
Daniel, Joseph, Samson, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, Peter, Paul, John (on Patmos) and many many other examples.
Each of these cases (of those who survived the imprisonments) were used to GOD's GLORY... not for their OWN personal source of greedy incoe derived by filthy lucre.

Dan. 5:21 "...the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that he appointeth over it whomsoever he will."

Does God's word tell us to flee,evade, hide assets, and use DECEIT in order to attempt to not be imprisoned?
It is GOD HIMSELF who sets up those in authority and also knocks them down.
Even when a government strays from good and become oppressive. When that happens, we are still to live in obedience. (AS long as we are loyal to GOD FIRST).

Romans 13:1-2
1 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God."
2 "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."

DID Mr. Hovind RESIST it (read verse 2 carefully). He was guilty of contempt of court, obstructing justice, attempting to hide assets, and evasive tactics.

No matter what YOU or MR. HOVIND HIMSELF claim about this, lets look at the FACTS:
 (not from your opinion, my opinion, nor Mr. Hovinds protestations but from documented evidence, including court records and copies of court records as well)
I suppose one will claim that THOSE (actual documents) are "bogus" too... but cling to whichever TRUTH you find the truth to be in.

(Kent Hovind was serving) "a ten-year prison sentence in January 2007 for federal court convictions for failing to pay taxes, obstructing federal agents, and structuring cash transactions."
(paragraph 2) (contrary to what you and Mr. Hovind claimed)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind
(there are also MULTIPLE links of actual court documents on the right hand side of the page throughout the VERY lengthy page should anyone desire the TRUTH in evidence)

He even refused to pay for a $50. bulding permit, and took that to court losing and thereby ending up costing himself $675 in fines alone (who knows how much the legal fees totalled)?
had he just obeyed the law AGAIN, he would not have gotten into trouble.
(about halfway down under the heading: "Escambia County (2002–2006)")

Hovind DID commit tax fraud. NUMEROUS TIMES
"Hovind's organization had neither business licenses nor tax-exempt status"
(under "Federal civil tax matters, bankruptcy, and renouncing citizenship (1996–2006)")
He ALSO then tried to (after the fact) renounce his citizenship in order to evade the back taxes!

He was NOTORIOUS for claiming to have "beaten the tax system"
"In 2003, Hovind would tell The New York Times, 'I haven't filed a tax return in 30 years'

I could go on and on... the numerous LEGAL infractions of Mr. Hovind, pages and pages of court documents and hard evidence (not just Mr. Hovind's "word", since his "word" is of little value in the light of evidence)
His 'followers' will likely refute the truth of the claims. And I have no problem with the voicing of opinion.
What IS troubling is that is goes AGAINST God's word to illegally avoid paying taxes.
You and I might not FEEL and might not THINK that the tax system is fair (it has bankrupted many people I know, and it does need reform) YET... it is in place as our government is in place by GOD'S authority!
BUT it is God's word which is the final authority. NOT what WE think or feel that matters!

Romans 13 is clear that we are to "pay tribute" (v.6)
v. 7 "Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
v. 8 "Owe no man any thing..."

And the FINAL AUTHORITY is what does GOD say? What does GOD's literal word say?
Or is THAT also (supposedly) NOT to be taken literally?????

12 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

This is not taxes being spoken of here, it is TRIBUTE paid to a conquering enemy! NOT taxes.

I DO beg to differ on what the Biblical us of the word 'tribute' is. It DOES mean TAXES on those under their authority, no matter how a person wants to TWIST it... it IS effectively a TAX! We could go to the Greek, but then that would be mocked, I could expound on the literal meaning in God's word, but then that would be mocked as well. Just take heed that it is ME you are mocking and not God. 
While I myself DO believe the constitution SHOULD BE (and was set forth to be) the law of the land, and I myself do think that the government HAS run roughshod all over it, and I myself struggle to pay exorbitant property taxes based on a corrupt valuation of real property and land... the fact of the matter remains that the LORD HIMSELF set those in authority over us.
We may well have numerous good reasons that we FEEL or THINK to disagree with that authority, however we are told in God's word to obey those in authority (no matter how we FEEL or what we THINK, so long as it doesn't cause us to sin against God)
Daniel was a perfect example of how we are to conduct ourselves.
Daniel followed EVERY rule laid forth by those in authority over him UP UNTIL he was required by that authority to sin against God.
And THAT he would not do, he would not bow the knee to the false "gods". And so Daniel was imprisoned because of it. He didn't try to evade the judgment, he didn't cry foul and whine about it afterwards, nor sell a book for filthy lucre about it either!
No, instead he trusted GOD. And that is what the Lord wants! Our complete trust and devotion to Him, and the respect and reverence to His word it deserves of us.
And again, we are to take God's word reverently and literally. God Himself has placed His word above His very name! THAT shows the extreme importance to those who revere Him and His word.

Psalm 138:2 "...for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name"
 

While there is nothing wrong with having a 'favorite pastor" or teacher to whom we feel we've learned from, we should NEVER place our loyalty in mankind ABOVE God or above God's word!
I've seen this 'favorite pastor' style defense akin to worship before. 
The PTL club Jim Bakker made similar legal offenses and served time for them as well.
Yet when he got out of PRISON, he SHOULD have realized his testimony was RUINED and he was only marking God's name in a bad light.
Had he TRULY had the witness of the LORD foremost in his desires, he would have tucked his tail between his legs and slithered off into the night...
BUT instead he's back on TV with another wife, and again fleecing the flocks of those who don't know the Bible well enough to know he was and still IS in error.
I would compare the two to each other, but as slimy a snake as Bakker is he at least professed to have repented of his sins (even if it is unlikely since he is STILL pushing "product" and "merchandise" for filthy lucre.
I would say that Hovind is even WORSE, because he is defiant of God's word and God's authority. He never even made a pretense of professing repentance, instead he continues to proclaim how "unfair" the law is, and how he doesn't want to obey those in authority over him (even though God Himself put those in aithority in their respective positions)

Psalm 75:5-7
5 "Lift not up your horn on high: speak not with a stiff neck."
6 "For promotion cometh neither from the east, nor from the west, nor from the south."
7 "But God is the judge: he putteth down one, and setteth up another."

Romans 13:1 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God."

Daniel 2:21 "...he removeth kings, and setteth up kings..."

12 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

Rhonda, break multiple laws every day, enough to spend your life in prison, and you don't even realize it? The government produces so many new laws almost daily that it is quite impossible to just live day by day without breaking something.

Moke, I can attest that I do not knowingly commit crime, nor would I ever (unless a law required me to sin against God).
IF I do break the law, it would NOT be because of willful intent, nor to defraud or evade prosecution.
If I DO break the law (unkowingly) and am charged with the crime, I will do the time (should I live long enough to do any time) and would comply with those in authority over me, because I realize that God Himself set those whom are in authority over e into the positions they are in for HIS purposes, and for HIS design (whether or not I 'think' or 'feel' that is it fair in my human comprehension of 'fairness'). 
I can say (should I survive long enough) I would NOT write a book about "the kennel" system and buck against God's ordained authority (unless it required me to sin against God).

In summary.. The lawlessness of the last days was foretold in scripture.
It is to be expected, but that certainly does not mean we are to be lawless ourselves, nor to condone those who are!
It is telling when mankind doesn't even see the need for authority or why God placed those in authority over us.
I (for one) will be glad to see the day when Obama leaves office (God willing should I be here, and IF he doesn't pull some stunt such as 'national state of emergency' and actuate martial law).
I (for one) would very much like to see our constitution upheld and the freedoms and rights afforded to us under it upheld as well.
However, in the meantime, should the Lord tarry, and should I live until the next president is elected... I will continue to abide by the law to the best of my ability unless and until that law determines I (personally) must go against God and sin. That would be the only reason to willfully break the law.
And I also will continue to uphold what God's word has to say as the final authority. Not twisted to suit a theory, not taken allegorically or figuratively (when there is no actual symbolism involved). But believe that HIS word IS the final authority in ALL matters.
I will also continue to call out false teachers, whether or not I (myself) in times past respected them or not. 
God is no resptector of persons. His word is the final authority.

And of the whole sordid Hovind lawlessnes, it brings to mind several verses. Here is just one set:
2 Tim 3:1-5
1 "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come."
2 "For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,"
3 "Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,"
4 "Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;"
5 "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."

Maranatha!