ttalks:

How do we then interprete or determine or discern spiritual things?

ttalks:

2Pe 1:20(KJV)
(20) Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

2Pe 1:20(CLNT)
(20) knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture at all is becoming its own explanation.

The book of revelations was Christ's revelation. It can also be termed a set of prohecies; events that have happened and those
yet to happen.

Now the verse given above shows that prophecy of the scripture cannot be its own explanation or interpretation(KJV makes it look like personal;as in, a person's own interpretation. Should it be public then?).

G2398
ἴδιος
idios
id'-ee-os
Of uncertain affinity; pertaining to self, that is, one's own; by implication private or separate: - X his acquaintance, when they were alone, apart, aside, due, his (own, proper, several), home, (her, our, thine, your) own (business), private (-ly), proper, severally, their (own).

Since this is in relation to prophecy which is inanimate, it should read "of its own interpretation/explanation".

This is saying we can't interprete portions of prophecies on their own.

So, Revelations 20:14-15;which is a portion of prophecy and is spiritual since it was spoken by Christ cannot be interpreted on its own.

So how then is it/are they interpreted?

1Co 2:12-13
(12) Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
(13) Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

^^^ that's all good and well, nothing to belabour in yours. At the end, I like this summary/conclusion -

ttalks:
We should interprete spiritual things by comparing them with spiritual things.

I concur - that is what Scripture urges us to do. However, as we do so, I'm asking a few questions:

[list]1.  what happens to the devil and his angels?

2.  what is the ultimate end of all the ungodly, unregenerate and unrepentant?[/list]

I leave out the 3rd question for now and concentrate on those two. After comparing spiritual things with spiritual, what can we say Scripture reveals about the ultimate end of the devil and his angels, and of the ungodly, unrepentant and unregenerate??

@ttalks,

Your replies are very much appreciated. Although I have a few areas of concern:

ttalks:

Now, since Christ's words are spirit/spiritual, it is only sensible for us to know that everything he says is
spiritual and cannot be interpreted to be literal.

Well, I seriously disagree. On the contrary, Christ spoke and taught in various ways - sometimes symbolically where He employed figues of speech (metaphors, similes, ironies, hyperboles, etc); other times He spoke and meant what He said in very literal terms.

For example, as regarding His commandment that those who believe the Gospel should be baptized (Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:16), we know that such a command cannot be 'spiritualized' to become symbolic - baptism there is literally implied, in just the way that He Himself was baptized by John the Baptist (Matt. 3:13-16).

There are so many examples where Jesus intended His hearers to understand the literalness in what He said; but even where He used figures of speech, we cannot miss the fact that salvation is given to those who repent, while divine judgement is reserved for those who are unrepentant and persist in their ungodliness (Luke 13:2-5).

But this is a good point you made:

ttalks:

Now, the next thing is:

How do we then interprete or determine or discern spiritual things?

. . . I shall next consider how you developed your answer to that question.

debosky:

We should all aspire to give as much as we can, and rightly use examples of OT giving.

May God make your cup of blessing run over and never dry! You took that right out of my mouth - and it summarizes the many things I wanted to say. Thank you again!

@noetic16,

Howdy? Now I can have something to say in direct reply to yours:

noetic16:

True to your word, u did consider both sides. . . .but never considered the implication of believers learning from teachers who do not practise what they teach. The church needs teacher who will make the scriptures alive by practising the deeds of Jesus Christ themselves.

I think you got me wrong there. It is not true that I "never" considered the implication of unhealthy teaching or false teachers - infact, I outlined this very issue in post #62! There, I not only discussed why we have heresies in many places today, but also spoke a couple of times about DISCERNMENT.

noetic16:

I feel the need to reply before Viaro misrepresents my views and constructs a wrong case as he "seldom" does .

You should not feel a need where your words bear testimony to what you had in mind. I did not edit anything about the quote I drew from yours; but to have been so careless about the value of doctrine is quite alarming - I can excuse you on that; but you should not be too hasty to react the way you did earlier to make such unguarded statements.

noetic16:
In my rejoinder to your previous post . . I did state the following:
4. After a man repents of his deeds, makes restitution for his sins, begins his walk with God, adopts a life of faith and holiness. . . .what knowledge does he need again?

I didn't take you up on that initially - and I explained why to nuclearboy. If you assume that after all those things you talked about, then a believer does not need any knowledge afterwards, you are making your reader think you know it all at that stage! That is more than arrogance and very misleading indeed. A few cults were started that way where people think that they have repented and are walking with God and therefore need no other knowledge!

We learn every day or our lives. Any one who feels he has "arrived" and "accomplished" should wear a big 'L' sign on his back! He that thinks he knows when he does not know is acting like a fool - and it does not matter if that person is noetic or viaro (1 Corinthians 3:18).

noetic16:

The gap in understanding is the singular basis for the doctrinal inconsistencies found in several churches. where men who claim to be teachers in words only do not act as commanded but also apply personal opinions to God's commandments. An example is the case of the sabbath. . . .many churches worship on saturday, others on sunday.
What has the day of worship got to do with salvation?

I'm sure you have an informed personal opinion on the Sabbath and such issues around what day(s) to worship. You cannot pretend that to not be concerned about it, unless you are trying to say that you don't even worship God at all - so, whether you choose any specific day or not would be based on your persuasion of what you read in God's Word as a doctrine of the Christian faith and testimony, NO?!?

noetic16:
So to clarify the issue of Doctrines. [size=14pt]There is NO doctrine outside of salvation and the principal elements attached to it, such as restitution, genuine repentance, love, fellowship with saints, faith and holiness. [/size]

Please don't shout - especially when you might be wrong! Hebrews 6:1-2, for example, possibly shows how very wrong you might be! Let's even allow your own argument for the moment, viz: your assumption that these are the things that define your own conclusion -

[list][li]salvation - with "principal elements", such as -[/li]
[li]restitution,[/li]
[li]genuine repentance,[/li]
[li]love,[/li]
[li]fellowship with saints,[/li]
[li]faith[/li]
[li]and holiness[/li][/list]

Nice. I recognise that there could be more - since you listed those as "examples". However, what does Hebrews 6:1-2 say? In one word: MOVE ON FROM THERE to maturity - and as such, there are in fact several other aspects that we should explore as a necessary part of our Christian faith BEYOND just the doctrine of salvation -

[list]"Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of - [/list]

[list][li]repentance from dead works,[/li]
[li]and of faith toward God,[/li]
[li]Of the doctrine of baptisms,[/li]
[li]and of laying on of hands,[/li]
[li]and of resurrection of the dead,[/li]
[li]and of eternal judgment.[/li][/list]

All these things are just the "foundation" - that is not all we should be cemented on. Hebrews 6:1-2 says we should move on from these things unto "perfection"; and it seems clear that the things you mentioned earlier are just "the first principles of the oracles of God" as Hebrews 5:12-14.

So, when you have come to the conclusion that beyond what you assert, there is nothing more - the end result is that you will have nothing else to present. We can only receive if we're open to God - but shouting our own small conclusions as the limit of all that defines Christianity is quit unproductive.

noetic16:
Any other doctrine is a FRAUDULENT product of dubious men set out to deceive the saints of God.

Your opinion. I guess when you go through Scripture and see that you're too narrow in your arguments, then light will dawn on you. Till then, fingers crossed for you, my bro.

nuclearboy:

Viaro:

Never said you didn't consider both sides. However, I sincerely don't see how even my not specifically saying you saw both should be offensive to you! FYI, I was trying to calm you guys both down. Except you'd like I consider noetic moronic which he definitely isn't.

And I do not know why you are so touchy today, Viaro. You speak as though I live inside some 10 home isolated village and my world is limited to that - Even had I never travelled to or had experience of the western world in my plus 4 decades, the internet shows me the Creflo Dollars of this world. Generalising was wrong (I admit) but I was trying to pass a point across not make a law.

Biblical doctrine is disparate from false teachings. Whist all cannot have my type of initial "bad" experience, I needs must look at the average and fear for the "young". What anyway, is wrong in God dispensing knowledge Himself? At least we know that those the Scripture says He taught personally were "tops" in doctrine. Such would include Moses and Jesus! How many of such do we know to have erred doctrinally?

Again Viaro, and I'm sad saying this (to you of all people never expecting you wouldn't understand), God witness I'm not judging your posts but trying to temper down responses from multiple posters each of whom I have respect for. Being uninvolved emotionally, I try to decipher (based on my own thoughts) what each is trying to say. There's no fighting here, just misunderstood words as Inesqor earlier said.

@nuclearboy,

I saw the above since morning but tried to check myself and other posts to see if and where I was coming off too strongly. That was why I didn't reply noetic16 directly initially, not that I considered him moronic at all.

However, it so happens that the very simple case of making positive contribution in this thread seems to be lost on us all. Yes, we should be concerned about pernicious teaching from false teachers - but hang on: what has happened to the postive teaching? It seems to me that we have spent far too much time complaining about false teaching that the "new converts" we should have been sharing good spiritual food with are left FARMISHED! If I were just coming to fiath and stumbled on this thread, what would I have taken away from it? Someone quips: "of what essence is doctrines to a believer?". . and were i to have been a new convert, it would seem that such a statement is to lead me to believe that doctrine has no essence to the believer - and I was to take that home when you place such as a "teacher" mentioned alongside the Holy Spirit?!?

The point here is not about false doctrines - we can take those to other threads, as InesQor has earlier suggested. But what about good teaching - what happens to that? Some say that the believer does not need a "teacher", and if I were to look at God's Word it makes me wonder then what God must have had in mind when HE gave us TEACHERS! Are we saying tacitly that God was wrong in making such provisions for us? Or, just because there are false teachers, does that in itself mean therefore that one should decry the blessing of having teachers who are sound and available to us today?

garyarnold:

I have attended many churches in the poorest areas of town and this is what I hear:

1 - Malachi 3:8-10
2 - God will return 100 fold
3 - If all you have is enough money to pay your electric bill, give that money to the church today and God will bless you with more money than you will need to pay all your bills.
4 - Tithers, ONLY, get in line to pay (or give) your tithe.  After all tithers have paid/given their tithe, we will let the rest of you give your offerings.
5 - The FIRST tenth belongs to God.  Those who don't give it to the church are preventing God from pouring down His blessings to you.
6 - The tithe is the only place in The Word where God says to test Him.
7 - If you are having financial problems, you need to start tithing now. (And yet I find in many cases it is those who faithfully tithe are the ones in financial trouble.)
8 - If you love God, you will keep His commandments and tithe.
9 - God wants to bless you but He can't until you tithe.
and the list goes on.

PURE FRAUD.  To teach tithing as voluntary is wrong, wrong, wrong because it INFERS the Biblical tithe to God - the obligation, the law.  Even those who teach it as voluntary stress the rewards, or returns you will receive.

The church has totally misrepresented The Lord's Tithe and to accept using the word tithe for giving results in more confusion to those who don't understand.

^^^
Gary,

I have also attended many churches where tithes are preached and nothing you mentioned up there appear as fraud in what they present. Using these small stories to criminalise those who tithe in general is not healthy - quit it. If you do have a problem with TITHES, deal with the problem. I also have known many anti-tithers who claim that tithers are going to hell - should I then use those anti-tithers' arguments to react against all who are against tithes?

You yourself have allowed that there's no problem in those who tithe - and tithe is 10%. It seems on one hand you're okay with it; but you get very confused soon again and start contradicting what you allow. I asked you to show me where anyone tithing is sinning - you excused it and said nothing about such a sin.

Let's stop all these unnecessary arguments over the fence. I have no problem with anyone using Malachi 3 to teach tithing - before you go shouting, tell me what "OX" in Deuteronomy 25:4 has to do with any form of giving that it is used TWICE in the NT for Christian giving!? There are a lot of other examples where OT verses are quoted in the NT for giving where such OT verses have absolutely nothing to do with any form of giving!

We don't have to use fallacies to condemn tithes. If you don't want to give 10%, live your faith as you may and give everything you have and let's have peace. Might I add that I know firsthand that many anti-tithers cannot give more than that 10% - but I'm not using these experiences to dramatic effects against all who do not wish to tithe.

@Zikkyy,
I'm very sorry, didn't mean to spoil things at all for anyone. Maybe I tend to look away from reactionary responses and focus more on Scripture. That is not to say that I totally ignore what abuses occur in many places. My passion is for us to look away from the abuses and set our eyes on the Word - that way, if anyone decides to tithe, good; and if anyone else decides to NOT tithe, good as well. That was all.

_______

@ttalks,
I don't think you're a stranger to my position on tithes - unless you want me to go through every single point I made in the past as a repetition here, which would be quite unnecessary.

_______

@commander nuclearboy,
Motive is good and well in place. If that is all you are concerned about, no problem. But I have not been trying to focus more on quarrels that people meet in many places on these things - that is why when we all argue with misinformation on either sides, we create more problems for ourselves.


Do as you are led to do from your heart: there is absolutely no problem in anyone setting aside a tithe - I also made clear that the one who decides to NOT tithe has no problem either. Making anti-tithing arguments the Law for the Body of Christ is unChristian, as much as setting 10% as the only level of our giving. I only reiterate these things because it seems you guys completely ignored them in the various posts I made earlier. 10% or any other % is not all there is to Christian giving - I did not set any amount upon anybody. Please y'all take time to read and digest before reacting - Nigeria is not the only place where Christians live.

@ttalks,

Thank you for squeezing time from your busy schedule to reply mine.

ttalks:

To answer this, . . . I'll have to break down my answer into quite a number of posts.

First of all, I'd like to ask a question:

What do you/or any body else understand by this statement by Christ below?

John 6:63
(63) It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

That verse carries varied pointers; basically, it should convey the understanding that the words which Christ speaks have the potency to give life.

KunleOshob:

your penchant to manipulate scriptures is not new to me so i am not suprised at your ill conceived post above, even a stark illiterate would know from reading the gal 5:4 that the falling from grace was not specific to the issue of circumcision alone but to keeping the laws as a whole, the law concerning cicumcision was merely used as an example.

I laugh. . . you often sound off like a burnt rat before saying what you want to say. I'm not manipulating Scripture. I quoted and outlined galatians 5 from verse 2 to verse 4 to show that the basis of keeping the whole Law was CIRCUMCISION. If you say no, then show the forum what that basis is. As far as I know, there is not a version of the Bible that argues anything else -

[list]Galatians 5:3, KJV - "For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law."[/list]

That is where we should start from - if you have anything to counter that from Scripture, you're invited to do so and stop shrilling up and down the street.

KunleOshob:

If you want to educate your self read the whole chaptr in context, you may also wish to read chapter 3 as well it might relieve you of part of your ignorance.

Please educate me - what does Galatians 3 say that is different from what I pointed out in chapter 5? People like you try to cut corners with half-truths so you can throw mud on a simple subject and spout trash all over the place.

KunleOshob:
That aside we all know that the criminal elements who preach compulsary tithing preach from the perspective of the law which has been anulled for christians. What pains me most is that it is glaring that you of all people know the truth about tithing but you feel more comfortable with preachers using it to scam people instead of telling people the truth about it.

Rest you heart, you need not be pained. What perhaps might be painful for you to read is that I have not preached "compulsory tithing" to anybody - nor have I been comfortable with anyone scamming anyone with anything. That does not mean that when you spew dunk here and there I should just let you trail off. Before you go off making unjustified assertions which do not appear in any of my post, why don't you calm down and check yourself?

KunleOshob:

You even have the audacity to suggest that we should also preach the scam since it is not "wrong" to give.

No, I did not say anywhere that anyone should preach any scam, and to put it like that shows you will stop at nothing to lie just to cover up your vacuity of thought! Well done sir, liars always do what you do!

KunleOshob:

As christians are we not meant to up hold the truth? Why should we tolerate preachers scamming people in the name of God cause they claim they are using the money to further the gospel. Why didn't Paul and the other Apostles collect same in the excuse they wanted to spread the gospel? I have repeated several times on this forum that my grose is not against tithers my grouse is against those who ware using the name of God and his church to scam people via the false doctrine of tithes as is being preached in our churches today.

I don't have a grouse with you or anyone else. We can uphold God's truth and not mislead them with unfounded assertions you often make - especially when you lie into other people's posts! Is that how to keep up God's truth? Good to know that your grouse is not against tithers - do I happen to boil your goose somewhere fanciful?

KunleOshob:

Trust you to support any post that supports your trade and your income of filthy lucre  no matter how shallow and poorly conceived the post is olodo.

Hmm, after your noise and complaints, this is all you have to give? Dude, just go sit in the gutter - nothing in Galatians 5 condemns the tither - otherwise you would have had a real problem with them. But thanks for admitting that your grouse is not with tithers, so what then are you yapping up and down for?

nuclearboy:

You point blank judge that "anyone who has a problem with 10% will have with more than 10%" AFTER reading us say its not the amount but the principle of scamming that we worry about.

Commander, read again what thy servant has said:

viaro:

I'd only say to such folks arguing against tithes:Tithes are not the problem of the anti-tither - if you have a problem with 10%, you have a problem with anything beyond 10%. Knock yourself out with more excuses.

I said "such folks", and that was not saying it must include you nuclearboy. You and I don't have a problem with 10% - the difference is that I proclaim it loud and clear instead of treating it as an after-thought or an excuse we should leave by the way-side! When I read folks who are hell-bent on arguments against tithes and 10% without actually dealing with the problem, I was referring to them - not you directly. I apologise if that came across as if I were putting you on spot - I regret it.

nuclearboy:

Only pro-tithers want God's Work done We on our part, are God-haters (wikid pesins)

Oh dear me! These 'pro-tithers'. . . please sit up: when my commander speaks like this, I'm in trouble!

Anyways, your boy viaro is neither a pro- or amateur- tither. I personally don't like the labels on anyone, so I prefer to respect whatever anyone feels persuaded to think on the subject. What I've often tried to maintain is that there is no argument (as far as I've seen) that is so water-tight as to become the LAW for Christians: no anti-tithing or pro-tithing argument should become LAW for the Body of Christ. Therefore, let's do from our hearts as we feel led of God to do - whether tithe or choose to NOT tithe. In all things, and by all means, let's give from a cheerful heart and do so with love.

nuclearboy:

Viaro:

you've said ALL I asked for. The issue should not be allowed to foist "guilt" on anyone OR be forced on anyone.

Thank you, nuclearboy. I believe many people who are against tithing just argue out of ignorance - just as much as many who argue in some ways to force tithing on people. However, my entry to this thread is not to condemn anyone, but seeking to make sense from all of the talk here.

Rather than being reactionary, it would be quite helpful to look into God's Word and follow simple principles there that we find. The hardest thing for some to do is see that the NT does not argue for literalism in many of the OT verses it cites for Christians - instead, we see PRINCIPLES in many places.

One of the fav OT verses cited in the NT on Christian giving is Deuteronomy 25:4 - "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." Now anyone who turns to Deuteronomy 25 may argue till kingdom come that the chapter does not teach anything about "giving". No worries - but the apostle Paul cited that OT verse TWICE in the NT and uses it to speak about financial support or giving in the NT for Christians!! Here they are -

[list]1 Corinthians 9:9 - "For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?"[/list]

[list]1 Timothy 5:18 - "For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward."[/list]

For all those who want to argue hard and long in a legalistic manner about the definition of "tithes" from the Law, please tell me: what has Deuteronomy 25:4 on "OX" got to do with Christian giving that it should appear TWICE in the epistles we all read and embrace?!? Is that OT verse not from the LAW OF MOSES?!? Or do we not hear that it was written for OUR sakes? Read it here:

[list]1 Corinthians 9:9b-10 >> "Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope."[/list]

Yes, that was written for OUR (Christian) sake! But tell me: what has a verse on "OX" got anything to do with Christian giving? NOTHING. Yet, it is used in the NT directly from the OT to talk about giving in support of Christian ministers and leaders in the Church.

The point here is that we often fail to see that the NT speaks more in PRINCIPLE when citing the OT for the Christian. There are so many other examples where we find this. But the hardest thing for anyone to do is see this PRINCIPLE and yet argue fastidously about the "definition" of tithe, that the Law says this and it must be this and that and the other and NONE OTHER! If that is how we want to keep arguing from now till heaven, then let such folks understand one thing: YOUR CHRISTIAN COVENANT IS BASED DIRECTLY ON WHAT IS SPOKEN TO THE JEW!! Most of the verses quoted for the new covenant in the NT are taken directly from the OT that addresses the Jews under Judaism - but in a sort of strange and inspired way, they are applied to the Christian! Yet, the "Christian" who argues in a legalistic manner has never sat down to think more carefully that if it was not for the sake of PRINCIPLES, there would infact be absolutely NO new covenant!


But that is another thread on its own. For now, the argument against tithes are just hopeless. I'd only say to such folks arguing against tithes:Tithes are not the problem of the anti-tither - if you have a problem with 10%, you have a problem with anything beyond 10%.  Knock yourself out with more excuses.

@Zikky,

How are you?

I agree with Image123 on Luke 6:38. He was spot on, although we sometimes feel that just because some people have turned the Christian ministry to a money-spinning venture, we altogether fail to understand that such abuses do not define the value of God's Word to us.

So let me comment a bit:

Zikkyy:

Image123 link=topic=459705.msg6217579#msg6217579 date=1276591488:

Zikky
Many people give offering and alms with reward in view as well, should they stop giving? Luke 6v38 is most familiar.

This is not Christian giving for sure. It’s business. You quote Luke 6v38 but due to your lust for material gain, you fail to understand the message. Please read v32 to v35 as well, and stop quoting what you don’t understand.

Dear sir, the verses you recommended also show that those who give should do so in expectation of a REWARD. Yes sir, that is CHRISTIAN giving, for sure. Here is what verse 35 says:

Luke 6:35 - But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil.

Your "lending" may be in view of hoping for nothing again; but immediately after that statement is the fact that the giver surely has a REWARD! In fact, it says that your reward shall be great! It has nothing to do with the accusation that someone is greedy for material gain; rather, that verse there says that there is a "reward" for giving.

Besides Luke 6:35, what about verse 38 that Image123 mentions?

³⁵Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

Does the highlighted above remind us any bit about 2 Corinthians 9:6?? ["But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully."] If the 'sowing' here is nothing about expecting some reward of sorts at any level, what then is the talk of REAPING?

nuclearboy:

I cannot believe I'm reading the above from VIARO! Its like "I wish to deliberately misunderstand"

I say "these people are saying its obligatory" (NOW, IMAGE SAYS IT IS NECCESSARY). You go off on another tangent. I say "GIVE, GIVE and GIVE but do not say it is obligatory FOR Christians". You of all people, Viaro, say I'm denouncing "giving". The people you support are using YOU as a prop BECAUSE YOU ARE BELIEVABLE. This is simple - is your position their own? NO! So I pointed out "motive" - is their motive right, Viaro, when they say it is a Christian obligation, not to give, but to compulsorily tithe. AND then they include a curse for those who do not ACCORDING TO THEIR directions.

Hehe. . .commander, I was not trying to misunderstand. My points are clear and this is not the first time nor first thread that I've made my position clear. If you missed the previous posts, I can understand why you were assuming a misconception into the recent ones you read.

I don't know how many times I would have to say that giving is not a compulsory aspect of the Christian life and ministry. The problem here perhaps might be when we deliberately refuse to give at all - whatever the excuses might be. Since that is not the issue at stake, there's nothing new here that should warrant many posts from me. The only point here is that some might've misconstrued unnecessary arguments into the Law and thought that Galatians buttresses such arguments. I have tried to show that is not the case, so no need for anyone tying "obligation" and falling from grace upon the tither.

Motive is not a new thing to us - and I've cited so many OT and a few NT verses in other posts to show this same thing. I do not think it is such a neologism that should make you assume I was ignoring 'motive'. Not one bit. However, it does not appear that you understood my reply to KunleOshob's misunderstanding of what I was saying concerning "ohbligation" and falling from grace - you don't seem to have said anything directly on that before talking about motive.

nuclearboy:

You are preaching to the choir - ME! I advocate what you are saying too. If you disagree with ANY of the following (which is what I say), please let me know

[1] Tithes (a tenth of income) are not an obligation or compulsory or binding BUT IT IS GOOD TO GIVE.
[2] The way they are preached today is unfair as it armtwists listeners to pay
[3] Giving is good and to be praised but not under compulsion

I am NOT arguing against you but am saying some here are using your knowledge to twist issues and using you as a prop.

I am not aware of anyone using my comments as a prop - they otherwise would have made plain that they are at odds with what viaro has tried to state. One thing I am trying to make clear to anti-tithers is this: TITHING is NOT the problem, and we should be careful about the error of criminalizing every tither or tithe-preacher just because of perceived aversions to that word. Not everyone who preaches tithes and tithing falls under the accusations that anti-tithers often make against tithers.

If therefore we don't have any problem with tithing at all - then by all means PREACH IT! Let's stop pussyfooting about in pretentious language that 'we don't have a problem with tithes' or with 10%, while yet arguing hard against it. Go through this thread alone and wonder why so many are up in arms against 'tithes' with unnecessary arguments on that word alone!

That is not to say that we should ignore the reality of abuses in many places. However, deal with the PROBLEM and not using all sorts of excuses to condemn tithes and then criminalise everyone who tithes! Many of us Christians who argue against tithes seem not to understand that the NT we use for preaching other forms of NT giving have absolutely NOTHING to do with any type of giving! Yet, we don't stop for a moment to think about this!

Bottomline:

(a)   tithe if you are inclined to tithe

(b)   give in some other way if you prefer to NOT tithe

(c)   neither (a) nor (b) is compulsory - that is, it is not compulsory to tithe; nor is it compulsory to NOT tithe

(d)   tithing will not add anything to your salvation; nor will tithing (or NOT tithing) condemn you to hell

(e)   whatever we do (whether it be tithing, freewill offering, or contributions of sorts), do all in love as much as we are able; tithing or giving in some other way is not "forced" upon God's people

(f)   whether you tithe or choose to NOT tithe, the feeling of guilt shows that something is wrong - is it your tithing or giving that is wrong, or the way you are hearing it being preached? If someone is using tithe or anti-tithing to foist guilt upon you, that does not mean that God condemned tithes: maybe you need to seek a healthy understanding that will encourage and refresh you in tithing or giving as you are led at heart to do so.

Indeed, viaro may be wrong - that is one thing I should not fail to acknowledge. However, let the reader carefully seek out God's will and follow what you understand from God's revelation to him/her on this subject.

God bless me - and you!

@nuclearboy,

Just what is your argument? Do you support Christians giving tithes or you are TOTALLY against tithes in any manner or form?

If we don't have any problem with tithes - then let's teach it instead of criminalizing those who tithe! I'm sick to the back teeth with very childish rants on tithes and tithing. Big deal - people give 10% of their income, and many others are complaining on petty excuses at definitions of whether it is the Lord's tithes or whether theologically the definition of tithes is a tenth or whether it is to "PAY" or receive or take or give or whatnots!

People have preached other types of giving on very faulty foundation - I made this point so clear before. I know many people and ministries which speak about "freewill offering" and yet make it a belaboured aspect of the Christian life. What then? Should I now start reacting against "freewill offerings" because these folks make such a mess of the subject? No. Rather, I would like to encourage such a service among Christians on a foundation of grace in what we find in Scripture.

Same with tithes and tithing - just because some are scamming the Body of Christ through tithes does not mean I should start appealing to very beggarly arguments to denounce tithes! Big deal - the term "freewill" does not even appear a single time in the New Testament! Yet, anti-tithers prefer to argue from now till kingdom come in favour of what they don't find in the NT (nevermind that "freewill" in the OT is many times associated with ANIMAL SACRIFICES)!

nuclearboy:

@Viaro:

M O T I V E !  Do you, bro, sincerely believe the motive behind giving 10% WILLINGLY is the same as giving under compulsion BECAUSE someone ( a pastor) you WISH TO consider "more knowledgable" says its an "obligation"?

I have pointed out so many times in other threads that MOTIVE is far more important in giving than any calculated amount we bring in our hands. I also made clear that those who argue around "new covenant giving" are being very dubious and mischievous! Go through the list of what they say constitute "NT giving" - you will find that they are NOT NEW but are the basis of what we find in OT giving!

If your worry is about "obligation", I have also pointed out in another thread that such is not and should not be the case. Infact, I was so upset at the way the G.O. of RCCG sets forth his teaching on tithes that I used very unpalatable terms to describe him! The point was that I made clear that any type of giving (not just tithes) should not be based on any "obligation". The talk here in this thread on my mentioning "obligation" has to do rather with the miscalculated and very misplaced argument which some have dubiously foisted upon Galatians to condemn those who tithe! Tithes are not the basis for justifying or condemning any believer - NT or OT - so the many arguments people circle around Galatians to condemn tithe is nothing but illiterate.

nuclearboy:

I notice you have refrained from saying the tithe is lawful AND binding on christians - what you say is that if an individual decision is made to give it, it is fine! Does that contradict the position you see us in?

I dodn't remember making tithes at any time to be BINDING on any Christian. Please quote me and I will apologise and own the mishap. When you can quote me directly where I asserted that tithes are binding on Christians, then I will offer further comments on the above quote from you.

nuclearboy:

For I personally have no issues giving more than a tenth (whether anyone believes or not) BUT NOT as an obligation based on an "imaginary" Christian covenant with God that sees me paying expected dues and thus expecting "returns" in a buy/sell arrangement!

Sorry bro - I don't see tithes that way nor have I discussed it along such lines.

nuclearboy:

Please address the above directly. Image123 is point-blank advocating "compulsion". Same with Tonye-T and Joagbaje - They say it is obligatory. Thats the crux, not that garyarnold says "it puts you under the law". garyarnold's statement (which he has anyway retracted) is REACTIONARY. Lets deal with the issue at hand that he reacts to. Are "Tithes" as presented by these guys (obligatory, binding, bearing a curse) the position of the Bible?

I think my reply to KunleOshob's comment should be clear to bear across what I meant by the use of "obligation" in relation to the Law. I'm sure that a few of those you mention would remember that viaro is not an articulator of compulsory giving or tithing - but that is not reason enough for me to start condemning and arguing all day against tithes with petty and frivolous comments.

nuclearboy:

Jesus Christ died so we are not under a curse. Is it tithes, bro, in your estimation, that return us under that curse? No ambiguity, just openess please. ARE THEY RIGHT THAT TITHES are OBLIGATORY, BINDING and CARRYING A CURSE FOR CHRISTIANS? 

When was TITHE in the Bible given as a matter of JUSTIFICATION? Please let me know.

The confusion here is not hard to see: those who want to discuss tithes as if it is salvific (that is, pertaining to JUSTIFICATION and SALVATION) are themselves losing it superbly! It is not tithes that will save or condemn you, because tithes are not given in the Bible to justify anyone. That is why I'm not one of those arguing that tithes "returns" or "delivers" from the curse of the Law - for tithes were never made a matter of anybody's salvation.

^^I follow your concerns, Image123. More blessings all the way to you.

nuclearboy:

I think both sides are TOTALLY RIGHT in this - you can "feed" with knowledge AND you can also, as noetic says, feed with "eba" and egusi soup, which IMO too would likely be more welcome today.

Thank you. I'm sure a second look at my comments following noetic16's will show that I considered BOTH sides of this issue:

viaro:

'Feeding' is an interesting metaphor for imparting knowledge to people. Certainly, leaders should care for the welfare of believers; but the basic idea of 'feeding' God's people is to impart them with knowledge.

. . .

It is not as if other types of care for believers are to be ignored. However, in terms of leadership among God's people, the metaphor of feeding carries the implication of imparting knowledge - teaching God's people His Word.

I don't know if noetic16 saw the point before assuming other things that I wasn't concerned about. Nothing in my post suggests "an oratory tool for crafts men"; nothing there was pointing to "a bunch of theological orators who possibly do not live by the word". . . unless of course he suggests that those are the conclusions he draws from the verses I cited.

I don't think such reactions are necessary or helpful at all. When I read comments like: "of what essence is doctrines to a believer?", I feel very sorry for the one who asks such a question. In all things, I shall leave him to argue with God - the answers he gets may surprise him.

nuclearboy:

Where I think Noetic's concern (and mine too) is the quality of the supposed "teachers" out there. Viaro, would you be willing to name ONE "MOG" that you'd trust your child's life to in the manner Jesus left His flock to Peter?

Yes, there are very many names I could give you from across the world. The one thing is that I recognize that you guys often narrow issues down to your local environment, and that is why it becomes really difficult to discuss largely and broadly with people who think like that. Just because there are many abuses in Nigeria does not mean that there are no Christian leaders of integrity within Nigeria; nor does it mean that outside Nigeria the corruption is not felt at all. There are quite a few ministers who are truly commendable; but we are not asking for perfectionism here. However, if you have no one that will benefit you at all in the things of God, no worries - others are finding benefit in the ministry of other servants around the world, and we should be humble enough to recognize that.

nuclearboy:

If NO, then wouldn't you agree with Noetic that the Holy Spirit would be a better teacher?

Absolutely NOT! I can here and now tell you that anybody who dismisses "doctrine" has no value at all to present - and if that is the sort of crowd you want to hang around with, good luck! But don't try to place them at par with the Holy Spirit! What's wrong with you, commander?!?

nuclearboy:

Way I see it, a call to put "children" under what is "mostly" available today would be like Jesus handing His flock to the Pharisees.

Is that what you read in my posts? Is that what the verses cited in my posts are saying? Please show me how you derived this from what I have posted.

nuclearboy:

I think thats why noetic is averse to the idea

Noetic16 has his own small reasons blown way beyond his world, so I won't be concerned about him at all.

^^ Hmm, commander. . but I guess Kx has spoken English clearly enough. If I'm not going to be court-marshalled, let me add that there's such a thing as the 'English register' where particular words are suited to particular discourses to article issues in context - that, I think, is what Kx has done with the 'ceteris paribus'.

I like the 'ceteris paribus' - it is a nice way of summarising the 'all other things being equal' to the scamming. It also accentuates your 'amazing catastrophe' when we consider another way of looking at the ceteris paribus as pertaining to 'holding all other factors constant except the ones being studied' (can't remember where I got that) . . anyways. You see, "all other factors" apart of the hired hall of the conference will be in the engine works for more scamming operations. . . remember a few others?

[list][li]special offerings[/li]
[li]Daddy G.O.'s birthday[/li]
[li]breakthrough offerings[/li]
[li]seed offering[/li]
[li]tithing for salvation[/li]
[li]covenant partnership offerings[/li][/list]

. . . etc.  These all ^^ are  part of the 'ceteris paribus' and 'amazing catastrophes' which are not so obvious to the 'caveat emptor' (although they are very useful tools to the 'caveat venditor').

Okay, don't want to risk your hammers this morning. . . so I shut up for now!

But here is another thing that I should comment on -

KunleOshob:

@garyarnorld
Galatians 5:4 which spoke of falling from grace if one keeps the law was addressed to the Galatians who were gentiles and not Jews. So you were very right in that regard, don't allow Viaro to confuse you.

I was glad to read Gary's comment when I pointed out what he was missing in misconstruing the Law for what it does not argue. Indeed, because I was not inclined to the petty misinformation in this thread, I invited him to a new thread if he would like me to expatiate on any subject.

When I said this initially -

viaro:

Nope. Anyone who tithes under "obligation" has not fallen from grace nor put themselves under the Law, nor would they be judged by the Law. The Law only speaks to those who are under it, not to those who were never given that Law by ratification. If therefore they are acting out of the principle inherent in the Law, they can do so - but they should do so with understanding and not bring themselves under a legalistic spirit of "obligation".

. . . it is clear from God's Word that the Law only speaks to those who are under it, and not to those who were never given that Law by ratification. Romans 3:19 quite clearly establishes this point ("we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law"; but we also know that the Gentiles were never given the Law by ratification at any time! If Gary is willing, we could go over to a new thread and discuss this most crucial point, because when people argue vacuously about the Law, they tend to do so without a clue about what it entails.

However, Galatians 5:4 is in view of JUSTIFICATION - "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace." If one keeps the Law because they are seeking to be JUSTIFIED by that Law, then they are not looking to grace. But on what basis then is the said "obligation" to do the Law? It is on the basis of CIRCUMCISION -

[list]"I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law" - Galatians 5:3, ESV[/list]

In other words, the "obligation" to the Law is on the basis of CIRCUMCISION. In effect, Paul argues this point from verse 2 - "Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you" . . . that is the basis for the statement about "falling from grace".

In all this, for anyone to be "obligated" to do the whole Law, such a person MUST first accept circumcision. If that is not the case, there is no basis for using TITHES to argue that someone has fallen from grace - that is the most hollow and illiterate argument anyone can make from Galatians! Tithes were never given in the Bible as a matter for justification. NEVER! One who gave tithes was not more justified than one who did not give tithes at anytime. So using tithes as an argument foisted upon Galatians is quite uncalled for!

However, are we as Christians aware that we can FULFILL THE LAW without being under any "obligation" to the legalism of the Law? Oh yes, we can! Let me show you:

[list][li]Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law - Romans 13:8, KJV[/li][/list]

[list][li]Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law - Romans 13:10, KJV[/li][/list]

[list][li]For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself" - Galatians 5:4[/li][/list]

You really don't have to be a Jew under the Judaic covenant in order to fulfill what the Lord Jesus referred to as 'the weightier matters of THE LAW' - judgment, mercy, and faith (Matthew 23:23). Indeed, the apostle Paul recognized that the Gentiles who did not have the Mosaic Law could yet have been fulfilling the Law -

[list]For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another - Romans 2:14-15[/list]

Yes, we can find in many aspects of our Christian lives that we are actually working out the principles of the Law in our lives without being under any "obligation" to the Law. First, for anyone to be brought under the Law, they must needs be circumcised - at the very least, they ought to "accept circumcision". But is TITHING based on circumcision? Does tithing JUSTIFY anybody? Why do people try to read Galatians with their eyes closed in order to argue their own personal misgivings into that epistle?

I reiterate: "The Law only speaks to those who are under it, not to those who were never given that Law by ratification" - Romans 3:19 makes this point clear. Before any argument of "obligation" to the Law and falling from grace, the first question that must be asked is whether such a person has "accepted circumcision" in order to be JUSTIFIED by the Law. If the tither is not seeking to be justified by the Law, please don't try to use Galatians to make cheap scores against tithes! We are also clear that Christians can fulfill the Law without being under the covenant of Judaism.

__________________

@Gary, the above is just one reason why I invited you to on a proposed new thread on issues like this - just for us to calmly discuss issues that are many times confused around the Law. I remember you made a statement like this:

garyarnold:

Those who put themselves under the law WILL BE JUDGED BY THE LAW - ALL 600+ OF THEM!  Now, how many of you want to be judged by the law?

. . . and it was on such ideas from you that I remarked that the Christian who tithes does not come under any "obligation" of the Law nor would be judged by the Law, whether 600+ of them or less. If you take time to go through all the commonly held 613 Mitzvot/Commandments (or the 'Taryag Mitzvot'), you soon find that such an argument is baseless. But I'm not pushing for the new thread, just wanted to be clear on what KunleOshob didn't take time to consider on Galatians.

Folks, there should not be unnecessary quarrels with one another on this subject. If we endeavour to look at issues, very cogent points would be made that are beneficial to all stakeholders.

Here's an example of such unnecessary comments:

KunleOshob:

@prettyeyes
You are a liar, there is not one single verse in the bible that the word "PAY" was used in relation to tithes, the words used were give/gave/bring.

The Bible uses all such words - give/gave/bring and "PAY" (besides others) - in relation to tithes. Depending on the translation or version you consult, the following verses should be sufficient to show where they occur:

[list][li]Heb. 7:9, KJV - "And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham."[/li][/list]

[list][li]Matt. 23:23, KJV - ". . .for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin,. . ."[/li][/list]

[list][li]Gen. 14:20, KJV - ". . . And he gave him tithes of all."[/li][/list]

[list][li]Mal. 3:10, KJV - "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house. . ."[/li][/list]

This is not to disparage you Kunleoshob, but we know that there are several verses that use the word "PAY" (or "paid" in relation to tithes - so there's no need to have deemed prettyeyes a liar on that one.

Mad_Max:

@oladeegbu
Yes dear. Mmmm-pwah!

Ha! Nice. I also got that one this morning (the "mmm-pwah" from someone dear to me-heart! Nice.^{Romans 16:16}

Jenwitemi:

Come, come, my friend. This is not about what is written in the bible, but how the contents are being (mis)interpreted by each individual.

We've been through that part of your script already and found out that you have also been (mis)interpreting what is written in the Bible. It was a very simple question put to you regarding your (mis)interpretation of the rich man and Lazarus - but as often happens when a (mis)interpretation is at play, you never come back to address those simple questions.

dapsycool:

If there is a Hell and according to most denominations of Christianity the majority of mankind will go there, can I really enjoy heaven knowing family and friends who are suffering everlasting tortures the likes of which would surpass the horrors of the Holocaust death camps?

While you may find it convenient to quote the Bible, you are drawing unbiblical conclusions for your sentiments. There are some very specific questions for those who like to cherry-pick verses such as you do - could you please try and think through these:

1. what happens to the devil and his angels?

2. what is the ultimate end of all the ungodly, unregenerate and unrepentant?

Let me try and come in here.

It seems the purpose of this thread has been largely ignored - notwithstanding the appeal of the OP that we should try and focus on the primary objective.

However, in whatever small ways we can, let's try and share something helpful - whether for the new convert or for the maturing Christian: perhaps there's something we all might benefit and take home with us.

This is where I'd like to comment on the discourse between noetic16 and Image123. It seems that you're both saying the same thing as per 'feeding' God's people. The question is what such feeding should entail - and it seems more inclined to teaching and imparting the knowledge of God's ways to His people.

noetic16:

John 21: 15-17

15So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

16He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

17He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

'Feeding' is an interesting metaphor for imparting knowledge to people. Certainly, leaders should care for the welfare of believers; but the basic idea of 'feeding' God's people is to impart them with knowledge.

Peter (who was addressed in John 21 by the Lord Jesus Christ) had used the same metaphor when addressing the elders: "The elders which are among you I exhort, . . . Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, " (1 Pet. 5:1-2).

Of old, the prophet Jeremiah proclaims: "And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding" (Jer. 3:15). It is clear that Acts 20:28 carries the same gist when Paul addresses the elders with these words: "Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood."

Indeed, Paul uses the same metaphor in the sense of imparting spiritual knowledge to the Corinthian believers - "I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able" (1 Cor. 3:2).

It is not as if other types of care for believers are to be ignored. However, in terms of leadership among God's people, the metaphor of feeding carries the implication of imparting knowledge - teaching God's people His Word.

Jenwitemi:

That's a tragedy. I know that your mind is already hacked and contaminated with the worst mind virus in thr business, religious doctrines of hell, but people like me will keep on trying to rid you and people like you of it, for the sake of humanity.

The tragedy here is that your arguments are weltered - and you can't defend such piffling when scrutinized. This is why yours is quite a bungled mind and needs a detox.

Jenwitemi:
You need to be quarantined, man.

Okay, now I know you're wasting space joking around. So there's no need trying to further your tarradiddle.

garyarnold:

viaro - The reason for tithing will determine whether it is a sin or not.

If giving a tenth of one's income, from the heart, that would be just fine.

Gary, many times the way you try to pass across your message does not reflect the mellow tune you just posted above. There are people who argue against tithe and tithing at all costs - only when their arguments are challenged do they begin to cut corners here and there.

I know that some people preach giving in various faulty forms - it does not matter whether it is tithes, freewill offering, donations, alms, contributions of sorts, or whatever else. Some preach on these sorts of giving in a healthy manner to inspire the saints to give. Others (and there are many) preach giving in a very faulty manner - but just because these latter are performing this sad things does not mean therefore that you should assume that everyone who gives a tithe is not following God's Word.

It is time you try to change your outlook. The real problem is not tithes or tithing - rather, we should focus on what is seriously at stake here and not throw out the baby with the bath water! Let those who tithe from their own hearts do so as they may - and others who are not inclined to tithe should not do so if that is what they feel like. There is no need for all this confusion of pro-tithe vs anti-tithe arguments in the Body of Christ.

garyarnold:

If a person believes that giving a tenth of their income IS commanded by God, that this tenth IS The Lord's Tithe, then they have sinned by being disobedient to God as God said to take His tithe to the Levites.

They have not sinned - you're just making things up. However, you want a discussion to take a critical look at issues you never considered, I could open a thread just for the two of us to talk things over. Would you like that, Gary? Please let me know - I promise to be nice, trust me.

garyarnold:

Anyone who tithes under obligation has put themselves under the law, have fallen from grace, and will be judged by the law.

Nope. Anyone who tithes under "obligation" has not fallen from grace nor put themselves under the Law, nor would they be judged by the Law. The Law only speaks to those who are under it, not to those who were never given that Law by ratification. If therefore they are acting out of the principle inherent in the Law, they can do so - but they should do so with understanding and not bring themselves under a legalistic spirit of "obligation".

Jenwitemi:

You say i am trying to hack your mind by telling you to be positive in what you hold in your mind? Well, maybe i am, but what is wrong with that?

Sorry dude - it's not my mind you can hack, try ever so much as you are able to. The one thing you're missing here is that your attempts are far too weak, especially because your arguments are flying in the face of what we read in Scripture. If you make sense and not confuse issues for yourself, who would be speaking of mind hacking at all?

Jenwitemi:

Which one is more fruitful? Holding positive thoughts in your mind or holding negative ones?

I don't see how your own hacking is positive, so don't try clapping for yourself. What would be positive is not mixing up issues and passing very cheap arguments as you do around - that is not fruitful at all.

nuclearboy:

Who was God talking to in Malachi 3? hint - read the entire book of Malachi.

Arguments like this^^ are not helpful at all. Most of the passages on giving to support Christian ministry and the saints in the NT are taken from OT verses that speak directly to the Jews under Judaism. There are so many examples scattered in the epistles which we have identified in other threads. One should not be straining far too much on any OT text and yet missing the essential principle in them for the NT believer.

garyarnold:

Tithe payers have NO scripture to back up tithing to the Christian Church.

It does not appear you know Scripture at all. If Christians have decided to give a tithe of their income for good reasons, where is the sin in that?

Reports like this are sad to read.

N17million - I don't know how true it is that soft-sell news/papers (like the ones in P.M. News) are to be taken with a pinch of salt, though.

However, it would seem there's no fire without smoke (as the saying goes - otherwise some smart guys have learnt to spark fire without smoke, hehe). But for a two-day conference costing N17million . . . that should raise eyebrows indeed. Not too long ago some of us were wide-eyed at the revelation that the RCCG at one point boasted of spending N400 million for a 3-day crusade, but now this one from Adefarasin's church?

This is not just poor management - but whatever it is, it just does not begin to make sense at all.

Jenwitemi:

What we strongly believe in can be made to manifest here on earth if we hold on tightly to that belief. Now a certain group of people can use the deeply held beliefs of many unsuspecting folks to create a certain desired reality for themselves, by simply planting the belief of the existence of something/anything in their minds and that something will manifest in the physical world due to that belief. This ancient technology is called in the modern times, "mind hacking". It is done at all levels, most especially by advertising firms on their targeted consumers.

Since you admit that mind hacking occurs at all levels, it is easy to see you have been busy trying to market your own belief at your perceived targeted consumers. The problem is that your virus is a most serious one indeed, especially because you tend to confuse what you perceive as your own interpretation of the subject (e.g., the interpretation you gave about hell being symbolic in the case of the rich man while he was still living, no?).

Jenwitemi:

^^^ It is quite understandable that satanists should have affinity for hell, afterall it is supposed to be the abode of their lord, but what is the logical reason for christians' obsession? No matter how obsessed satanist are with hell, their obsession cannot match that of christians. Without the doctrine of hell, christianity is nothing in the eyes of christians. Satanists and christians sharing the same affinity for the dark place of burning fire. Bizarre!

Christians are not obsessed with hell - and to make that cheap interpolation is quite laughable. It shows you're a desperate fellow seeking to confuse issues all the more so that you won't have to face up to the fact that you're throwing words carelessly around. Satanists (as far as I know) do not share hell as an affinity with Christians - that Christians (or any other theist) talks about hell does not mean they 'share' an affinity with satanists for dark places. Your conclusions are more than bizzarre indeed.

Jenwitemi:

The existence of hell seems to mean far more to christians than satanists. Christians will expend vastly more energy to prove the existence of hell than satanists would.

I'm sure you're quite aware that satanists (ala Anton LaVey's satanism) glory in hell - whether they try to 'prove' anything about the existence of a 'hell' they speak about is not so much as energetic as the fact that they find it attractive at some level.

Jenwitemi:
How can this strange obsession with eternal torture of fellow humans be explained? That is a topic that merits it's own separate thread. Strange, very strange.

The stranger thing yet is that you don't seem to understand where to aim your piffling at. Strange? Obsession? Perhaps you need once again to look more closely at satanism and see the strange obsession it has with 'hell', viz:

[list][li]what does Anton LaVey's Satanic Bible mean by "The flames of
Hell burn fierce . . . and purify!"?[/li][/list]

[list][li]LaVey's Satanic Bible proclaims that "There is no heaven of glory bright, and no hell where sinners roast. Here and now is our day of torment! Here and now is our day of joy!" Although he denies any "hell" for sinners, he infact asserts that there's indeed "torment" - here and now. That sounds attractive to you, yes?[/li][/list]

[list][li]In the "THE THIRTEEN STEPS - Devices Used in a Satanic Ritual" of LaVey's Satanic Bible, you will find recommendations for satanic ritual, among which is this:
"7. Turning counter-clockwise, the priest points with the sword to each cardinal point of
the compass and calls forth the respective Princes of Hell: Satan from the south, Lucifer from the east, Belial from the north, and Leviathan from the west."[/li][/list]

No, you may argue anything for satanism's "strange" case of obssession on 'hell', blah-blah. . . but I guess you find this ritual quite appealing for your own concerns, yes?

Jenwitemi:

And the tragedy of it all is that hell does not make the christian religion any more appealing, but quite on the contrary.

Then your satanism would be appealing - your calling forth the 'Prince of Hell' is more appealing - your satanism of "no redeemer" sounds quite appealing - and your utter confusion about what you don't know really deserves an award! There's no need going into the point that those who come to Christ as their Redeemer know why they would rather find a Redeemer than one who denies any redeemer and still asks you to make yourself your own redeemer.