manmustwac:

@viaro
you really do have a passion for any subject related to tithes don't you?

Not really. I'm quite interested in tithes and other things - the difference is that I don't think either sides (between anti-tithing or pro-tithing arguments) should be made a Law for Christians. Let each one decide as he/she is led in their hearts.

garyarnold:

viaro is STILL confused!

NONE of my example said that tithe was a tax.  All you have to do is substitute the word TENTH in the examples to see what they say, NOT the word tax.

Sir, you cited 'Webster' not long ago on tithes with the meaning: "any tax, levy, or the like, esp. of one-tenth" - am I to take from that to say that "tithe" is ANY TAX?!?

garyarnold:
WORDS SHOULD BE CHOSEN CAREFULLY.

Agreed.

garyarnold:

viaro is STILL confused but won't admit it!

No, I'm not. If you choose your words carefully, you won't find it difficult sorting out issues instead of confusing issues for yourself so far.

viaro said, "the difference is that I don't think it either sides (between anti-tithing or pro-tithing arguments) should be made a Law for Christians. Let each one decide as he/she is led in their hearts."

Most protestant pastors don't teach "Let each one decide as he/she is led in their hearts."  THAT is the problem, Bro.  Pastors teach it wrong, and more people need to stand up to their pastor and correct him.  It's the teaching that tithing is a requirement in the NT that is so disturbing.  THAT, my friend, is why we need to STOP using the word tithing for giving.  IF pastors taught that tithing was voluntary, not required, and by not tithing you were not robbing God, I wouldn't have any problem with this whole topic.

By using the word tithing when you are giving, you now become part of the problem.

viaro is STILL confused!!!!!

I didn't give the tax definition of tithe until AFTER your comment that tithe was not a tax.

I show you, by current definitions, that tithe can, in fact, be a tax.

NOW do you have it, or do I need to say VIARO IS STILL CONFUSED!!!!!!!!

garyarnold:

viaro said, "the difference is that I don't think it either sides (between anti-tithing or pro-tithing arguments) should be made a Law for Christians. Let each one decide as he/she is led in their hearts."

Most protestant pastors don't teach "Let each one decide as he/she is led in their hearts."  THAT is the problem, Bro.  Pastors teach it wrong, and more people need to stand up to their pastor and correct him.  It's the teaching that tithing is a requirement in the NT that is so disturbing.  THAT, my friend, is why we need to STOP using the word tithing for giving.  IF pastors taught that tithing was voluntary, not required, and by not tithing you were not robbing God, I wouldn't have any problem with this whole topic.

By using the word tithing when you are giving, you now become part of the problem.

I don't think we need to muddle up issues, nor make a case for standing up against "pastors" - since not every pastor who teaches on tithes is actually preaching or teaching it wrongly.

TITHES are not the problem; I think the twin problem of misinformation and motive is at the core of the worry over tithes. Some say (as you suggest) that we should eliminate the word tithe from our Christian vocab - that is their view, and I can well respect them even though I do not agree at all. That is just being reactionary, and if we adopt that as the remedy for the abuses, the scandal will be multiplied for any other term you choose to replace tithe.

I once had a very long talk with a close friend about tithes and he wondered why I was neither pro- nor anti- tithing, yet I have no qualms tithing personally. He favoured "freewill offering", and I immediately asked him to open his Bible which he was holding and show me where the term "freewill offering" appeared even once in the NT. He excused himself and promised to come back after a few days. That was like 6 months ago, I'm still waiting. But he sure didn't like my pointing out that what he favoured was found in the OT - and usually associated with ANIMAL SACRIFICES!

I know people who have taught on "freewill" and yet come out forcing that teaching on their hearers. Others use other terms such as 'please donate generously' and yet there is always the catch-22 in their appeal to make the hearers feel as though God cannot save their relations UNLESS the call in to the program and make a "generous donation" - they don't call it tithe; but it has the same effect (happened a lot when I was still watching TBN programs - so I don't know the latest now as I have switched off completely from that station).

However, I know of several churches that teach tithing in a healthy and balanced manner. We cannot therefore use the case of others abusing tithes to then criminalize those who are not guilty by association.

garyarnold:

viaro is STILL confused!!!!!

I would very much appreciate if you make your point and leave off worrying over my confusion. I'm quite content as it is until you clarify your point and distance those terms the one from the other - especially seeing you gave a definition from Webster that says tithes are ANY TAX!

garyarnold:
I didn't give the tax definition of tithe until AFTER your comment that tithe was not a tax.

The tithe is NOT a tax - and we all know that. That was why I left you a link from Webster 1913 to show that it basically has the meaning of a tenth part of anything - not "ANY TAX".

garyarnold:
I show you, by current definitions, that tithe can, in fact, be a tax.

Current definitions of tithe is not tax - that is the point. And that was why I left that link to Webster 1913. Please go check it out and let's talk if you're not satisfied. A tithe has always had the basic meaning of a tenth part of anything - not a tax.

garyarnold:
NOW do you have it, or do I need to say VIARO IS STILL CONFUSED!!!!!!!!

You don't get it, do you? Please let me know if I have to repeat myself until you take the effort to check that link out.

garyarnold:

viaro said, "the difference is that I don't think it either sides (between anti-tithing or pro-tithing arguments) should be made a Law for Christians. Let each one decide as he/she is led in their hearts."

Most protestant pastors don't teach "Let each one decide as he/she is led in their hearts."  THAT is the problem, Bro.  Pastors teach it wrong, and more people need to stand up to their pastor and correct him.  It's the teaching that tithing is a requirement in the NT that is so disturbing.  THAT, my friend, is why we need to STOP using the word tithing for giving.  IF pastors taught that tithing was voluntary, not required, and by not tithing you were not robbing God, I wouldn't have any problem with this whole topic.

By using the word tithing when you are giving, you now become part of the problem.

This is the point; this is the crux of the matter! On top of that if the so-called "tithers" (voluntary or otherwise) merely confine themselves to doing it as their choice, there won't be a problem. To teach "tithing", voluntary or otherwise, as Christian doctrine goes against Scripture and must be challenged and condemned.

Edit to clarify: if you teach people to give and say it can be in the form of 10%, or more, or less, and that the giving does not have to be exclusively into "church", then you are starting to talk; but saying "I recommend doing your giving by donating 10% into church" is at the minimum a means of propping up the tithing scam, wittingly or unwittingly!

viaro said, "Current definitions of tithe is not tax - that is the point."

CURRENT DEFINITION FROM WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY:
any tax, levy, or the like, esp. of one-tenth

CURRENT DEFINITION FROM THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY:
A tenth part of one's annual income contributed voluntarily or due as a tax,

Do you NOW see the word TAX from both dictionaries?  The current definition of tithe IS tax.  To be more accurate, ONE current definition IS tax.

I have shown you these definitions twice now.  YOU furnish a definition from 1913 - that, my friend, is NOT a current dictionary.

As I had said, YOU are STILL confused, and STILL have it wrong.

Thanks to viaro for shedding light on the usage of tithe in the bible - this renders the argument about being able to use the word tithe ended.  

Enigma:

Edit to clarify: if you teach people to give and say it can be in the form of 10%, or more, or less, and that the giving does not have to be exclusively into "church", then you are starting to talk; but saying [b]"I recommend doing your giving by donating 10% into church" [/b]is at the minimum a means of propping up the tithing scam, wittingly or unwittingly!

You are advocating hypocrisy - why can I not recommend something that I deem acceptable to God to another man? If it was right for me, what makes it a way of propping up anything?  

If I recommend you do what I do, with good faith, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

If it is not worth recommending to anyone, then it is WRONG in itself - and we both know it isn't.

debosky:

Thanks to viaro for shedding light on the usage of tithe in the bible - this renders the argument about being able to use the word tithe ended.  

You are advocating hypocrisy - why can I not recommend something that I deem acceptable to God to another man? If it was right for me, what makes it a way of propping up anything?  

If I recommend you do what I do, with good faith, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

If it is not worth recommending to anyone, then it is WRONG in itself - and we both know it isn't.

You can accuse me of whatever you like. The fact is ----- biblical teaching is that each should decide what to give; Jesus and Paul who both made this teaching did not "recommend" 10% and they were both aware of OT tithes.

debosky:

Thanks to viaro for shedding light on the usage of tithe in the bible - this renders the argument about being able to use the word tithe ended.

I should rather be thanking you for helping to make sense in many things in few words.

Enigma:

You can accuse me of whatever you like. The fact is ----- biblical teaching is that each should decide what to give; Jesus and Paul who both made this teaching did not "recommend" 10% and they were both aware of OT tithes.

I didn't accuse you of anything. I simply stated that  you cannot deem my actions as promoting a scam if it is in line with the bible.
There is NOTHING unscriptural about recommending what you do to others as long as the act in itself is in consonance with the bible. That it was not recommended by Paul does not mean it cannot be used as an example.  Not every passage in the OT was used in the NT for teaching, but we are told that ALL scripture is useful for teaching and doctrine.

2 Tim 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

Regardless of your personal hang ups about how some people have abused tithing, you cannot remove the validity of giving 10% using the OT as a guide, and recommending same to others.

By recommending to others, I do not prevent them from deciding to do as they wish; the decision on what to do is still down to the individual.

debosky:

I didn't accuse you of anything.  . . . 

Nonsense! Saying one is advocating hypocrisy is not accusing him of anything?

debosky:
. . .  Regardless of your personal hang ups about how some people have abused tithing, you cannot remove the validity of giving 10% using the OT as a guide, and recommending same to others.

You cannot use your own personal hang ups of greed and fear of not tithing for giving 10% into "church" to lead people away from the teachings of Jesus and the apostles about giving and the freedom given to them to make their own minds up!

{See I can play your game of imputing base motives to others!}

Enigma:

Nonsense! Saying one is advocating hypocrisy is not accusing him of anything!

Apologies then - my point is, if recommending my actions to others is a scam, then I must also be participating in a scam. Surely you can recognise the disconnect in that.

You cannot use your own personal hang ups of greed and fear of not tithing for giving 10% into "church" to lead people away from the teachings of Jesus and the apostles about giving and the freedom given to them [i]to make their own minds up![i]

{See I can play your game of imputing base motives to others!}

I am not imputing a base motive - you have clearly stated that :

Even preaching "tithing" as a "voluntary" act is only tolerable and not really acceptable, strictly speaking.

You have expressed your 'personal hang up' or opinion no? How have I imputed a 'base motive' to you?

To tell someone God put it in YOUR heart to give 10% is fine, but to recommend that they do the same is telling them they might want to do what God put in YOUR heart.

WHY recommend anything? It should come from THEIR heart, NOT your recommendation. Recommending how much they should give is doesn't even make since if it is to come from THEIR heart. Why not recommend praying instead? Just maybe God will put in their heart to give 20%.

garyarnold:

To tell someone God put it in YOUR heart to give 10% is fine, but to recommend that they do the same is telling them they might want to do what God put in YOUR heart.

WHY recommend anything? It should come from THEIR heart, NOT your recommendation. Recommending how much they should give is doesn't even make since if it is to come from THEIR heart. Why not recommend praying instead? Just maybe God will put in their heart to give 20%.

Why listen to sermons? Why take advice? Why encourage one another? Why teach people from the bible?

1 Thess 5:11 Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.

Of course God can inspire people to give even 100%, but that does not negate the validity of using an example in God's word to encourage one another.

@Gary,

Thank you for still making the effort to show me what you feel persuaded about. However, let me try to point out something crucial which might be beneficial to both of us (I'm hoping) -

garyarnold:

viaro said, "Current definitions of tithe is not tax - that is the point."

CURRENT DEFINITION FROM WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY:
any tax, levy, or the like, esp. of one-tenth

CURRENT DEFINITION FROM THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY:
A tenth part of one's annual income contributed voluntarily or due as a tax,

Do you NOW see the word TAX from both dictionaries?  The current definition of tithe IS tax.  To be more accurate, ONE current definition IS tax.

Let me ask you something, please: just tell me which edition of Webster's dictionary you are quoting from, and the page, year, etc. Ditto with the American Heritage Dictionary. That will help sort out a few issues for us.

I make that request because it seems that someone just put it up on the internet in that manner and everyone is just parroting the same thing. I don't want to jump to conclusions; that was why I have pointed you to WEBSTERS dictionary of 1913 available ONLINE for you to check and see that the tithe is basically (again, please note: "basically" a tenth part of anything.

It is NOT a tax, in so far as we are trying to see what Scripture says; and those which you have argued repeatedly (like the American Heritage Dictionary) note that the tithe is "A tenth part of one's annual income" - it makes that basic definition before saying that such a "tenth part" is 'contributed voluntarily or due as a tax' - that is not saying that tithe is tax, but that it could be due as a tax - tremendous difference from arguing that the tithe is tax!

Before taking you up on this, I was quite aware that other uses of the word tithe could point what is levied as a tax - such as the "Saladin tithe", which was a royal tax, 'or more specifically a tallage, levied in England and to some extent in France in 1188, in response to the capture of Jerusalem by Saladin in 1187'. But what basically was the "tithe", if not the same meaning as a tenth part? "It was a literal tithe of 10% on revenues and movable properties" - this was the tithe; and that "literal tithe of 10%" in the case of the Saladin tithe was what accrued as tax. This is not to argue that the meaning of tithe is tax - no. Rather, it shows us that the meaning of the tithe here is "a literal 10% on revenues and movable properties", and that this is what is then taken as tax.

garyarnold:

Do you NOW see the word TAX from both dictionaries?  The current definition of tithe IS tax.  To be more accurate, ONE current definition IS tax.

If that one current definition IS tax, you are trying to sound as if that is the only definition that source gives of tithe. The American Heritage Dictionary says that the tithe is defined in various ways -

   a. A tenth part of one's annual income contributed voluntarily or due as a tax,
   especially for the support of the clergy or church. b. The institution or obligation
   of paying tithes.
   2.   A tax or an assessment of one tenth.
   3.   a. A tenth part. b. A very small part.
     © - The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
           Third Edition  © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

The current definition of tithe still shows that basically it is a tenth part of something - it is not just a 'tax' without a specification.

garyarnold:

I have shown you these definitions twice now.  YOU furnish a definition from 1913 - that, my friend, is NOT a current dictionary.

Okay, if Websters Dictionary of 1913 does not suit you, then let me give you another one which is "current" with a 2010 date -

[size=14pt]tithe noun /taɪð/ n [C]
a tenth part[/size] of someone's produce or income which they give or pay as tax to a church

^^ That there is from Cambridge University Press [size=14pt]2010[/size].

Happy now?

@ debosky

Let me tell you a few things about why "recommending" to another Christian that his giving should be in the form of (a)10%, (b) every month and (c) into a "church" is not acceptable.

1. It goes against Jesus' teaching: Jesus said that the way to give to HIM is to help the poor, the sick, the prisoner. When people, especially those on low wages, pay/give 10%, every month, into a church ----- they are left with limited means to do what Jesus actually said that they should do.

2. It goes against the freedom to decide giving given to each Christian. You should tell them what the Bible says: each of you should decide in YOUR OWN mind what and where to give ---- especially bearing in mind Jesus' teaching referred to in no 1 above. The maximum I can tolerate is if you say: "this is what I do (i.e. give 10% into church) ---- but you should decide for yourself what to do". I tell you that I can even only barely tolerate that ----- it is not your business to decide for them, to subjugate them and to deny them the freedom that Christ and the New Testament gives to them.

3. You are denying the people you preach it to, and persuade, from being able to demonstrate true Christianity and true Christian love. As I said in no. 1, once most have paid/given 10% into church, they are limited in their ability to "love thy neighbour", to help the poor chap that they can actually see, to help the hungry that they can actually see, to help the sick that they can actually see. The Bible says if you cannot love your neighbour that you can see, how can you love God that you cannot see.

4. It is propping up the tithing scam --- knowingly or unknowingly. Posts abound all over nairaland of people who have been taken in by the tithing scam and say it is an obligation to "pay" "tithes" or "you will not 'make' heaven" or you will not see blessings. Only a fool will deny that the overwhelmingly prevalent idea of the Christian "tithe" (and not only in Nigeria) is that of an obligation, an obligatory "payment". When you say you are recommending to Christians to "give" (a)10%, (b) every month (c) into "church", you are only reinforcing the idea of obligatory tithing ---- at the least indirectly. Hence, you are helping to put people under a bondage that the gospel has freed/is meant to free them from.

There are other factors but I will stop at the above for brevity's sake.

EDIT  Now do you still call that a hang up?

garyarnold:

WHY recommend anything? It should come from THEIR heart, NOT your recommendation.

When you argue against tithe, are you not recommending that people should not tithe? Why put your own anti-tithing arguments before others rather than let the decision come from their hearts? If others have decided to tithe, why argue to the effect that you would rather they don't tithe otherwise they are sinning?

Webster's Unabridged Dictionary copyright 1999, CD rom edition, using definition of TITHE.

American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition, copyright 1994.

I also have my mother's dictionary she got when she graduated from college:

MacMillan's Modern Dictionary - 1938 edition: Tithe - tenth part, or any small part, of
produce, profits, or the like paid as a tax or as a voluntary contribution, esp. for religion
or charitable use.

viaro - even the definition YOU furnished shows it doesn't have to be a tenth:

3. a. A tenth part. b. A very small part.

It can be a very small part.

And the Webster's I used also has:

a tenth part or any indefinitely small part of anything.

ANY INDEFINITELY SMALL PART OF ANYTHING.

So modern-day dictionaries do NOT limit a tithe to a tenth.

@ Enigma

Thanks for taking time to explain your view. In response:

1. Giving to a church can also achieve those same aims as the poor, the sick and the prisoner - giving to a church doesn't mean that the money doesn't end up being used for those purposes - those two do not need to be different things. We should not overlook the practices in the NT church where people gave to the church to help others within the body of Christ. I don't see giving 10% as being compulsorily to the church, it is up to the individual to do as he wishes.

2. Recommending to another Christian does not take away anyone's freedom. I do not take your freedom away by saying I follow a practice and it can be a guide for you as well if you CHOOSE to do so. A recommendation is in no guise telling people what to do - there is a CLEAR distinction there. In any case, I fully agree that tithing should be de-emphasised, and more time spent teaching giving without undue 'setting apart' of tithes. While doing that, there is no need to 'eliminate' as it were any reference to tithing. This is what I stated in my first post on this thread.

3. I disagree - the church is not some monolithic organisation to me - it is a living, breathing group of believers trying to impact the lives of others. By coming together and pooling those resources, people can become more able to love their neighbour - you seem to view giving as a collective as necessarily a bad thing. I don't think it is. The issue is liberating people to do as they decide, without trying to keep things away from them in order to 'free' them.

4. I don't agree. I repeat for the umpteenth time - the fact that something has been abused CANNOT take away the validity of the underlying example in the word. No matter how many times people have misused the word of God, that CANNOT negate the truths in it. I have argued many times, just as you have, that tithing is NOT mandatory or compulsory, and have tried to show tithing or any form of other giving for what it should be - a CHOICE.

viaro said, "When you argue against tithe, are you not recommending that people should not tithe? "

CORRECT. I refrain from using the word tithe when I mean give. I say what I mean. I recommend they pray and be led by The Spirit. IF that results in 10%, fine. But I don't recommend ANY percentage. I DO recommend giving, FROM THE HEART, and ACCORDING TO ONE'S MEANS.

@ debosky

I'm going to leave you with your convictions and conscience; I reserve the right naturally to continue to challenge the teaching/preaching of tithing here and elsewhere whenever I choose to do so.

debosky,

When you give to your local church, how much of every dollar goes to help the poor or needy?

When you give to a church, in most cases what you give goes for the COMFORT of the church members - a building to keep you out of the weather, a PA system so you can hear better, seating, heating, cooling, paper supplies, salaries, building upkeep and maintenance, utilities, etc. etc.  Most ALL of what you give is for MAN'S COMFORTS and for the salary of a pastor.

In most cases, when you give to the local church, you are giving little or nothing to the poor.

In MY OWN OPINION, when you give to the local church, you are giving to man, but also giving to promote God's Word.

Jesus did say when you give to the poor/needy you ARE giving to Him.

@ garyarnold

That is precisely why I left debosky to his "convictions and conscience" ---- I was going to ask same questions and more but just thought better of it.

I wonder where this Judases always get the idea that Jesus only requires christians to give to some isolated poor. Matthew 25 which you quote says to His brethren. His brethren, not some hell bound beggar thinking He's the Christ. Nonsense, this guys are just afraid of the law. You're under the under of the law. Always dodging real points and seeking loopholes to continue in their vain jangling. This they say not because they care for the poor but because they are jealous thieves lacking grace.

garyarnold:

Webster's Unabridged Dictionary copyright 1999, CD rom edition, using definition of TITHE.

American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition, copyright 1994.

I also have my mother's dictionary she got when she graduated from college:

MacMillan's Modern Dictionary - 1938 edition: Tithe - tenth part, or any small part, of
produce, profits, or the like paid as a tax or as a voluntary contribution, esp. for religion
or charitable use.

How is this different from what I tried to explain? The Tithe is a tenth part - that is the basic meaning, no?

garyarnold:

viaro - even the definition YOU furnished shows it doesn't have to be a tenth:

That is not the issue. The question was whether the tithe has changed meaning from being a tenth part of something.

garyarnold:
3. a. A tenth part. b. A very small part.

It can be a very small part.

Yes, for 1 out of 10 is a small part, innit? If 1 out of 10 is a small part, what quarrel do we have for the understanding of the tithe basically meaning a tenth part? You seem to have been arguing as if current definitions of the tithe have completely erased its meaning from "a tenth part" to something else so that the "tenth part" meaning has been completely lost! However, from all points considered, we find that even current definitions have maintained that the basic meaning of a tithe is a tenth part of something - that tenth part is a small part compared to the half of something (50%). This is not difficult to understand, is it?

garyarnold:

And the Webster's I used also has:

a tenth part or any indefinitely small part of anything.

There again - I wondered why that Webster distionary did not argue that it is not "a tenth part"? In post #315 the previous page, the Webster dictionary of 1913 I posted also recognized this basic meaning -

"2. Hence, a small part or proportion. Bacon.
[1913 Webster]"

It holds no big difference as I explained about 1 out of 10 being a small proportion of the whole, as compared to a half like 50% or a third like 33%.

garyarnold:

ANY INDEFINITELY SMALL PART OF ANYTHING.

So modern-day dictionaries do NOT limit a tithe to a tenth.

I did not argue a limitation with you - rather, you have argued long and hard that "current" definitions of the tithe IS tax, as if all current definitions anywhere and in any dictionary limit the meaning of a tithe to tax and nothing else!

In post #336 above, I already said just about the same thing -

'If that one current definition IS tax, you are trying to sound as if that is
the only definition that source gives of tithe. . . .

The current definition of tithe still shows that basically it is
a tenth part of something - it is not just a 'tax' without a specification.'

What you have often missed out is the fact that the sources we have contacted are saying that the basic meaning of a tithe IS a tenth part of something, and as such it is a small proportion of the whole. That "tenth part" or small part/portion then is used AS either a voluntray contribution or AS a tax (as in the Saladin tithe). Even where that "tenth part" is used AS a tax, it did not fail to highlight that "It was a literal tithe of 10% on revenues and movable properties".

The point is that "current" definitions of the word "tithe" STILL have the same basic meaning of what it points to - (a) the tenth part of something; (b) a proportion of 10%; (c) a small part of something [small part since it is only 1 out of 10 compared to a half like 50% or a third like 33%]. If anyone today is seeking out the basic meaning of the word 'tithe', it is clear that the "current" definitions are all STILL pointing out that it is the TENTH PART of something! That is the fact you should not ignore.

garyarnold:

debosky,

When you give to your local church, how much of every dollar goes to help the poor or needy?

When you give to a church, in most cases what you give goes for the COMFORT of the church members - a building to keep you out of the weather, a PA system so you can hear better, seating, heating, cooling, paper supplies, salaries, building upkeep and maintenance, utilities, etc. etc. Most ALL of what you give is for MAN'S COMFORTS and for the salary of a pastor.

Gary, do you give at all in Church? You talk as if you alone define what any giving in church should be, or what any church is supposed to do with the offerings they receive. If your own local church never receives anything for taking care of the poor, or to pay salaries of leaders and workers, or for the rents of buildings and utilities where fellowship is held each week, or for maintenance in any way, does that therefore mean that every other church follows the same as obtains in your church?!?

The problem here should never be that we should be complaining about giving in Church. If you don't want to give in church, don't complain about others who understand that giving in Church is part of the Christian life and testimony. You may look for all excuses to discourage giving in Church, but that would be your own problem - not the problem of any other Christian who is actually giving in Church!

The Bible shows indeed that those who are labourers in the work of the Church SHOULD BE PAYED! The sad thing today is that anti-tithing arguments have conditioned so many people that they cannot see this point any longer. If you ignore this fact, you're definitely living in disobedience to God's Word - and should you seek clarification, I would be most happy to show you this point in the New Testament! Just because Christians are urged to give in Church does not therefore mean we should be seeking excuses to cushion any disobedience displayed against God's Word.

garyarnold:

In most cases, when you give to the local church, you are giving little or nothing to the poor.

Okay, you stop giving to your own Church. Happy now?

The problem here is that, what obtains in your church does not mean therefore that it is the same in many other churches. These kinds of remarks you make are actually a logical fallacy, because you don't know what most churches are doing with what they receive as giving or offerings from their members. If we look closely, we find that many churches around the world actually are concerned for the poor in their Missions Outreaches. Not every church you come across would be doing this, but that it is not reason enough to be complaining about giving in church and concluding that it is for man's comfort.

garyarnold:

In MY OWN OPINION, when you give to the local church, you are giving to man, but also giving to promote God's Word.

Jesus did say when you give to the poor/needy you ARE giving to Him.

Your opinion is yours. There is absolutely nothing wrong with giving in Church - I know that many other churches receive from their members and reach out to the poor. Is that not the same as giving to the Lord, even when done in the CHURCH? You sound as if giving in Church is NOT giving to the Lord - if not, why separate them in that manner above^^?

garyarnold:

viaro said, "When you argue against tithe, are you not recommending that people should not tithe? "

Yes, I said so.

garyarnold:
CORRECT.

Why? Why are you recommending that people should not tithe and then turn back to ask flat out - "WHY recommend anything"?

If you don't think anyone should recommend anything, then in the first place you should not be recommending your anti-tithing arguments as if that is what the Holy Spirit wants for all Christians. You don't believe in it, fine - just let others who want to tithe do so with their own freedom as well.

garyarnold:

I refrain from using the word tithe when I mean give.

Tithing is a form of giving - one who tithes is also giving.

garyarnold:

I say what I mean. I recommend they pray and be led by The Spirit. IF that results in 10%, fine. But I don't recommend ANY percentage.

There's nothing wrong with recommending any percentage if done prayerfully and not set as a legalistic code or obligation that becomes a burden to anyone. I would recommend a tithe to Christians - but in recommending it, I won't force it upon them or excuse it with fallacious arguments as if it is something to be ashamed of.

When you argue against tithing and assume that tithers are sinning, you most definitely are recommending your own opinion that they should not tithe. You cannot be negating tithes and at the same time approving 10% with a mellow "fine" - such a postion lacks conviction that you're serious about what you believe. If you're open to the Holy Spirit urging any believer to give what amounts to 10% (or "a tenth part", or a "tithe" or any specific percentage for that matter, how come you want to argue endlessly AGAINST tithing at the same time?

garyarnold:
I DO recommend giving, FROM THE HEART, and ACCORDING TO ONE'S MEANS.

What makes you think that one who tithes is not doing so from his/her heart and according to their means? I think you assume far too much in your apologetics.

I'd decided not to speak concerning this issue again on this thread. I'd also come to believe the only pro-tither on earth with a brain was Viaro. Sad to see Debosky has joined him. One thing I notice though - Gary made a point that you both have ignored in the attempts to turn this whole thing upside down.

Gary said

garyarnold:

viaro said, "the difference is that I don't think it either sides (between anti-tithing or pro-tithing arguments) should be made a Law for Christians. Let each one decide as he/she is led in their hearts."

Most protestant pastors don't teach "Let each one decide as he/she is led in their hearts."  THAT is the problem, Bro.  Pastors teach it wrong, and more people need to stand up to their pastor and correct him.  It's the teaching that tithing is a requirement in the NT that is so disturbing.  THAT, my friend, is why we need to STOP using the word tithing for giving.  IF pastors taught that tithing was voluntary, not required, and by not tithing you were not robbing God, I wouldn't have any problem with this whole topic.

By using the word tithing when you are giving, you now become part of the problem.

IF you, Viaro, know that IT IS AS YOU ARE LED IN YOUR HEART, why insist it is the Word "tithe" that must be used? Why THAT Word? Why not "Gifts". Why not "Support". Why the legalistic term that is being used to scare people. Do you remember what Jesus said was His duty? " To set the Captives free?" amongst others. Do you read what Joagbaje's milk teeth people say here that is purely opinionated and not backed by any scriptural sense? For these, it is "how can you say pastor is wrong"? Is that true, Viaro? Is pastor perfect? Is pastor saying "it is voluntary"? Is that why these "babies" come here and curse because pastor is being factual?

We all say GIVE. Then we again say GIVE. But you say aniti-tithers are stingy BECAUSE we say the word tithe is being used to convince people that they OWE IT AS AN OBLIGATION. How is that so hard to understand? Look at Gary's caveat (also bolded) that it wouldn't be a problem if the right teaching WHICH YOU SAY you advocate was what was being taught i.e. it is voluntary and not a law.

God will prevail, Viaro and I know you will in time seriously regret this thing you're doing, for you will see its effect firsthand one day. This is mainly a Nigerian forum - always remember that; and most everyone we speak of here operates here and ARE destroying people's lives telling them NOT to support poor or orphaned or widow but to bring all streams to the billionaires who build monuments to themselves and say "God is good" because they are thriving through the fear of others. Can you honestly read a thread like "pay debt or pay tithe" and see what a guy named Mantraa decided to use to show truth; yet insist this is a good thing? Its the usage that we condemn since it is not binding you pay tithe. What is binding is that you "give willingly and as led". Now, if you would contest that, let me know. If that is true then, why not say that rather than defend the indefensible simply because God gave you an intellect that is "tops". You're not fair.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW Viaro, could it be that statements by Gary such as "Viaro is confused" OR the thought that "Viaro is wrong" is the problem here?

@Viaro:

I have no doubt that at the forthcoming Olympics, you Viaro, can win all three Gold, Silver and Bronze medals at the "mental gymnastics" events for your intellect. Still, this is a puzzle to me remembering what I have seen you write here before on other topics.

You argue that cheating and doctrinal errors are wrong in christianity. But you argue for the most damning issue in christianity - the thing that seeks to commercialise Christs' teachings and make God out to be a land-lord who allows you continued tenancy BECAUSE you paid your rent and bought Him bushmeat your last visit to the village. You send "grace" out the window when you tell us a doctrine from the pits of hell is acceptable because you want no laws for Christians. Would you then support we kill since there are no binding laws on Christians? Why do I even ask seeing as the effect of our tithers has included the starvation to death of many just so they can say from the pulpit "God is good. Can't you see it? He has provided us air-conditioning in this monument to idiocy"! e.g. Adefarasin wants a 410 million Naira air-conditioning system.

Here on NL, you see people saying "few (if any) of Oyedepo's church members can afford to send their children to the school he built with their money". You see people saying "its private jet galore" whist members children are sent home from cheap school. I grew up in Lagos, friend. Have you seen the children coming out of the slums today? They will kill you for a piece of bread. They will break your car window to insist you give them money once its dark. We live in fear here once you have a good car whist you're enjoying your scholarship in the west telling us those innocent children who had their lives stripped from them and who were turned into animals are not partly victims of these rogues on the pulpits who have turned God's plan for societal relief into a self enrichment venture. Is the effect not worth considering especially when it passes (and ballons) from generation to generation. Or is it government alone that empowers society?

Those children had parents who believed God would bless them if they gave the "man of God". Seeing as the children only got hunger in return, the word "God" is a travesty to them and they prefer a knife or a gun. Many here have faced them and heard firsthand "ehn, you're praying to God? oya O, pastor, pray for us too but know something - that your God is greedy and I'll just give him some cash and he will forgive. And if he shows here as me dey vex, I go shoot am, e go cry". Funny? well, maybe to you safe in the west and telling us we don't know what we see.

But if the preaching of "tithes" AS IT IS FOUND here is Godly, God is not worth it! But I know God is worth it seeing as He warned us of them - "For they mouth empty boastful words (I AM GOD/CHRIST etc), and by appealing to the lustful desires (TO PROSPER) of sinful human nature, they entice people (NEW CHRISTIANS) who are just escaping from those who live in error (JUST LEFT THE UNREGENERATED LIFE). They promise them freedom (HEALTH, WEALTH, DOMINION), while they themselves are slaves of depravity (MONEY, MONEY AND MORE MONEY)"

This then, is what you don't seem to see you are supporting with your words.