  |
|
Book Errata
|
 Broken Fellowships The greatest error made by a Church when incorporating is to assume there is true separation of the "Church" and state. Whilst this may indeed be true legally, it falls to the government to define every corporation separate to the definition of the religion or "Church". By assembling and voting to incorporate the collective assumes that they remain separate from the state because they met as a fellowship rather than a separate body of a (now incorporated) collective setting up its own body with its own officers and effectively, a "board" rather than a council of elders. To the "Church" without their notice, they had switched the fellowship for the corporation not because they were met to deny the sovereignty of their God, but they were there to approve the fellowship in terms of a corporation whilst maintaining and keeping all things religious separate from the state. What actually happens is that government switches the collective for the fellowship in all things law, leaving no "fellowship" in control to unincorporate. The fellowship and the collective incorporated, are two separate bodies. During the process where the "mark of the beast" is brought by others bearing that mark, if there is a set of members or preferably elders objecting to the process at every stage, it may be possible to claim that the fellowship is "broken" and to assure all present that there should be no vote of any collective whilst the fellowship remains so broken. Then, no collective speaks by vote for the fellowship (now broken), and if all agree to this caveat beforehand, that no vote enter into the record unless all consensus is met without breaking the fellowship, then this may stall the process temporarily. However, the state will not agree as it will not side with the "fellowship" as that is "of the religion", but they will not allow the collective to be dissolved as it is separate from that religion and also the fellowship. That collective or corporation stands, irrespective of any definition of "Church" or "religion". The church in error, believing no such separation exists and that their religion and "fellowship" remains free from interference are gravely mistaken. A divided and broken fellowship, if present all throughout the process has no say in law to refuse the corporation approved by it's officers. However that fellowship should be free to continue separate to the collective if it leaves the collective and regains a footprint elsewhere. What then would happen if that were not the case? Can the state make any law over non-officers of a collective, that they must attend the fellowship they have left? Is this not a law in respect of religion? Then one should refuse the corporation (false prophet) in one's fellowship and avoid all "idol shepherds" like one would plague. Ideally there would need be a solution where the collective and corporation may be claimed to be a "foreign religion" supplanting the fellowship. Yet the law will not care. Those whose religion disagrees with the corporation and are not officers of that corporation are "free to leave if they believe so", and this at least can be argued as to enable all those that would separate themselves from the collective, setting up a free footprint elsewhere, to be free to do so without interference. Howbeit, if there is no freedom (in the case of anyone) to set up such an alternative footprint anywhere and free from a corporation, then the law of separation between church and state is at face value, contradictory, and there is no true separation of church and state. I am no lawyer. If you are in such dire straits, seek legal advice or keep your faith to yourself. The "false prophet" (to enable any unincorporating) needs to be legally required for all religion, especially on the individual scale before laws over any separation of Church and state may be considered violated by government. For then, any religious corporation may be argued to require dissolving. Yet not then to an overbearing and tyrannical law, but only before God Himself who will happily (and as has been proven historically) send tribulation without requiring His own kingdom to be redefined. |
 |
|
