I really don't get what you are driving at here cause the truth is soooo obvious even to the blind. Are christians keeping the mosaic laws today? If then i can be justified to keep slaves and stone people to death for not keeping the sabbath. Of course burnt offerings and animal sacrifices would still be in order. And tithing would be strictly agricultrual produce given once a year or once every three years depending on which tithes is being redeemed. And of cousre i would be eating my tithes with my family and drinking wine + other alcohlic drinks with the proceeds of my tithes i would also remember the strangers and the widows and other less priviledge people sadly i won't be able to give to the levites since they no longer exist today (forget the pretenders) and by law it is only he levites that can collect the tithes meant for God becos of the covenent God had with their patriach. The list is of laws is endless, i think this hypocrisy should stop and people should stop looking for loop holes to justify the unjustifiable.

KunleOshob:

The list is of laws is endless, i think this hypocrisy should stop and people should stop looking for loop holes to justify the unjustifiable.

Precisely - the 613 mosaic laws you broached may be "endless", which is why you often get confused when asked to stand up for your words. And I agree with you - this hypocrisy should stop, Kunle; trying to justify your assertion where you have not been able to do so is what you should be concerned about. If you can be this selective to argue that the law is "irrelevant", then go and commit fornication if you can repeal the 613 mosaic law - go and murder, sleep with your relatives, worship an innumerable number of gods, and be selective to "repeal and cancel" so many of the 613 mosaic laws - since they are no longer "relevant". It does not matter to carefully study what the NT says about the real intent of Romans 3:31 by your own argument. Bless the hypocrisy the more, because the NLT you quoted said you cannot forget the Law! It is easy to point accusing fingers at others and see them as hypocrites (generalised or personalised) while making assertions that you cannot defend.

Stop grabbing at the straws of wether the laws are 613 or 619 or 627 or whatever other number it has been argued to be and address the congent issues of all the some of the obsolete laws i listed and which one of the below are you still practising??

KunleOshob:

I really don't get what you are driving at here cause the truth is soooo obvious even to the blind. Are christians keeping the mosaic laws today? If then i can be justified to keep slaves and stone people to death for not keeping the sabbath. Of course burnt offerings and animal sacrifices would still be in order. And tithing would be strictly agricultrual produce given once a year or once every three years depending on which tithes is being redeemed. And of cousre i would be eating my tithes with my family and drinking wine + other alcohlic drinks with the proceeds of my tithes i would also remember the strangers and the widows and other less priviledge people sadly i won't be able to give to the levites since they no longer exist today (forget the pretenders) and by law it is only he levites that can collect the tithes meant for God because of the covenent God had with their patriach. The list is of laws is endless, i think this hypocrisy should stop and people should stop looking for loop holes to justify the unjustifiable.

KunleOshob:

Stop grabbing at the straws of wether the laws are 613 or 619 or 627 or whatever other number it has been argued to be and address the congent issues of all the some of the obsolete laws i listed and which one of the below are you still practising??

Quit your fallacious sanctimony of calling a "613 mosaic laws" that you are now so confused you find it repugnant to defend. You're no longer sure of your own number of "613" and now suggest "619" or "627", what is my worry? You can multiply them by a thousand and still claim they are all repealed, quote the NLT to further expose the fallacy, and then cry boohoo about semantics again.

I have said it previously: we can discuss this issue or any other in an enabling manner. If you choose otherwise, no bother. My concern may go unheeded; but those who have been using this fallacy of a "613 mosaic laws" as you have been forever quoting against tithes are now realising the huge problems it is presenting them with. For me, it is enough to now ask questions after seeking to address issues. If you can't and not willing to answer them, no wahala. What we know for a fact is that the cliché of that "613 mosaic laws" is an unhealthy claim - and one which the people circulating that idea cannot defend.

Aunty if you cannot defend your allusions you don't have to keep shouting about[b] 613 [/b] laws, if you haven't noticed i have not retereitated that the laws are indeed[b] 613[/b], i really don't care whether they are 613 or not it doesn't matter the number so stop making noise on an irrelevant issue. What really matters is that the Mosaic laws as was given and implemented in the old testament is NOT relevant to christianity today and even you that you are blowing so much hot air about it i can say with all honesty that you know all the laws by heart talkless of attempting to keep them.

Can imagine someone who tried to justify tithing by saying she doesn't tithe based on the (obsolete) law now making a futile and desperate attempt to unreasonably ressurect the dead and buried laws of Moses which she doesn't even practise or fully understand.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:

Aunty if you cannot defend your allusions you don't have to keep shouting about[b] 613 [/b] laws, if you haven't noticed i have not retereitated that the laws are indeed[b] 613[/b], i really don't care whether they are 613 or not it doesn't matter the number so stop making noise on an irrelevant issue. What really matters is that the Mosaic laws as was given and implemented in the old testament is NOT relevant to christianity today and even you that you are blowing so much hot air about it i can say with all honesty that you know all the laws by heart talkless of attempting to keep them.

Uncle, in case you haven’t noticed, the “613” laws was repeated by you several times (starting from other threads) until I felt enough of this rubbish. And in case you haven’t noticed, that figure (“613”) was not my idea but yours.

In reply to your question: “How many of the 613 mosaic laws do yu observe??”, my answer was to the effect that I’m not one of those going about with a “613 mosaic laws”. Since it is not my own assertion, why should you be asking me to answer to what I never once asserted? Since you are the master of that quote on “613 mosaic laws”, it is apropos that you defend what you have been asserting as that they have been repealed! You have forever confused yourself on that (predictably) by trying to equate “repeal” with “amend” – and even the NLT that you quoted in flaming bold on Romans 3:31 still says that you cannot forget the Law! How you hope to make the “613” laws a matter of amended and still shout everytime that they are repealed (cancelled, irrelevant, obselete, etc) is beyond me. It is either you don’t have a clue about the meaning of the words you’re bantering about; or you’re hoping no one notices them; or yet get confused and appeal to more fausse patte and come back ducking under the excuse that I was posting semantics.

If truth is important to you (as I’m sure it is), then share the same without appealing to those fallacies. Try not using those untenable fanciful statements about a “613, (or 619, 627) mosaic laws” being “repealed” to slur other people simply because you do not agree with them on tithes. How could you be using another man’s fallacy to castigate others on tithes or any other subject? What kind of attitude is that?

KunleOshob:

Can imagine someone who tried to justify tithing by saying she doesn't tithe based on the (obsolete) law now making a futile and desperate attempt to unreasonably ressurect the dead and buried laws of Moses which she doesn't even practise or fully understand.

You're a laugh! Where have I tried to "resurrect" any Law of Moses? This is even a waste of space in your assumptions. Is this how you hope to hide under your fallacy of a "613 laws" which the NLT confuses you about? Are you now so confused about who actually has been quoting the laws as "613" all this time? You don't surprise me - English no longer means anything to you and that is why you can equate "repeal" with "amend" and come back hooting about semantics!

Be open enough to invite a dialogue – a healthy, helpful dialogue devoid of sanctimonious finger pointing and name calling. Be willing to digest the very same words you use against others (whether generalised or personalised) when the same words are used to address you. Truth was never given to believers to keep justifying these childish accusations just because you don’t want to tithe. We respect your position and reasons for not tithing; but I am averse to the attitude of launching from a false assertion to castigate others who tithe. They do not ask it from your pocket, and you should respect their choice to honour God with their own substance.

Regards.

KunleOshob:

Can imagine someone who tried to justify tithing by saying she doesn't tithe based on the (obsolete) law now making a futile and desperate attempt to unreasonably ressurect the dead and buried laws of Moses which she doesn't even practise or fully understand.

I don't claim to be a master of the Law - I only called your attention to the fallacy of your untenable assertions about the 613 (whether 619 or 627)  laws that have now become your headache. Oga, go and read the Bible - the Word does not teach that the Law was "dead and buried" - I have already discussed that in another thread; and you can now quote the NLT again to try and weakly defend your "dead and buried" laws of Moses. When you do so, remember the same NLT in Romans 3:31 says you cannot forget the law. I wonder why or how you cannot "forget" what you claimed was dead and buried!

Just take it easy, Kunle. I thought you had any substance to all your shakara. I'm not pissed off as you may be; never would be pissed off. I just felt enough of the hypocrisy in asserting a "613 mosaic laws" that non-tithers use every time to slur tithes and tithers - and that's why I brought it up for your attention. Use them again, and I shall ask you yet again to smart up for the fallacy of that statement. If you have a heart to re-consider and observe that the source where you borrowed that garboil was wrong, the better for us all. If not, and you would like to stubbornly keep campaigning for that same fallacy, enjoy the campaign and bless up.

Cheers.


______________________

Edit:

As to the claim of the Law being dead and buried, I have pointed out rather that the law is 'spiritual' while we are the ones described as 'carnal' (Romans 7:14). Yet, in all, it is said that the believer is the one that died and was buried (Rom. 6:4) and not the law. Does that mean that I own the 613 mosaic laws as part of my walk in Christ? I state again: pilgrim.1 is not the one going about with a "613 mosaic laws" - and that is why I have been wasting that idea all along. If the 613 mosaic laws was my idea, why would I be arguing against it? It is not my assertion - and those who have been asserting it every time should take care of their fancy in this regard.

@Pilgrim.1
You are so propersterous it's infurating
I don't know why someone is so hell bent on picking shaft while ignoring the real meat of the issue at hand

KunleOshob:

@Pilgrim.1
You are so propersterous it's infurating
I don't know why someone is so hell bent on picking shaft while ignoring the real meat of the issue at hand

@KunleOshob, may I apologise (if you would receive it) that you find my position infuriating. I'm not hell bent on picking shaft, and as regards the meat of this matter, I have addressed them well in the other thread and was wiling to highlight a few other things before you guys felt it was not going down well with you. I was willing to let it go - even after your penultimate remark on that thread; but I felt it was about time that this constant finger pointing has to stop, especially because you were using the same remarks about the 613 mosaic laws to justify your arguments.

It happens that is what so many non-tithers appeal to, and that was why I called you on it, so that you drop it if you cannot defend it. I'm not the one going about with a "613 mosaic laws" - I don't know where the people asserting that same thing got the idea from. But one thing I have found out as a fact is that those who constantly use them have never been able to defend them. Which is why you should please re-consider ths issue, realise it is false, and share your own perspective without seeking to be pejorative at anyone. That has been my whole point, and I do not get frustrated or infuriated when non-tithers keep on haggling this same fallacy. It has not helped them and never will.

For now, since you have shown you cannot defend that fallacy, I hope to leave you to carry on with your campaign. It won't matter now if you go on slurring or castigating tithers - that won't surprise me at all. I can only say that God has been merciful to me in touching my heart to no longer castigate this subject that I once derided. . . and I have seen the power of it.

Please don't be infuriated - I sought a discussion. If that is not going to happen, God bless you all the same.

@ Poster,

Thanks for the post, i have always wanted to pour this out. I believe those who think changing their perception about tithing at this level could cost them their relationship with God would find it hard to believe. Some would not even want to read, because they have had an overdose of this "tithe" thing.

never mind if anyone_{(Pastors or intending pastors)} tries to criticize your point and quotes as they were not quoted out of context.

all i know is You have Taught a lot of them what they do not know

Peace be unto you!!!

pilgrim.1:

@KunleOshob, may I apologise (if you would receive it) that you find my position infuriating. I'm not hell bent on picking shaft, and as regards the meat of this matter, I have addressed them well in the other thread and was wiling to highlight a few other things before you guys felt it was not going down well with you. I was willing to let it go - even after your penultimate remark on that thread; but I felt it was about time that this constant finger pointing has to stop, especially because you were using the same remarks about the 613 mosaic laws to justify your arguments.

It happens that is what so many non-tithers appeal to, and that was why I called you on it, so that you drop it if you cannot defend it. I'm not the one going about with a "613 mosaic laws" - I don't know where the people asserting that same thing got the idea from. But one thing I have found out as a fact is that those who constantly use them have never been able to defend them. Which is why you should please re-consider ths issue, realise it is false, and share your own perspective without seeking to be pejorative at anyone. That has been my whole point, and I do not get frustrated or infuriated when non-tithers keep on haggling this same fallacy. It has not helped them and never will.

For now, since you have shown you cannot defend that fallacy, I hope to leave you to carry on with your campaign. It won't matter now if you go on slurring or castigating tithers - that won't surprise me at all. I can only say that God has been merciful to me in touching my heart to no longer castigate this subject that I once derided. . . and I have seen the power of it.

Please don't be infuriated - I sought a discussion. If that is not going to happen, God bless you all the same.

Whether the laws are 613 or not it doesn't matter the fact is that the laws are obsolete and not meant for christians hence the apostles never taught them to the early christian converts. That aside my position on tithes is not just based on the defunct mosaic laws i actually wrote three pages of ireffutable facts to establish my position on tithes, so you don't have to be mischivious and mislead other readers of this thread by hanging on to the very "thin thread" of wether i got the number of mosaic laws right or wrong. What ever the number they are obsolete, defunct, irrelevant, anulled, abolished, archaic, insignificant, dissolved and not directed at christians i have already posted enough scriptures to butress this point so i won't bother reposting them here. I know you would still keep on hammering on wether it is 613 laws or not but then who cares

KunleOshob:

Whether the laws are 613 or not it doesn't matter the fact is that the laws are obsolete and not meant for christians hence the apostles never taught them to the early christian converts. That aside my position on tithes is not just based on the defunct mosaic laws i actually wrote three pages of ireffutable facts to establish my position on tithes, so you don't have to be mischivious and mislead other readers of this thread by hanging on to the very "thin thread" of wether i got the number of mosaic laws right or wrong. What ever the number they are obsolete, defunct, irrelevant, anulled, abolished, archaic, insignificant, dissolved and not directed at christians i have already posted enough scriptures to butress this point so i won't bother reposting them here. I know you would still keep on hammering on wether it is 613 laws or not but then who cares

When chaps like you make otiose and fallacious assertions, it does not surprise me you cannot defend what you state. If it does not matter that your repealed laws were "613", why did you appeal to the same deceptive assertion previously until I asked you to smart up for it? Why have you been trying to mislead your readers with this fallacy and trying to play this ojoro by quoting the NLT on Romans 3:31 that says you cannot forget the same Law that you have been shouting forever was repealed? Your 3 pages of so-called "irrefutable" arguments based on this casuistry is a sad adventure, and you can play the same pretence forever repealing the same thing your NLT says you cannot forget! Be selective - that is what hypocrisy is all about; and I agree with you whole-heartedly: that hypocrisy should stop. Be consistent and try not misleading yourself and your adulators further by desperately asserting what you cannot defend.

I swear, the best way to resolve this matter na for field.
Yes, a free for all fight. Haba

I often wonder if this discussion will ever reach an end point? After all, surely doctrine is not intended to remain purely theoretical without any practical value or application? And if not, one must always ask “how consonant is the practical outworking of any doctrine with what we would consider Christian behaviour or character?” How indeed, does doctrine affect notions of worship and church structure.

So, how does “the tithe” play out in everyday practical Christian living? As one who confesses –as I believe the bible clearly shows – in simple Christian giving to meet physical need, how do believers in the tithe, Gods ordaining, distinguishing and blessing it, explain the outworking of tithing, even in the simplest terms?

~ How does a Christian worship God with money, or any other physical thing in this dispensation? And in the NT biblical narrative, can any such instance be found?

~ Who is the tithe given to/received by? And what subsequently happens to it?  With the saints as priests and The Lord as High Priest, how does this
tithe thing work?

~ Please, can somebody explain “Gods covenant secret/mystery for prosperity?” as some term it. And in the kind of plain English the spiritually simple can understand. Thank you kindly.

~ Is there anything in the biblical narrative – without reference to the Law & Prophets – that upholds the notion that God has ordained, distinguishes and blesses a tithe by New Testament Christians, which is clearly separate from needs based giving?

Attempts to monetise worship are not new. One need only look back to the era of indulgences. I think most of you will be aware of this practice and period in history and what it entailed, for those that are not I would urge you look it up. It was nothing more than extortion, regardless of the good intentions or the attempted justification by lending it the imprimateur of the religious establishment or attempts to normalise it by quoting scripture.
I’ve already alluded to my belief that the tithe is at best an erroneous form of “temple tax”, which is rather odd as temples or dedicated physical places of worship are at best an optional extra, and by no means normative. God has clearly stated that His temple is no longer of stone and His dwelling place is no longer buildings.

It’s not too complicated to see the need for some form of subtly coerced giving, no matter how spiritualised, when religion is institutionalised and physical structures are integral to worship. In fact its simply a way of raising funds Organisations have to be funded somehow. Organisations cannot first survive without funding.

Organisations need to be busy, churning out goods and keeping a captive consumer audience. It’s why there are “programs” more or less daily and why non-attendance is frowned upon. It’s about growth, hence the emphasis on members (not converts and certainly not discipleship). It works to foster dependence and control of your time and resources (mostly money).

It  also helps justify a salaried leadership hierarchy, aka clergy. No where does the bible prescribe such. It’s man made tradition. The church is never a business opportunity career path or even vocation.

As ever there is branding. And franchising for the more solid brands. As it evolves, it becomes commoditised. The physical product offering is wide ranging. From programs, including, crusades, deliverance sessions, power nights, dominion evening, conventions, vigils, singles outreach, marriage seminars and the like. Workshops, with specialists and product experts in each field. Secondary product based revenue streams kick in and the organisation is no longer solely dependent on coerced giving, although for the most part the source of their funding is the same.

Then there are the smaller consumables, anointing oil, snake oil, handkerchiefs, chains, branded and customised literature, tapes, CD’s, personal prayer/visits and even cruises. Multiple revenue streams kick in, still from mostly the same source demographic, but the net is wider and consumers don’t have to be local or members.

Like any organisation/institution, they have reflective defensive mechanisms, aimed at eliminating opposition and threats. Try to change or challenge from the inside and you will be branded insubordinate, rebellious, suffer calumny or be ostracised. Do not judge, do not touch the Lords anointed, or talk against the “man of God” – which is pitifully laughable, as almost all such are self styled.

With the doing away with of a physical structures of worship in the form of temples, a mediatory priesthood, physical/burnt offerings and the observance of holy days or otherwise ritualised religion, worship of God is in spirit and in truth. Without physical/ritualised religion, men cannot control it or each other. To do so, the things that have been done away with have to be re-instituted. 1 Corinthians 7:23 - You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

How does money come into it? It’s pretty simple really, as the bible warns severally, one way of identifying wolves will be their emphasis on gain, lucre and riches. Openly citing it as the very reason for Christianity - prosperity anyone - and it being implicitly obvious for their involvement in ministry. One of the biggest myths in Christian religious circles is “the gospel needs money for propagation”, no it don’t. Organisations and institutionalised religion need money to survive. Take that to the bank! Whenever there’s a crime, a major line of inquiry is always the money trail.

Politics and religion they say are twin evils. I used to hate that phrase, but false and man-made religion, which is very evident in many strains of Christianity and directly opposed to true faith and undefiled God kind religion – caring for orphans and widows, sounds needs based to me?  - is exactly that, a great evil. Who can spot the difference between many so called MOGS and the political rulers in Nigeria, in many, if not most respects. Indeed, aren’t they in many instances willing bedfellows?

In many countries with a longer historical “Christian tradition”, religious funding even comes from the state. Now that’s what they talkin’ about. Tithe ke? That’s small time for auditoria and planes. This thing get levels. Money and power and greater dominion, come with political liaison. Ultimately the institutionalised church would like to be a political force in it’s own right , and it once was. These days, it has to make do with a wary liaison with the state. In many ways the aims of religion and politics are the same, so it makes a certain amount of sense. Again, this is not new. The biblical narrative is replete with examples of the religious establishment in bed with the state.

But that’s just the “physical stuff”, dig deeper for the "spiritual".

Seek truth people.

God bless
TV

@TV01
Thanx for your brilliant contribution. It is really thought provoking and very factual. The truth is obvious, around us and in the bible for all to see but we are all blinded by religion and dogma. The instituitionalized religious leaders have truly taken us for a ride for centuries. With the precisive and clear cut way you presented your post backed with scripture, i can say you have ignited a paradigm shift in my outlook to life and religion. May God continue to bless us all and reveal his truth to us further. I have been truly blessed by your post.

James 1:27:
27 Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you.

KunleOshob:


James 1:27:
27 Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you.

Thanks Kunle for the above quote, which I just read in context. I realise this theme runs through the NT in particular but also the Bible in general but did not have a specific and direct quote like this.
It is worthwhile to note that James was Jesus' brother.
Meanwhile our christian leaders continue to mislead us like here

KunleOshob:

James 1:27:
27 Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you.

anonimi:

Thanks Kunle for the above quote, which I just read in context. I realise this theme runs through the NT in particular but also the Bible in general but did not have a specific and direct quote like this.
It is worthwhile to note that James was Jesus' brother.

Absolutely! The theme does run through the New Testament; but it was also always reflected in the OT such that even some of the OT passages concerning tithes say that some of the tithes should be shared with widows, orphans, aliens ("illegal aliens" etc.

For example, Deuteronomy 14:23-29 (NLT) and the portion extracted below.


"At the end of every third year bring the tithe of all your crops and store it in the nearest town.
Give it to the Levites, who have no inheritance among you, as well as to the foreigners living among you, the orphans, and the widows in your towns, so they can eat and be satisfied. Then the Lord your God will bless you in all your work."

Enigma:



"At the end of every third year bring the tithe of all your crops and store it in the nearest town.
Give it to the Levites, who have no inheritance among you, as well as to the foreigners living among you, the orphans, and the widows in your towns, so they can eat and be satisfied. Then the Lord your God will bless you in all your work."

uh-ho! What's that about foreigners, orphans and widows? I don't think I ever heard that in any of those pentecostal churches.

TV01:

I often wonder if this discussion will ever reach an end point? After all, surely doctrine is not intended to remain purely theoretical without any practical value or application? And if not, one must always ask “how consonant is the practical outworking of any doctrine with what we would consider Christian behaviour or character?” How indeed, does doctrine affect notions of worship and church structure.

So, how does “the tithe” play out in everyday practical Christian living? As one who confesses –as I believe the bible clearly shows – in simple Christian giving to meet physical need, how do believers in the tithe, Gods ordaining, distinguishing and blessing it, explain the outworking of tithing, even in the simplest terms?

~ How does a Christian worship God with money, or any other physical thing in this dispensation? And in the NT biblical narrative, can any such instance be found?

~ Who is the tithe given to/received by? And what subsequently happens to it?  With the saints as priests and The Lord as High Priest, how does this
tithe thing work?

~ Please, can somebody explain “Gods covenant secret/mystery for prosperity?” as some term it. And in the kind of plain English the spiritually simple can understand. Thank you kindly.

~ Is there anything in the biblical narrative – without reference to the Law & Prophets – that upholds the notion that God has ordained, distinguishes and blesses a tithe by New Testament Christians, which is clearly separate from needs based giving?

Attempts to monetise worship are not new. One need only look back to the era of indulgences. I think most of you will be aware of this practice and period in history and what it entailed, for those that are not I would urge you look it up. It was nothing more than extortion, regardless of the good intentions or the attempted justification by lending it the imprimateur of the religious establishment or attempts to normalise it by quoting scripture.
I’ve already alluded to my belief that the tithe is at best an erroneous form of “temple tax”, which is rather odd as temples or dedicated physical places of worship are at best an optional extra, and by no means normative. God has clearly stated that His temple is no longer of stone and His dwelling place is no longer buildings.

It’s not too complicated to see the need for some form of subtly coerced giving, no matter how spiritualised, when religion is institutionalised and physical structures are integral to worship. In fact its simply a way of raising funds Organisations have to be funded somehow. Organisations cannot first survive without funding.

Organisations need to be busy, churning out goods and keeping a captive consumer audience. It’s why there are “programs” more or less daily and why non-attendance is frowned upon. It’s about growth, hence the emphasis on members (not converts and certainly not discipleship). It works to foster dependence and control of your time and resources (mostly money).

It  also helps justify a salaried leadership hierarchy, aka clergy. No where does the bible prescribe such. It’s man made tradition. The church is never a business opportunity career path or even vocation.

As ever there is branding. And franchising for the more solid brands. As it evolves, it becomes commoditised. The physical product offering is wide ranging. From programs, including, crusades, deliverance sessions, power nights, dominion evening, conventions, vigils, singles outreach, marriage seminars and the like. Workshops, with specialists and product experts in each field. Secondary product based revenue streams kick in and the organisation is no longer solely dependent on coerced giving, although for the most part the source of their funding is the same.

Then there are the smaller consumables, anointing oil, snake oil, handkerchiefs, chains, branded and customised literature, tapes, CD’s, personal prayer/visits and even cruises. Multiple revenue streams kick in, still from mostly the same source demographic, but the net is wider and consumers don’t have to be local or members.

Like any organisation/institution, they have reflective defensive mechanisms, aimed at eliminating opposition and threats. Try to change or challenge from the inside and you will be branded insubordinate, rebellious, suffer calumny or be ostracised. Do not judge, do not touch the Lords anointed, or talk against the “man of God” – which is pitifully laughable, as almost all such are self styled.

With the doing away with of a physical structures of worship in the form of temples, a mediatory priesthood, physical/burnt offerings and the observance of holy days or otherwise ritualised religion, worship of God is in spirit and in truth. Without physical/ritualised religion, men cannot control it or each other. To do so, the things that have been done away with have to be re-instituted. 1 Corinthians 7:23 - You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

How does money come into it? It’s pretty simple really, as the bible warns severally, one way of identifying wolves will be their emphasis on gain, lucre and riches. Openly citing it as the very reason for Christianity - prosperity anyone - and it being implicitly obvious for their involvement in ministry. One of the biggest myths in Christian religious circles is “the gospel needs money for propagation”, no it don’t. Organisations and institutionalised religion need money to survive. Take that to the bank! Whenever there’s a crime, a major line of inquiry is always the money trail.

Politics and religion they say are twin evils. I used to hate that phrase, but false and man-made religion, which is very evident in many strains of Christianity and directly opposed to true faith and undefiled God kind religion – caring for orphans and widows, sounds needs based to me?  - is exactly that, a great evil. Who can spot the difference between many so called MOGS and the political rulers in Nigeria, in many, if not most respects. Indeed, aren’t they in many instances willing bedfellows?

In many countries with a longer historical “Christian tradition”, religious funding even comes from the state. Now that’s what they talkin’ about. Tithe ke? That’s small time for auditoria and planes. This thing get levels. Money and power and greater dominion, come with political liaison. Ultimately the institutionalised church would like to be a political force in it’s own right , and it once was. These days, it has to make do with a wary liaison with the state. In many ways the aims of religion and politics are the same, so it makes a certain amount of sense. Again, this is not new. The biblical narrative is replete with examples of the religious establishment in bed with the state.

But that’s just the “physical stuff”, dig deeper for the "spiritual".

Seek truth people.

God bless
TV

This is brilliant! May I forward it to some of my contacts? I think more people need to read this that are on Nairaland.

Pastor AIO:

This is brilliant! May I forward it to some of my contacts? I think more people need to read this that are on Nairaland.

Thank you. And please, be my guest.

DavidDlyan likes to say "God deals with us as individuals" or words to that effect. I totally agree. I feel a form of fellowship that has been crowded out by commercialised religion, is the simple "coming together" of believers to share the experiences, insights and developments of their walks, as we all press towards the upward call of God in Christ Jesus - Intimacy with God and Christlikeness. That's is what this is about right?

God bless
TV

@TV01,

I'm glad that the very thing I have been trying to point out is now what is showing up in the submissions of those who worry about tithing.

TV01: I often wonder if this discussion will ever reach an end point? After all, surely doctrine is not intended to remain purely theoretical without any practical value or application? And if not, one must always ask “how consonant is the practical outworking of any doctrine with what we would consider Christian behaviour or character?” How indeed, does doctrine affect notions of worship and church structure.

In practical terms, doctrine indeed affects our worship - and that is why everyone on either side has been concerned about statements being made on this issue. If it were not, I wonder why many who are opposed to tithing are the ones who would quote the same "Law" for doctrine as regards the tithes under Judaism, harp endlessly about it, and see nothing else.

Practically, those who speak of "grace giving" and "simple Christian giving" are many times the ones who do not practise what they preach. Let me give you an example: when you read the assertive declarations of those who argue proudly from their Ph.Ds against tithing, you find that while just 10% (1 out of 10) worries them so much, what they recommend goes beyond that very 10% and yet they cannot follow what they themselves recommend. I have seen this happen so many times. If 10% is "too much", is it "more than 10%" that is far easier? This is the practical outworking that we often find in the academic arguments of those who write hundreds of pages against this subject, and it is all the same: what they recommend is what they have no desire whatsoever to keep.

Talk with these folks is cheap, and one should be careful what they assert - which in many instances they cannot stand up for when called to examine their statements.

Then there are the smaller consumables, anointing oil, snake oil, handkerchiefs, chains, branded and customised literature, tapes, CD’s, personal prayer/visits and even cruises. Multiple revenue streams kick in, still from mostly the same source demographic, but the net is wider and consumers don’t have to be local or members.

Just simply what I highlighted sometime earlier. The problem with this business of filthy lucre is not "tithes" per se - for the greater concern about "multiple revenue streams" is often disregarded. Often, money issues worry a lot of Christians, even those who assume they are "free". What they often don't realise is the more serious problem that nobody mentions. If people are going to take the time to examine the real crux of the money issues that they frown upon, they would definitely come to realise that "10%" is not the issue - for the hint you have now come to state above is far more the problem than any percentage Christians worry about. Those who make merchandise of people are not bothered about "tithes", especially because that word has become a bane to many believers. By contrast, what is fetched from people's pockets through other means is far above 10% - and that is what people often fail to see!

If 10% is a serious problem to believers, do they realise that "simple Christian giving" is also a "percentage" of whatever they give? The problem for many is that word "tithe", and while some may argue endlessly against 10% (1 out of 10), they fail to see that what they recommend is still a "percentage" (anywhere from 1 to 9 out of 10). Often, proponents of "grace giving" would ask you to give beyond that 10% (or as is coyly stated: "give beyond your ability" - which clearly says for people to give beyond 10% or beyond 1 out of 10. When you examine these people closely, they will never do what they recommend unto others! Yet, i'm glad that a few of these folks have come to understand that the word tithes is not limited to 10% even in the Bible! Not many people see this simple matter; but it has been there all along. Question is: why the double standards?

All the talk about "simple giving", or "cheerful giving", etc. are clearly in the OT as well. Helping the poor is a matter of both the OT and NT. What then is the essential difference between giving "cheerfully" or helping the poor in either testaments? People often use their sanctimonious verbiage to make these distinctions and yet come back asking if there are "distinctions"; whereas they often are the ones distinguishing them and "condemning" this in favour of that or the other. We Christians, poor folks, should seek to be consistent. Anything you give from your income is a "percentange" - whether 1 out of 10 or anything recommended as "beyond your ability" (as the Ph.Ds would recommend). Hiding that fact under such verbiages as "grace giving" is the reason why believers will continue to suffer more casualties needlessly to those who appeal to other terms than "tithes" to make merchandise of believers. What sense does it make yto argue endlessly against just 10% while recommending that is which beyond 10% and pretending the latter as "grace"? So also the merchandisers will appeal to "grace" for that which appertains to disgrace.

pilgrim.1:

What sense does it make to argue endlessly against just 10% while recommending that is which beyond 10% and pretending the latter as "grace"? So also the merchandisers will appeal to "grace" for that which appertains to disgrace.

This is not the only example or the most prominent about this scenario, but this highlights the point above:

Russell Earl Kelly, PHD said,
1. Post-Calvary Christian giving principles in Second Corinthians are superior to tithing. (1) Giving is a "grace.” ^{(2) Give yourself to God first. (3) Give yourself to knowing God’s will.} (4) Give in response to Christ’s gift. (5) Give out of a sincere desire. (6) Do not give because of any commandment (8:8, 10; 9:7). (7) Give beyond your ability. ^{( Give to produce equality.} (9) Give joyfully (8:2). (10) Give because you are growing spiritually. (11) Give to continue growing spiritually. (12) Give because you are hearing the gospel preached.

This is just what I have been talking about; and I have nothing against Russell Kelly himself - for others have argued against tithes and said far more worrisome things. But a few pointers to the very thing I have been calling attention to - please note that this is what many opposers to tithes have been asserting;

(1) Christian giving is superior to tithing.
When I asked a staunch opposer of tithes what could possibly be meant by this statement, he was vague in his response, and later said all he was trying to point out was this:

(2) "superior" is to "Give beyond your ability"
I further questioned them (although they didn't like being asked questions, since I had refrained from arguing anything and just let them talk). But it was surprising that while they had a problem with 1 out of 10 (ie., "10%", they were recommending that which was beyond 10%!! I thanked them; but on pointing out that some people I know as arguing against 10% would not dare give beyond that percentage, they got offended when I gave them proof to the case. I wonder, how many people who have a problem with 1 out of 10 are actually practising what they preached about giving beyond your ability?!?

But it gets even more interesting, because when I asked why anyone should even give at all (since they had a problem with reasons for tithing), they said about the same thing as Russell Kelly did -

* Give in response to Christ’s gift

* Give because you are growing spiritually

* Give to continue growing spiritually

* Give because you are hearing the gospel preached.

Hang on a minute - I reminded these folks that these statements are coming from opposers to tithe! They chorused "yes!" Whereupon I also asked them what would be wrong if it was the pastors of mega-churches that are saying the same thing? Afterall, those mega-pastors would not preach "tithes" forever, and yet they give obviously the same reasons for "grace giving". These mega-pastors talk about "giving to grow spiritually" and to "continue growing spiritually". Needless to say, the conversation/argument/discussion/debate/sialogue switched from this question to their asking me if I was a member of one of those mega-churches. When I refused to state what denomination I attended, they never answered my questioned but rather baptised me with their vexations.

What is the point? It is all the same:

(a) opposers to tithes who recommend that you give beyond 1 out of 10 will never practise what they preach! 10% is "too hard" for them, but I ask - is "beyond 10%" to easy for others?

(b) why is it a problem for mega-churches and mega-pastors to use the same verbiage that sanctimonious opposers to tithes often use? Does it make sound Christian sense to give "because" one was to grow "spiritually"? Or to give "to continue growing"? What about those who do this very thing in mega-churches without worrying themselves to death about tithes?

They all logged out, after getting offended at my pointing out this simple fact - people who oppose this matter do not make a better case for their argument, if what they recommend endlessly is the same thing that mega-churches practise and teach! Why is it that the very things that some people recommend immediately becomes heresy when it is pointed out that others that they have insulted are doing those very things?

(c) so, please tell me: did those in the OT not give the same way as is often recommended by those who speak about "grace giving"? What I am amazed at is this pretence at making such distinctions as if they are unique to Christians in the Nt and nobody under the OT ever knew how to give like that! Sample them again -

* Give yourself to God first.
* Give yourself to knowing God’s will
* Give out of a sincere desire.
* Give beyond your ability
* Give joyfully

We know many instances where people in the OT gave in this manner; so what make a case out of them as if they are in any way "superior", as if we never read of such in the OT?

I think we should all take the time to deeply reflect on this matter. Many times, it is saddening to see that those who argue against tithes are actually the ones contributing to the confusion all the more by making these empty distinctions as if they are unique to the NT.

pilgrim.1:


This is just what I have been talking about; and I have nothing against Russell Kelly himself - for others have argued against tithes and said far more worrisome things. But a few pointers to the very thing I have been calling attention to - please note that this is what many opposers to tithes have been asserting;

(1) Christian giving is superior to tithing.
When I asked a staunch opposer of tithes what could possibly be meant by this statement, he was vague in his response, and later said all he was trying to point out was this:

(2) "superior" is to "Give beyond your ability"
I further questioned them (although they didn't like being asked questions, since I had refrained from arguing anything and just let them talk). But it was surprising that while they had a problem with 1 out of 10 (ie., "10%", they were recommending that which was beyond 10%!! I thanked them; but on pointing out that some people I know as arguing against 10% would not dare give beyond that percentage, they got offended when I gave them proof to the case. I wonder, how many people who have a problem with 1 out of 10 are actually practising what they preached about giving beyond your ability?!?

But it gets even more interesting, because when I asked why anyone should even give at all (since they had a problem with reasons for tithing), they said about the same thing as Russell Kelly did -

* Give in response to Christ’s gift

* Give because you are growing spiritually

* Give to continue growing spiritually

* Give because you are hearing the gospel preached.

Hang on a minute - I reminded these folks that these statements are coming from opposers to tithe! They chorused "yes!" Whereupon I also asked them what would be wrong if it was the pastors of mega-churches that are saying the same thing? Afterall, those mega-pastors would not preach "tithes" forever, and yet they give obviously the same reasons for "grace giving". These mega-pastors talk about "giving to grow spiritually" and to "continue growing spiritually". Needless to say, the conversation/argument/discussion/debate/sialogue switched from this question to their asking me if I was a member of one of those mega-churches. When I refused to state what denomination I attended, they never answered my questioned but rather baptised me with their vexations.

What is the point? It is all the same:

(a) opposers to tithes who recommend that you give beyond 1 out of 10 will never practise what they preach! 10% is "too hard" for them, but I ask - is "beyond 10%" to easy for others?

(b) why is it a problem for mega-churches and mega-pastors to use the same verbiage that sanctimonious opposers to tithes often use? Does it make sound Christian sense to give "because" one was to grow "spiritually"? Or to give "to continue growing"? What about those who do this very thing in mega-churches without worrying themselves to death about tithes?

They all logged out, after getting offended at my pointing out this simple fact - people who oppose this matter do not make a better case for their argument, if what they recommend endlessly is the same thing that mega-churches practise and teach! Why is it that the very things that some people recommend immediately becomes heresy when it is pointed out that others that they have insulted are doing those very things?

(c) so, please tell me: did those in the OT not give the same way as is often recommended by those who speak about "grace giving"? What I am amazed at is this pretence at making such distinctions as if they are unique to Christians in the Nt and nobody under the OT ever knew how to give like that! Sample them again -

* Give yourself to God first.
* Give yourself to knowing God’s will
* Give out of a sincere desire.
* Give beyond your ability
* Give joyfully

We know many instances where people in the OT gave in this manner; so what make a case out of them as if they are in any way "superior", as if we never read of such in the OT?

I think we should all take the time to deeply reflect on this matter. Many times, it is saddening to see that those who argue against tithes are actually the ones contributing to the confusion all the more by making these empty distinctions as if they are unique to the NT.

This is definately a contender for the mother of all Red herrings and irrelevant tangents. I'm not aware of anyone mentioning any of the above on this thread. Although the thread is quite long now so maybe I missed it.

That there are weak arguments against tithing does not invalidate the fact that there are strong arguments against tithing as practiced in churches today.

Hi Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

This is definately a contender for the mother of all Red herrings and irrelevant tangents. I'm not aware of anyone mentioning any of the above on this thread. Although the thread is quite long now so maybe I missed it.

I hope you're not easily offended. All you need to ask is where that matter was mentioned in the thread - and I could point it out: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113108.384.html#msg3147004 . Actually, JJYOU had posted it from another blog. But the case I was particularly referring to was fruit from discussions I had with tithe-oopsers from other fora. I thought that was clear in my post; and from the context, it is clear I was not referring to Nairaland.

Pastor AIO:

That there are weak arguments against tithing does not invalidate the fact that there are strong arguments against tithing as practiced in churches today.

They actually do. The one thing i noted is that tithe opposers who argue endlessly against 10% (1 out of 10) are the very people who get offended easily when asked to stand up and demonstrate what they recommended to others. The arguemnts they use (which have been outlined above) are inconsistent with their practical outlook; and I have pointed out several times that they are not unique to the NT. I have several times pointed out the same things in the OT. If these Ph.D arguers recommend the same thing to others, why are they offended if those same things are the very things being preached in the mega-churches they deride?

Regards.

@Pilgrim.1
Once again i would like to state that my opposition is not to the act of tithing per se, my opposition is to the so called Men of God who manipulate scripture and make christians believe that they must tithe. This i believe is fraudulent or at best ignorrant. And this is very unbecoming of a man who claims to be doing serving God. A man of God must stand for the truth always, he must be an example and he must not deceve the flock cos of the trust placed in him. I am not opposed to tithes what i am opposed to is the way preachers fraudulently present it.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:

@Pilgrim.1
Once again i would like to state that my opposition is not to the act of tithing per se, my opposition is to the so called Men of God who manipulate scripture and make christians believe that they must tithe. This i believe is fraudulent or at best ignorrant. And this is very unbecoming of a man who claims to be doing serving God. A man of God must stand for the truth always, he must be an example and he must not deceve the flock because of the trust placed in him. I am not opposed to tithes what i am opposed to is the way preachers fraudulently present it.

I am no longer sure what you are opposed to. That is why i simply ask questions these days and let people assert themselves until they see that what they assert many times do not stand when scrutinized. Glad to note that you're not opposed to tithes per se now; but rather the way people manipulate Scripture to teach it. I have that concern as well - and I have been consistently bearing it out. However, is it not true that those who often preach "truth" have been guilty of manipulating the same Scripture to fit just about any arguement against tithes and use that same premise to deride others? We know that has been the case; so just who are we going to point accusing fingers at, while applauding ourselves in the mistaken idea that we alone know "truth"?

Anyhow, either way, anyone may be averse to tithes and tithing and use that attitude constantly assert things which are not true when examined. Indeed, mega-churches appeal to some texts to preach other things than tithes, and you would agree with me that what they draw from people is more than 10%. Anything one gives is a "percentage", and we can't deny that fact. I just wonder that many tithe-opposers recommend what they cannot keep themselves.

KunleOshob:


James 1:27:
27 Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you.

A related quote to the above is Isaiah 58:

6 Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?
7 Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?

please are we here to insults ourselfs or open the yansh of the pastors that are chopping our hard earned money in the name of tithes? na wah o! this pastors sef! anyway aw them go chop?

pilgrim.1:

Hi Pastor AIO,

I hope you're not easily offended. All you need to ask is where that matter was mentioned in the thread - and I could point it out: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-113108.384.html#msg3147004 . Actually, JJYOU had posted it from another blog. But the case I was particularly referring to was fruit from discussions I had with tithe-oopsers from other fora. I thought that was clear in my post; and from the context, it is clear I was not referring to Nairaland.

Thanks for letting me know about the JJYOU post.  I wouldn't have read it even if I did see it.  I make no secret of the fact that I generally do not read excessively long post.  Not unless they are incredible interesting and, as it happens, I did not find that interesting at all.  

I was aware that your post referred to tithe opposers from another forum and it is precisely because of this that I called it a red herring.  It was hardly pertinent to what is being discussed in this thread.  ie. the abuse of biblical text by pastors in order to extort money from their congregations.  

don't worry about offending me, I do not get so easily offended.  I hope I do not offend you either, because I am aware that sometimes I get excitable in discussion fail to take people's feelings into proper consideration.  This is something that I'm working on, it's all about growing and maturing.  

pilgrim.1:



They actually do. The one thing i noted is that tithe opposers who argue endlessly against 10% (1 out of 10) are the very people who get offended easily when asked to stand up and demonstrate what they recommended to others. The arguemnts they use (which have been outlined above) are inconsistent with their practical outlook; and I have pointed out several times that they are not unique to the NT. I have several times pointed out the same things in the OT. If these Ph.D arguers recommend the same thing to others, why are they offended if those same things are the very things being preached in the mega-churches they deride?

Regards.

I'm sure that you are aware of Gettier's problem.  If someone arrives at the right conclusion via dubious arguments does it matter?  For example the scenario of the cow in field. from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem

The Cow in the Field
Farmer Field is concerned about his prize cow, Daisy. In fact, he is so concerned that when his dairyman tells him that Daisy is in the field, happily grazing, he says he needs to know for certain. He doesn't want merely to have a 99 percent probability that Daisy is safe, he wants to be able to say that he knows Daisy is safe.
Farmer Field goes out to the field and standing by the gate sees in the distance, behind some trees, a white and black shape that he recognizes as his favorite cow. He goes back to the dairy and tells his friend that he knows Daisy is in the field.
Yet, at this point, does Farmer Field really know it?
The dairyman says he will check too, and goes to the field. There he finds Daisy, having a nap in a hollow, behind a bush, well out of sight of the gate. He also spots a large piece of black and white paper that has got caught in a tree.
Daisy is in the field, as Farmer Field thought.
But was he right to say that he knew she was?
The philosopher, Martin Cohen, who described this scenario originally [1], says that in this case the farmer:
believed the cow was safe;
had evidence that this was so (his belief was justified);
and it was true that his cow was safe.
However, we might still feel that the farmer did not really know it. Herein lies the core of the problem of 'knowledge as justified true belief'.

Soooo . . . Does the fact the someone has a weak argument to justify the truth negate the stronger arguments that support it?

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

Thanks for letting me know about the JJYOU post.  I wouldn't have read it even if I did see it.  I make no secret of the fact that I generally do not read excessively long post.  Not unless they are incredible interesting and, as it happens, I did not find that interesting at all.

No worries.

Pastor AIO:

I was aware that your post referred to tithe opposers from another forum and it is precisely because of this that I called it a red herring.  It was hardly pertinent to what is being discussed in this thread.  ie. the abuse of biblical text by pastors in order to extort money from their congregations.

Whether here or elsewhere, what does it matter that people on either side are abusing texts of Scripture for their arguments? The abuse is on either side in many instances; but many people opposing tithes often do not recoginze these same abuses from their own camp. It seems that as long as anything is ferreted "from Scripture" to make wild and untrue statements, it works just well if it is against tithes; but if the assertions are pointed out as false and untenable, the postulators quite often get offended and never ever seem to take the time to go back and check their own assumptions. It doesn't really matter to me either way, whether those who oppose tithes are borrowing the retired clihés of their adulators that have failed to stand up to scrutiny.

Pastor AIO:

don't worry about offending me, I do not get so easily offended.  I hope I do not offend you either, because I am aware that sometimes I get excitable in discussion fail to take people's feelings into proper consideration.  This is something that I'm working on, it's all about growing and maturing.

I wasn't offended - and if you have been following my discussions on this subject, I have persistently called for calm and reason. I cannot claim to be perfect in this regard; but through experience with many people, I wonder why the pattern is that tithe opposers get pissed off when requested to look more closely at their own assertions, which many times they are unable to sustain when questioned.
 

Pastor AIO:

I'm sure that you are aware of Gettier's problem.  If someone arrives at the right conclusion via dubious arguments does it matter?  For example the scenario of the cow in field. from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem
Soooo . . . Does the fact the someone has a weak argument to justify the truth negate the stronger arguments that support it? 

I've often talked about "fausse patte", and am quite sorry on your account to read this coming from you! When I read the sort of thing you asked in the highlighted above, there's just one question that crosses my mind: "is it okay to propose dubious arguments to justify anything?" How does one try to justify the idea that it does not matter that people advance dubious arguments to justify "truth" (usually their own version of truth)? This proposal only weakens the substance in those who oppose tithing - because nothing could justify duplicity for them if they can condemn that very thing in others who do not belong to their camp!

Incidentally, this was raised in the discussions I had with the gentlemen in the other fora hinted at earlier - I came away wondering how easy it is for them to point accusing fingers at others, condemn in no uncertain terms the "dubious arguments" of others, while at the same time they are happy to justify their own dubious arguments and claim "it does not matter anyhow". This is the sort of thing I had in mind earlier when I said:

pilgrim.1:

Why is it that the very things that some people recommend immediately becomes heresy when it is pointed out that others that they have insulted are doing those very things?

Anyhow, thanks for your comments.

anonimi:

KunleOshob:
James 1:27:
27 Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you.

A related quote to the above is Isaiah 58:

6 Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke?
7 Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?

It's quite refreshing to read your helpful inputs - concise and genial.
Although not many people may have seen this, or even would like to consider the fact, it points out what I had said precisely in several threads and repeated in this one succinctly: this matter of helping the poor as regards giving is mentioned in both the OT (e.g., ISAIAH that you quoted) and the NT (JAMES 1:27 that was quoted).

pilgrim.1:

All the talk about "simple giving", or "cheerful giving", etc. are clearly in the OT as well. Helping the poor is a matter of both the OT and NT. What then is the essential difference between giving "cheerfully" or helping the poor in either testaments?

In both Testaments, these and many, many other matters were mentioned - and it amazes me that so many Christians discussing this issue seem to mention them as if they are perculiar to just the NT!

pilgrim.1:


Whether here or elsewhere, what does it matter that people on either side are abusing texts of Scripture for their arguments? The abuse is on either side in many instances; but many people opposing tithes often do not recoginze these same abuses from their own camp. It seems that as long as anything is ferreted "from Scripture" to make wild and untrue statements, it works just well if it is against tithes; but if the assertions are pointed out as false and untenable, the postulators quite often get offended and never ever seem to take the time to go back and check their own assumptions. It doesn't really matter to me either way, whether those who oppose tithes are borrowing the retired clihés of their adulators that have failed to stand up to scrutiny.

You this girl, you are really something else altogether.  Is it that you just miss the point or are you so utterly disingenuous?  Please can you tell me, What is the subject of this thread?  ie.  What are we talking about?

I am under the impression that we are talking about Pastors of various churches misquoting scripture in order to extort money from their congregation.  Please if I am wrong I'm happy to be corrected. 

Now if you are in agreement but are merely expanding the subject further by pointing out that the misquoting occurs in other instances too, then fair enough though it contributes nothing and if pursued is only a red herring.  However the impression I've got from reading your posts is that you are defending the extortion and saying that it is okay to extort money so because those who speak against it do so with 'assertions' which you have 'pointed out as false and untenable'.
In which case you will find me standing implacably opposed to you and the odious wickedness you support. 

pilgrim.1:


I've often talked about "fausse patte", and am quite sorry on your account to read this coming from you! When I read the sort of thing you asked in the highlighted above, there's just one question that crosses my mind: "is it okay to propose dubious arguments to justify anything?" How does one try to justify the idea that it does not matter that people advance dubious arguments to justify "truth" (usually their own version of truth)? This proposal only weakens the substance in those who oppose tithing - because nothing could justify duplicity for them if they can condemn that very thing in others who do not belong to their camp!

Reading the above I can only imagine two possible reasons why you would write something like that.

1)  You are an utter idiot

or 2)  You are the most disingenuous person I've ever met in my life. 

Where did you get the word 'Propose' which I highlighted above from.  Who has proposed anything?  And please don't come back with some twisted redefinition of what the word propose mean.  I brought up Gettier's problem to illustrate the fact that if someone arrives at the truth by faulty reasoning it doesn't make the Truth less Truth.  The fact that the farmer believes that his Cow is in the field when in fact all he saw was a black and white bag does not negate the fact that the Cow is in the field.
The Truth is the Truth is the Truth and there will always be strong arguments to support the Truth.  However if someone arrives at the Truth by a dubious argument that is no reason to disregard the Truth.  Of course you can question if the person really KNOWS the Truth even if he BELIEVES the Truth.  Somehow I get the feeling that this argument is going to go totally over your head. 

ps.  I don't know what Fausse Patte is.  Could you please explain it to me?