Enigma:

To be honest, I did not expect any different.  In fact I had one more question which I didn't bother to ask; but now I think I'll just put it on the thread for people to ponder.

Em, a little honesty will do. You can deny that I answered your question - you may not like my answer, and that is a different thing.

If a person takes the tenth of his income every month, buys food stuff, clothing, hygiene equipment etc and takes them to "church" in the expectation that the "church" will use these things to help widows, orphans and other needy people etc, is the person a tither?

What does my answer mean to you?

2. I believe that tithing should be given in Church where ministry for the care of widows, orphans and other needy causes could be (please note: "could be" administered from. Others feel that they cannot give money in Church - whether through tithing or other forms of offerings: it's up to them. Yet, giving in Church should not be confused with giving to other causes - they are two independent facets of this ministration.

It is up to them - because I don't try to force people into or out of something one way or another. To try to manipulate people with fictional cases is not encouraging the voluntary exercise we've been trying to discuss. I can't be pressured into holding a placard for anti-tithers so they can go home and sleep well at night.

Since tithe simply means tenth, giving any tenth should qualify as a voluntary tithe.

That's plain silly talk from you - and you kknow it! Readers only have to look at your profile to know that you don't preach anything close to VOLUNTARY TITHE, so please don't try to talk your crap here!


Of course I don't preach anything close to a voluntary tithe because a voluntary tithe with no definite Biblical definition as to what constitutes the tithe is meaningless.

Problem is, wordtalk, you want to make the definition and set the rules.  You want to say that if one gives a tenth of their income to the church they are a tither, but if I give a tenth of what is in my pocket and say that I am a tither I am full of crap.   YOU want to set the rules.

Wordtalk has lowered himself to accept the definition and rules of the tithe to that of those pastors who teach tithing as mandatory, but wordtalk preaches that it is voluntary.  Still, wordtalk is using THEIR definition of tithing, NOT God's definition.  Not very Godly in my opinion.

Since God gave us His definition and His instructions, I am not going to insult God by changing His definition and instructions and then call it tithing.

garyarnold:

Of course I don't preach anything close to a voluntary tithe because a voluntary tithe with no definite Biblical definition as to what constitutes the tithe is meaningless.

Good - and I never supposed you were ever close to what others have been reading in my comments. This was why I had to make some observations to nuclearboy earlier that I do not find the anti-tithing position to be either meaningful or fruitful. Now nuclearboy can understand why I was not going along with the idea that I had become an "anti-tither".

Problem is, wordtalk, you want to make the definition and set the rules.

No, that's not true. I asked for your definition - you gave it simply as a tenth. Your problem is that you're making every effort to confuse the unsuspecting between DEFINITION and APPLICATION.

You want to say that if one gives a tenth of their income to the church they are a tither, but if I give a tenth of what is in my pocket and say that I am a tither I am full of crap.   YOU want to set the rules.

I called out your crap because you were reducing tithing to the load of your trash from your trash can. That is what made me realise you're not to be taken seriously.

Wordtalk has lowered himself to accept the definition and rules of the tithe to that of those pastors who teach tithing as mandatory, but wordtalk preaches that it is voluntary.  Still, wordtalk is using THEIR definition of tithing, NOT God's definition.  Not very Godly in my opinion.

Your opinion remains the same crap all through. I nowhere favoured any hint of mandatory tithing, and your repeating that insinuation is bordering on a deliberate lie. If you don't know, ask others and they will tell you what I stand for. I can't let you drop your lies here and there like poo all over the place - so go back and remind yourself:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-739830.64.html#msg8973952

Since God gave us His definition and His instructions, I am not going to insult God by changing His definition and instructions and then call it tithing.

Lol, God never set you up as His personal secretary to assume others are insulting Him because your assertions don't stand up when examined - not even when you try to force your lies into my position or posts.

Wordtalk has lowered himself to accept the definition and rules of the tithe to that of those pastors who teach tithing as mandatory, but wordtalk preaches that it is voluntary. Still, wordtalk is using THEIR definition of tithing, NOT God's definition. Not very Godly in my opinion.

Your opinion remains the same crap all through. I nowhere favoured any hint of mandatory tithing, and your repeating that insinuation is bordering on a deliberate lie.

How is that bordering on a deliberate lie? I nowhere said that you preach or favor mandatory tithing. I said you have taken the DEFINITION of tithing from those who started the whole MANDATORY TITHING scam during the late 1800s. Their definition is the definition you use. You don't use ANY Biblical definition.

You are wrongfully stuck that the Biblical definition of tithe is a tenth. That was the definition BEFORE God gave HIS definition.

If you are going to ignore God's application of His tithe, then you leave the door open to calling ANY tenth a tithe, and the giving of ANY tenth to anyone, tithing.

garyarnold:

How is that bordering on a deliberate lie? I nowhere said that you preach or favor mandatory tithing. I said you have taken the DEFINITION of tithing from those who started the whole MANDATORY TITHING scam during the late 1800s. Their definition is the definition you use. You don't use ANY Biblical definition.

The DEFINITION of tithes which I have used was not started by "the whole MANDATORY TITHING scam during the late 1800s" - so again, that is another deliberate lie. The Biblical DEFINITION is what I have used all through, but somehow that is what was biting you around before you started contradicting the plain text of Scripture until I corrected you here:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-724424.224.html#msg8869065

After I made that correction, what did you say? Did you not concede? Do you have such short memory as to have forgotten too quickly? Was it not the same YOU who said "The word "tithe" means a tenth. Correct"? What did you mean by that before coming up with the crap of a definition from "mandatory tithing" of 1800s? Your lies and more lies are still lies. End of.

You are wrongfully stuck that the Biblical definition of tithe is a tenth. That was the definition BEFORE God gave HIS definition.

Okay, and for all that you were the same person who said: "The word "tithe" means a tenth. Correct"? Did you try to say that was "wrongfuly stuck" back then before coming up with these excuses to blow smoke and deceive your unsuspecting readers? Has 'tithe' been DEFINED any other way by those who have produced Biblical resources and dictionaries?

If you are going to ignore God's application of His tithe, then you leave the door open to calling ANY tenth a tithe, and the giving of ANY tenth to anyone, tithing.

Between DEFINITION and APPLICATION, what has been your headache? From being inconsistent, you now come down to the level of lying to impress, innit?

The Biblical definition (God's definition) of tithe is NOT the same as the Hebrew definition of tithe.

The definition of tithe is tenth.

God's definition of His tithe is in Leviticus 27:30-33, and the application is in Numbers 18. You don't seem to comprehend the difference between the Hebrew definition and God's definition, which I also call the Biblical definition.

When you say you aren't paying tithes but rather giving tithes, you infer that you are now voluntarily doing what was mandatory under the Mosaic law, and you are not. You are merely giving a tenth of something, (in your case, your income), and it makes you feel good to call it tithing so that it relates to the same word used in the Bible. But you are comparing apples to oranges.

@wordtalk:

Please! I am honest in saying that (to me) the level of intellect displayed by current participants (aside a lemon) is such that we can do without friction!

What the others are trying to do is get you to have a "defined" position! if you knew the history of this issue here, you'd totally understand. Please let's keep this civil - the thread destroyers will soon be here - let's learn before they arrive.

PLEASE!

^^^ Actually the "lemon" did make a useful contribution: ---- that if a person sets aside a tenth of income to give to widows, orphans etc, then "it is not appropriate to call it a tithe" because it is not given in "church". This is in reality the same position as wordtalk's except wordtalk doesn't want to say so openly.

Look, mr Gary, I'm actually tired of your dubious arguments here and there! Aside from the fact that you're not consistent in your assertions, I find it no longer amusing that you tend to hop between two axion in order to impress the forum. Nothing personal, but just so you know.

garyarnold:

The Biblical definition (God's definition) of tithe is NOT the same as the Hebrew definition of tithe.

My dear sir, they are THE VERY SAME definitions all through. If you say that they are not the same in applications, I can agree wholeheartedly with you there, but not on the definition. The application and definition are not to be confused in these things - while the definitions are the same, the applications are not. Isn't that simple and clear enough?

The definition of tithe is tenth.

Please tell me: did I use ANOTHER DEFINITION since talking about "voluntary tithes"? Did this definition of "tithe" as "tenth" emerge as a neologism from 'the whole MANDATORY TITHING scam during the late 1800s'?? Why are you acknowledging that definition as correct, but complained about my use of the same thing?

God's definition of His tithe is in Leviticus 27:30-33, and the application is in Numbers 18. You don't seem to comprehend the difference between the Hebrew definition and God's definition, which I also call the Biblical definition.

The DEFINITION is the same all through the Bible. Leviticus 27:30-33 is the APPLICATION (because that is what tells you what the tithes consisted of - that is, tithing in the Law applied to food, which is different in the case of Genesis 14). Numbers 18 shows its STIPULATIONS (because the Law here spells out the the ground as well as the beneficiaries of the Levitical tithes, and why it was stipulated in such a manner).

I am sorry if these things are hard for you to understand. But if someone wanted to know what the word "tithe" meant, we know such a person is asking us to DEFINE the word "tithe" - and the short, simple answer without doubt or confusion is the same you gave earlier: 'The definition of tithe is tenth.'. If thereafter such a person wanted to understand its various applications, then we could move on to Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Is that not simple enough?

When you say you aren't paying tithes but rather giving tithes, you infer that you are now voluntarily doing what was mandatory under the Mosaic law, and you are not.

No sir - a gazillion times NO! I can give tithes VOLUNTARILY even if I derived my Biblical basis for doing so from the Old Testament (including Genesis through the Law and to the prophets). Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 used the Law of Moses to teach on Christian giving without requiring Christians to do so MANDATORILY!

You are merely giving a tenth of something, (in your case, your income), and it makes you feel good to call it tithing so that it relates to the same word used in the Bible. But you are comparing apples to oranges.

When you argue for your own type of giving, did they not have a foundation in the OLD TESTAMENT? Would we then say you are comparing anaconda to dendrobaena? What kind of dubious language are you amusing yourself with?

@Enigma:

Would be surprised if that is true as it negates the "voluntary" part and totally gives credibility to Adeboye's position of 30% returns giving to normal people, 60 if you give to pastors and 100 if you give to "high priests"!

Since wordtalk has said he disagrees with this, it can't be that he'll agree with the "lemon's" submission

Enigma:

^^^ Actually the "lemon" did make a useful contribution: ---- that if a person sets aside a tenth of income to give to widows, orphans etc, then "it is not appropriate to call it a tithe" because it is not given in "church". This is in reality the same position as wordtalk's except wordtalk doesn't want to say so openly.

Please, don't put words in my mouth. You pay your taxes where you reside, and you can use your own hands to type what your tongue wants to say. What I will not do is be pressured into holding placards for fictitious anti-tithing anthems.

I reposted my reply several times to show that there was absolutely NO NEED for you to be drumming up fictitious cases. Since I don't stand in support in of manipulating people to tithe or give or not, I don't see any reason to start arguing to contradict my position. I have said in essence, among other things that -

(a) I believe that tithing should be given in Church
(b) this COULD provide a channel where ministry for the care of widows, orphans etc could be administered from
(c) - but others feel that they cannot give money in Church:
- that is, they cannot give tithes, they cannot give other forms of offerings
(d) IF THAT BE THE CASE, then IT IS UP TO THEM

The (d) above is to show that I do not believe they must be forced or manipulated to give anything at all, or be manipulated to define somebody's giving in a rigid pre-determined form. "It is UP TO THEM" - they should exercise their choice to do as they so wish! If they give something else that is meaningful (or if they feel they do not want to give in Church or elsewhere), I don't have a quarrel with them. If I then try to overwhelm them to change their minds, then I am no longer demonstrating my position of VOLUNTARY giving consistent with what I affirm.

I should not have gone this far to explain anything, since I thought my answer should have sufficed.

nuclearboy:

@wordtalk:

Please! I am honest in saying that (to me) the level of intellect displayed by current participants (aside a lemon) is such that we can do without friction!

What the others are trying to do is get you to have a "defined" position! if you knew the history of this issue here, you'd totally understand. Please let's keep this civil - the thread destroyers will soon be here - let's learn before they arrive.

PLEASE!

Okay, I respect that and will try to comply. I don't have all the details of how people feel about this issue on this forum, and I should bear that in mind so we can be mature in our dialogues. I do hope that garyarnold will try and be reasonable in like manner, since it does no one any good to be slinging mud with name-calling.

^^^ OK I will ask the question specifically!

If a person takes a tenth of his income every month and gives it to widows, orphans, other needy people etc, is it appropriate to call the actions of that person "tithing" AND is that portion of income that the person so sets aside a  (or even his) "tithe"?

Enigma:

^^^ OK I will ask the question specifically!

There's really no need to do so. I've answered that question so many times and only just explained and expanded on my answer. It is possible I may be missing something - it is very possible. So, please tell me: what would you call this:

If a person takes a tenth of his income every month and gives it to widows, orphans, other needy people etc, is it appropriate to call the actions of that person "tithing" AND is that portion of income that the person so sets aside a (or even his) "tithe"?

Please just try and answer the question; if you do not want to there is no problem.

^^ I want to answer your question, that is why I would like you to help me do so. If you do, then I may either -

(a) see what I have been missing
(b) agree that I have or have not answered it previously
(c) disagree with what you have in mind in that question

I am willing to discuss/answer - but if you feel I should not, I won't push it.

@ Nuclearboy

Now, this question is for you if you please.

If a person takes a tenth of his income every month and gives it to widows, orphans, other needy people etc, is it appropriate to call the actions of that person "tithing" AND is that portion of income that the person so sets aside a (or even his) "tithe"?

@Enigma:

Highlighting the words he did shows he has answered the questions and confirmed the veracity "according" to the person engaged in such activity!

I think he is saying eitherside has their merits. What I see as your own thrust is that he mentions what he calls anti-tithers and NOT tithe-mongers in a "seemingly" derogatory manner!

A little more time will clarify. But for now, the compulsory tithe mongers have gone to sleep

AS TO YOUR QUESTION ->

My personal belief system does NOT hold unto percentages! Very VERY recently, a stranger walked into my place with a problem nobody could deny - it showed on her! She probably thought I'd give her a "mite" as people usually do but I wiped out the entire bill! Such is what I personally believe is required of the Believer - to listen and give 1%
OR 100% as the Spirit decides! And I am honest - there are cases when I suddenly feel REVULSION when asked - why, I do not know! Cases also abound where I wish to give more than is on me and do so!

I sincerely honestly find 10% ridiculous BUT there are times I give zero and times when its like I do all.

Your question is thus better suited to wordtalk than me - I might actually be considered crazy with some I did and stingy with others! But the decision came from "inside"

@wordtalk said, "I believe that tithing should be given in Church"

American Heritage Dictionary:
should (sh‹d) aux.v. Past tense of shall. 1. Used to express obligation or duty:

Webster's Dictionary:
Syn.:  must

Wordtalk is saying what should be done, or what shall be done, as an OBLIGATION or DUTY.

Sounds a little legalistic to me.

nuclearboy:

@Enigma:

Highlighting the words he did shows he has answered the questions and confirmed the veracity "according" to the person engaged in such activity!

Well, I thought so - but there again, I am open to consider where I possibly may not have answered his question. Even the way you tried to answer would be somewhat along such things as I would think. However, -

Your question is thus better suited to wordtalk than me - I might actually be considered crazy with some I did and stingy with others! But the decision came from "inside"

I don't know how else to repeat and explain my answer. If he tries to help out, then I will look at it again.

Are you really bent on caviling, garyarnold? Why is it that you're hard pressed to force obligatory or mandatory tithing into my posts where I have made clear that is not what I have been showing all along? This deliberately misrepresentation is why I worry that you're trying to just lie at all costs!

garyarnold:

@wordtalk said, "I believe that tithing should be given in Church"

American Heritage Dictionary:
should (sh‹d) aux.v. Past tense of shall. 1. Used to express obligation or duty:

Webster's Dictionary:
Syn.: must

Wordtalk is saying what should be done, or what shall be done, as an OBLIGATION or DUTY.

Sounds a little legalistic to me.

I looked at some of your past arguments, sir. This is what you posted from the same dictionaries:

The American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition - 1994: Tithe - A tenth part of one's annual income contributed voluntarily or due as a tax, especially for the support of the clergy or church.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary - latest edition: Tithe - a tenth part of something paid as a voluntary contribution or as a tax especially for the support of a religious establishment.

I am unaware that you could descend so low to playing these antics. But that's just the revulsion I feel about your tendecy to be duplicitious. Well done!

@ Nuke

OK: if someone says tithing is "voluntary" ----- and you said that means the "tither" has total control over what to give as and where to give his "tithes" ------- then there shouldn't be difficulty to accept that a person who sets aside a tenth every month but gives it it to widows and orphans etc instead of into church is a tither.

One person has at least had the integrity to say openly it is not appropriate to call that a tithe or the action tithing - because it is not give in/to "church",

wordtalk is avoiding the question because, I repeat, wordtalk's position is exactly the same i.e. it is not "tithing" ---- even when saying that tithing is "voluntary".

It really should be a straightforward question for wordtalk to answer if s/he truly believes that tithing is "voluntary".

Again, wordtalk takes what I say out of context.

When I quote the dictionary definition of tithe, I was comparing it to the Biblical tithe - that they had nothing in common other than tenth.  The modern-day dictionary doesn't define tithe as tenth.  It goes on to include what the tenth is on, and where the tenth is given.

Now look at Leviticus 27:30-33.  It also includes what the tenth is on.

garyarnold:

Again, wordtalk takes what I say out of context.

No, I did not! There was absolutely no need for you to be playing these dubious games when I have made clear over and over again that I do not stand for any hint of mandatory tithing! That should have been clear enough for you to relax and not try to pursue the effort to force that into my position. Since you want to be dumb by frantically pursuing dead leads, carry on - I'll help you achieve that folly!

When I quote the dictionary definition of tithe, I was comparing it to the Biblical tithe - that they had nothing in common other than tenth.  The modern-day dictionary doesn't define tithe as tenth.  It goes on to include what the tenth is on, and where the tenth is given.

That is not the issue, so don't even try to flip it over as pancake! You have tried to argue "obligation or duty" into my position - and that was why you quoted those dictionaries and came to this conclusion: "wordtalk is saying what should be done, or what shall be done, as an OBLIGATION or DUTY". To have even attempted such is a deliberate cavil on your part - bearing in mind that I have shown you again and again that such is not the case concerning what I have tried to discuss. You're desperate to show how dumb you are without anyone's help, that is why this issue continues to bother you!

@wordtalk:

Apologies but what Enigma is saying is obvious to many of us!

Its easy (as it were) to say you believe in "church" tithing! Its a totally differentything to say Deut 14 splits tithes amongst "fatherless", "widows", "stranger" AND "levite"! One "insists" its church ONLY whist the other says it could go to others! The church only advocates say church should do the giving to others (as church sees fit) whist the supposed anti-tithers say "we can give ourselves as led".

For saying so, such people are seen to be in rebellion to God's Word!

What Enigma is asking you is thus simple - do you believe tithes can only be paid to church (and thus that its only church that can disburse) or do yoy stand with those who say God can lead a man to give directly to a cause outside of church?

Enigma:

wordtalk is avoiding the question because, I repeat, wordtalk's position is exactly the same i.e. it is not "tithing" ---- even when saying that tithing is "voluntary".

I did not avoid the question. Please answer the question I asked if you may, and then I shall address any further complain you have.

nuclearboy:

@wordtalk:

Apologies but what Enigma is saying is obvious to many of us!

Its easy (as it were) to say you believe in "church" tithing! Its a totally differentything to say Deut 14 splits tithes amongst "fatherless", "widows", "stranger" AND "levite"! One "insists" its church ONLY whist the other says it could go to others! The church only advocates say church should do the giving to others (as church sees fit) whist the supposed anti-tithers say "we can give ourselves as led".

nuclearboy, I understand you - but what I can't wrap around my head is the idea that "seems" to crop up in Enigma's repeated question. I NOWHERE argued that tithing must be done "ONLY in Church" in order to be tithing - I merely stated that I believe it SHOULD be done in church. Further, if it were a matter of administering tithes to widows and other needy causes, I noted that tithes in Church COULD be so administered in that manner. If he believes that is not what should be the case, then I don't have any bones to pick on that, and I respect what conclusions anyone wants to hang on that.

The insinuation that I argued for "ONLY" in Church is what I cannot stand for - since that is not what I argued in my posts. I only stated that this is what I do, and it is what i would encourage others who tithe to do. IF therefore someone else wants to tithe in other ways, THEN IT IS UP TO THEM!

The repeated question is simply redundant and unnecessary. That is why I can't stand for anyone putting words into my mouth or drawing conclusions that I did not infer or insinuate.

What Enigma is asking you is thus simple - do you believe tithes can only be paid to church (and thus that its only church that can disburse) or do yoy stand with those who say God can lead a man to give directly to a cause outside of church?

I was careful to use such words as -
(a) I BELIEVE
(b) it SHOULD be in Church (this is not the same thing as concluding it is ONLY in Church)
(c) that tithes in Church COULD be used to the same ends

What this whole drama is all about is to the tendency to see only one side - and if that is not expressly stated in my comments as the reader wants to see it, then hot air is let off in many directions. What that seems to me is that the same people who are talking about "VOLUNTARY" would be contradicting their talk of freedom in other people's choices if they insist on jusr one aspect of giving outside church. I hope it should be clear at this point that I do not stand for rigid ideologies, and the words in my comments are clear enough to convey that.

^^^ The question has always been a simple one and one that very readily lends itself to an honest and straightforward answer!

Maybe it would help if once again I ask it in another way:

Can a voluntary "tither" give his tithe directly to widows, orphans and other needy causes instead of in/to "church" ---- and is it appropriate to call that "tithing"?

Since there was NO tithing in the Bible that went to a church, but there WAS a tithe that went to the widows, orphans, stranger, etc., wordtalk has no basis to say that the tithe SHOULD go to the church other than that is wordtalk's own personal preference.

garyarnold:

Since there was NO tithing in the Bible that went to a church, but there WAS a tithe that went to the widows, orphans, stranger, etc., wordtalk has no basis to say that the tithe SHOULD go to the church other than that is wordtalk's own personal preference.

Are you tired now? Everyone who understands English knows I was not using 'SHOULD' in the dry legalistic sense you conjured up. Those who have read my comments and tried to see my position have not argued to the contrary to try and drive "obligatory" or "mandatory" into my posts as you have tried hard to do several times - and failed. There's hardly anything I have left for you now than deep pity - because you are the only person who seems to boast of an education and yet completely lack any demonstration of it.

OK so here is the question:

Can a voluntary "tither" give his tithe directly to widows, orphans and other needy causes instead of in/to "church" ---- and is it appropriate to call that "tithing"?
[quote][/quote]

Now let me demonstrate two examples of an honest and straightforward answer ---- for someone who honestly believes that tithing is "voluntary".

Sample Answer 1.

YES the tither CAN give his tithe directly to widows, orphans etc instead of in/to "church" --- and YES it IS appropriate to call that action tithing.


Sample Answer 2.


YES the tither CAN give his tithe directly to widows, orphans etc instead of in/to "church" --- and YES it IS appropriate to call that action tithing.

First of all, this accords with examples of tithing found in various parts of the Bible including Deuteronomy and Leviticus.

Second, the principle of helping the needy (if not necessarily through "tithing" underlies the apostle James teaching that true religion is to help widows etc

Third, Jesus Christ also said "as long as you did it for the least of these, you did it for ME"; again even if He wasn't talking specifically about tithing, it would be entirely in accordance with what He said if we use our "tithes" to help the kind of people who Jesus said was Him.


See, it is not so difficult afterall to give an honest and straightforward answer to the question. 

garyarnold:

Since there was NO tithing in the Bible that went to a church, but there WAS a tithe that went to the widows, orphans, stranger, etc., wordtalk has no basis to say that the tithe SHOULD go to the church other than that is wordtalk's own personal preference.

This bothers you profoundly, so let me help you.

1. It depends on what you mean by 'church'. If your meaning is the place of worship where Christians gather together, the equivalent might be the center of worship where God's people met in the Old Testament. In that sense, we find indeed that tithes were taken to such a center - 2 Chronicles 31 shows where Israel took their tithes and offerings: "into the house of the LORD". To then say that there was NO tithing in the Bible that went to a church is simply over-reaching yourself in denying the fact.

2.  If you're perturbed about my use of 'SHOULD', please understand it is not a question of "obligatory" or "mandatory" idea being expressed. At least, I have made my position absolutely clear about voluntary tithes and offerings. But if you still would like to know, then here are various ways that 'SHOULD' is used -

    -   used to say or ask what is the correct or best thing to do
    -   used to show what is right, appropriate, etc, especially when criticizing somebody's actions
    -   used for giving or asking for advice
    -   used to say that you expect something is true or will happen
    -   used to say that something that was expected has not happened
    -   (British English, formal) used after I or we instead of would for describing what you would do if something else happened first
    -   (formal) used to refer to a possible event or situation
    -   used as the past form of shall when reporting what somebody has said
    -   (British English) used after that when something is suggested or arranged
    -   used after that after many adjectives that describe feelings
    -   (British English, formal) used with I and we in polite requests
    -   used with I and we to give opinions that you are not certain about
    -   used for expressing strong agreement
    -   used to refuse something or to show that you are annoyed at a request; used to express surprise about an event or a situation
    -   used to tell somebody that something would amuse or surprise them if they saw or experienced it

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/should_1?q=should  

http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com/dictionary/should  

If you were not sure how I used the word 'SHOULD', even without asking for clarification, it should have been clear to you that I was not making a legalistic case that tithes "MUST" be "ONLY" in Church. To ignore what I have been saying and then try several times to advertise your jingoism into my posts is reason why I won't put up with your crap.