₦airaland Forum

That's not a fact until you can prove it conclusively. That's just an opinion of those who don't believe.

Dear TV01,

Thank you for your observations. There's something you seem to be consistently missing. I'll find time to help you with some notes. But what you call the Law, OC, NT, NC are mixed up in many instances and until you sort these out in their proper contexts you'll continue to make the same mistakes.

That is why when you mistake the one for the other, you saw a curse where there was none, and tried to use an OT verse to curse the NT Church, while still arguing that the OC has been done away with in Christ! Do you not see your mistake? I think you really should settle down first and understand a few of these matters before you insinuate what ought not to be. Whatever is not clear to you, let me know and then I'll try and find the time to address them.

I'm back to base now from my trip and think I can have some more time to visit the Forum.

Regards.

@biggjoe PS. will check back soon to follow up on yours - have to dash across the street 4 s/thing important. TY

@virozuru
Oh dearie, dont let that spoil your fun for the day. Today's Saturday already, you should be smiling. Actually, I felt the thread was degenerating into something else, so I delayed my replies. Nwoke is a gentleman for now on that; I've made mistakes in the past, and now I'm learning. I think he's giving us time to sort ourselves out and take things easy. Meanwhile I've posted you something in this link: The Sabbath: What Day Is This?. Check it out.

Easy dear, and smile - it'll be alright.

So, okay. . . here's what I can do for you, as promised earlier:

1) it seems, just as IAH suspected, that you did not carefully go through others' inputs and assimilate them before typing away your responses. Try and do so, and let's be calm.

2) you should understand that the OT and the NT actually form the whole of God's Word - the Bible; but are you under the old covenant and not realise that you're a believer under the new covenant? Did you not read what it says to those who want to continue under the Law of the old covenant? Sample this -

Heb 8:13 - "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and
waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

3) you keep dragging this issue about the Sabbath having been changed - but I never hinted at that. There's nowhere I said so, and if you still can't take it from me, leave off the issue. I never said there was a change; I only said the disciples did gathered on the first day of the week.

4) nowhere will you find a support in scripture that the early Christians changed from the seventh day to the first day: if there's a verse for that, please quote it in full. They had consistently gathered on the first day of the week right from the very day that Christ rose from the dead and appeared in the midst of those assembled/gathered (John 20:19).

5) initially, the early Christians actually met everyday, not just on the Sabbath day; and you'll be surprised that they didn't limit their gatherings to the Temple, but from house to house (Acts 2:46 - "And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart". Here it shows clearly that even when they met in the temple, it was not just the seventh day they did so, but rather on a daily basis.

6) you will not find the church spoken of anywhere in the OT (except prohetically); and it did not exist until after Jesus ascension and the pouring out of the Holy Ghost in Acts 2. Jesus said earlier: "I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18) - and this means that at that time the Church was not yet in existence ('will build' is future tense). Therefore, you cannot use Exo. 20:8-11 or any other OT scripture to justify a Saturday worship for NT Christians.

7) the NT argues that the old covenant law does not justify a new covenant believer or anyone else for that matter - Acts 13:39 - "And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses."

Now, I'm no relative of Martin Luther; so this should not grow into another 95 theses of the 21st century. All I ask you to do is simply go through these matters again - carefully - and then I'll follow up anything you don't get clear.

Blessings.

@ oga biggjoe,

Haa!! Your high pontificate, sorry sir - I didn't mean to be antagonistic. No vex - my heart and yours will seek the Kingdom of God together, believe me. I don't know it all, that's why I was enquiring sir. No vex. I apologise 95 times sir; true. . . I withdraw all the sins and iniquities my mouth, hand and brain have committed on the typewriter and PC keyboard.

Okay, seriously - I apologise if my previous posts have got your wrong side up.

But my answer to yours is that the priests do not equate the Pope, correct? I knew before now that priests were allowed to marry (don't know about now anyways) and I know a couple of priests in the Catholic Church who did. But we are speaking about the qualifications of the Papal office. When you outline them for me, then I'll try and share with you why I disagree that Peter was the first Pope of any Church, Catholic or Orthodox.

Again, please accept my apologies and hope we can have a warm discussion. Blessings. 

virozuru:
Here is where it says you should go to Church on Saturday.

Exodus 20:8-11

Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shall thoult labour and do all they Work. But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God,

If you don't know what this is a part of, it is the ten Commandments. And remember ifyou break one commandment, you break all 10 commandments.

While you're working at it, remember this: you said that if we broke one of the commandments we are guilty of having broken all 10 commandments. In the same way, I  would like for you to quote me exactly as it says you did earlier that in Exo. 20:8-11, "you should go to Church on Saturday." Where in your reference did it mention "Church"? I have more than 15 English translations in my library now - but I can't find the word "Church" in that Scripture you quoted; so which translation are you using?

Remember also, that it was just a few words that Eve injected into God's commandment that made the Devil get through to her. So, if we must be so pedantic about words and all that, please don't change any words in Exo. 20:8-11; do us the favour of showing where it says "Church" FROM THE MOUTH OF GOD in that passage.

Thank you.

I guess he knew what names of the week correspond to which day. Thing is, slow down and answer my question. TY.

virozuru:
You still have not answered my question. The resurrection of Christ has nothing to do with the change of the Sabbath day. I am still waiting for you to show me where it says, through the MOUTH OF GOD, that the sabbath day was changed from Saturday (seventh day) to Sunday (first day), not about the demonstration of Christs' ressurection, because this in no way demonstrates the change of the Sabbath day.

I'm still amazed up until now that you can afford to be this polarised. No offences meant, but if you're rolling your eyes, I'm staggered too.

Listen my dear, please show me in Exo. 20:8-11 that you just quoted where it says "you should go to Church on Saturday". I'll kindly wait for you to show me those words in quotation marks as you have told us here on the Forum.

Second, please read my inputs again - nowhere did I state that "the sabbath day was changed from Saturday (seventh day) to Sunday (first day)."  Perhaps you and your group read that big word ("changed" into my replies: I never used the word 'changed' to indicate that I agree the Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday, but rather shared what I saw in scripture that the disciples did - they gathered on the first day of the week, Sunday as we know. The reasons? Go back and carefully read my replies. If you simply accept scripture in what it says, your problem will be minimised.

Besides, you also have not answered my question - I asked you to kindly do us the favour of showing us where in the NT we are commanded to worship on Saturday. Exo. 20:8-11 is in the Old Testament, not the NT. Unless you want to call yourself a Jew, then I can understand. But please, show me the NT quote for your Saturday.

Blessings.

Now for those who have been complaining about my replies, let me settle some important matters.

virozuru:
please re read these quotes again, and when you quote, make sure that is exactly what it says.

Christ's resurrection demonstrates the following:

(a) His victory over Satan, sickness and death - (I Thes. 4:14 -"For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.". You cannot speak of Jesus' resurrection if He was not victorious over death. There's no speaking of victory over Satan either if the resurrection is not a fact, because Satan in scripture is referred to as "him that had the power of death, that is, the devil" (Heb. 2:14). And His victory over sickness is also demonstrated by His resurrection (see Acts 4:10 - God raised Jesus from the dead, and by Him, that is Jesus, the sick man stood whole before the crowd, demonstrating Jesus was victorious over sickness - yes?). Other verses that speak of Christ's victory as thus demonstrated are: Acts 2:24 - "Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it."

Perhaps, you got thrown off because my first piece was just an outline and not indepth; but I Thes. 4:14 shows that Jesus resurrection is also for our benefit - people will be raised victorious over Satan, sickness and death just becuase Jesus rose again.

(b) that He was indeed the Son of God (Rom. 1:4 - "And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead". Are we still confused about this one? It's clear and speaks for itself, isn't it? So, no elaborations needed.

(c) the establishing of a better covenant based on better promises (Heb 8:6 - "But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises." "Now hath He obtained" - when did He obtain this more excellent ministry established upon better promises? Compare with Heb. 13:20 - the better promises are ratified by the blood of Jesus Christ and brought into effect when God brought Him again from the dead. If Jesus had not risen from the dead, we could as well just forget about the New Covenant.

(d) His sovereignty as Head of a new creation, for old things have passed away. ( I Cor. 15:20 - "But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept". Look at that verse again - could we ever have the hope of our own resurrection if Christ was not first risen? Others were raised from the dead in the past - Elijah raised a child back to life (I Kings 17:22) and before Jesus died, He also raised a widow's son to life (Luke 7:14-15). But the resurrection is not the same thing as those earlier cases; Jesus' resurrection is spoken of in Scripture as the firstfruits of them that slept (that is, first of a kind of a new season). When you study that passage on the resurrection, it clearly says that Christ is the firstfruits of those who will be raised: "But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming." (1Cor. 15:23). He is the first, the Head, the Sovereign of this new creation to be raised from the dead.

I only made a sketch or summary in my first reply; but in explaining them I hope your hearts are no longer troubled.

virozuru:
there is no place in the bible at all that changed the sabbath day (seventh day) to sunday. it was changed through man, not through God. Chirst rose on the first day, yes He did, but never once did it say that because he rose on the first day of the week, that we should worship on that day.

Now my answer is: first, the day of worship should not be such a problem to us. The disciples had a reason for gathering on the first day of the week because it was significant to them - and to us. We are not Jews but Christians; neither are we under the OT covenant of the seventh day observance. It is a clear fact of scripture that it was on the first day of the week that Jesus met with the gathered disciples and blessed them with peace - "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." (John 20:19). It is true there's no commandment in the NT about the day of gathering, and if the disciples gathered on the first day of the week (Sunday), why is that a problem to anyone?

Second, the complaint that Christ never said that we should worship on the first day simply misses the point. If you are waiting for such a NT explicit commandment, you'll never find one. Even so, did Christ command believers to gather for Christian worship on Saturday, or on any other day for that matter? Those asking for Saturday as the right day of worship should kindly do us the favour of showing us where in the NT we are commanded to do so.

Regards.

spikedcylinder:
4get me,your references do not justify your reasons.If you are indeed in search of the truth,you will find out that early worshipers of Christ changed the sabbath to sunday to suit their previous religiousl beliefs.Some christians admit it, though many(due to inabilty to look beyond the given)disregard this hard fact.

Please could you be so kind to show me your own references for your assertions of these "hard facts"? TY.

@Enigma,

I'm quite aware that there's a selfish pride in man - even some idea of humility is pride. So, the issue of motive, reason, consequences are all involved. I have a motive for giving based on NT reasons to expect some consequence of my giving - does that make any sense? Motive: God has blessed me. Reason: I'm a Christian obeying His word. Consequence: He said that those who give shall be blessed.

It's up to the believer to decide what motive informs his/her giving. If they have no reasons for giving and expect no consequences, peace to them all the same.

Of course, I understand where you're coming from - man should not have a selfish motive as the reason for giving so that the consequence is 'abundance'. Makes sense; but there's no problem with seeing that God's word gives us all three and more - motive, reason, consequence.

Blessings.

Enigma, your points 1 - 5 have already been addressed. And then I find it interesting that you're dragging this point and making inferences I did not make at any time; such as that "So you apply a higher standard than God who told people to do exactly that?" What's that all about? Please read my posts before you make inferences like that, and it is just so that you don't misconstrue my piece that is why I play it safe most times by leaving the scriptures to back my claims.

Thirdly, I want you to see what you've just said:

Enigma:
4. Fair enough if you don't equate "tithing" with "giving". The response from my position is this: "tithing" was never and is not an obligation for a Christian (though a Christian is obviously free to choose to "tithe"; it is not a condition or precursor to blessings.

So, if a Christian is free to choose to tithe, what was your question again? You see, this whole problem would have been solved if you had taken time to see that I did not debate against tithing - I've maintained precisely that a Christian's tithing is a personal transaction between himself/herself and God. Much earlier on I have stated in in reply to one of TV01's enquiry that tithing and giving are not obligatory - I said so earlier; you probably missed it.

However, I don't agree with you in the second part of your statement that "it is not a condition or precursor to blessings." Now if a Christian is already blessed (as surely as it is so), why is there a need to give at all? Just to show that we have been blessed and nothing more? I beg to disagree - take a second look at what the Bible says:

II Cor. 9:6-10 - "But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully
shall reap also bountifully. Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or
of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye,
always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work: (As it is written, He hath dispersed
abroad; he hath given to the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever. Now he that ministereth seed to the
sower both minister bread for your food, and multiply your seed sown, and increase the fruits of your righteousness).

It is clearly taught in God's Word that when you give, you are sowing; and when you sow, you shall reap. christians don't just give because they have already been blessed and that's the end of the story - not so. We give in thankful appreciation for God's blessings; and then our giving is also a sowing that God notices and will bless for a reaping.

Blessings.

Oh, now u're talking - I get ur point!!

Believe it or not, I fell off my chair!
Na wah!!

Ah-ha! why now, Zahymaka? Just a few punctuation bloopers and Johnny is already a bad boy?

Dear Enigma,

Gather my points from my previous posts and you'll see that I was neither inflamatory nor polarised - I hope you'll find me so as I'm stating now.

Second, I didn't arduously seek to make the distinction between wine and alchohol - the Bible clearly made a distinction between various drinks, and that's what I've sought to present all along. I don't think the discussion should even have merited a single post if we arduously seek the word "alchohol" in the Bible - it just doesn't say "alchohol", but rather wine, strong drink/wine, vinegar, fruit of the vine, etc. So, that's one reason why I called for the distinction so we might have a rounded discussion on this.

Lastly, I would rather stick to what the Bible says at any one text or the other. Some got drunk in church as is clear from I Cor. 11:21; even so, as I have stated earlier in one of my posts, the Love Feast/Agapé is not the same as the Lord's Supper. That's why the apostle warned them to set things right among themselves. What I know Jesus gave the disciples was called "the fruit of the vine" - which could mean anything other than alchohol (see Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 and Luke 22:18). The Bible as the inspired word of God definitely has a reason for so wording these verses this way, and it's always my style to follow the advice that we should not go beyond what is written (cf. I Cor. 4:6). It was common practice in those days to have the juice of grapes as a simple customary drink. So, when the Bible says "fruit of the vine", I would rather not stretch this to mean "alchohol" if infact it is not stated categorically so.

Blessings and thanks for your insight.

@Enigma, what is the question?

You don't seem to have read my posts, if you're asking me that question.

Where did I say it was wrong to do so? And have my views changed so far from what have already been stated all this while? Here again in summary -

wine - yes, permissible (not condemned nor commanded)

strong drink - not encouraged (neither condemned nor commanded)

So what then? - each believer using either: it is entirely up to their discretion.

NT summation - we should not get drunk with wine but be filled (Gk. says to 'habitually being filled') with the Holy Spirit (Eph. 5:18).

Am I missing something somewhere?

Regards.

@nferyn,

You don't seem to have a good handle on the issues you raised. The enquiries of evolutionism and creationism is more about the complexities of origin and existence, not about the limitations and constraints of science or any other tool as a means of investigation. What is the point of a scientific investigation if it has no application to the core of reality or existence? Can you tell me?

When scientists (not science itself) beg fundamental questions that have relevance to existence, then we are told to throw away the question of why; or at best, relegate it to the concerns of philosophy and religion. Let me say this: if that is what we think that scientific investigations are all about - to ignore the why question in relation to enquiries of origin and existence - then we come back to th same issue of the limitations of a scientific investigation.

Would you agree with me on this, that the concerns of evolutionism and creationism are more about seeking answers to the question of origins and existence than about anything else? And if not, then what is the question?

@Reverend,

So, let me guess - you were roundly ignored where you posted George Carlin's sob story earlier, and you had to bring it here. You never cease to amaze me. It is his ultimate bullshit anyways - takes nothing out of the rest us.

My good friend belloti, thanks for being so understanding.

Blessings.

Dear Enigma,

Please calm down - you also made assumptions about other people as well by asking:

Enigma:
If those who claim that "tithing" is for today say that they are following what the Bible says, then why don't they also follow waht the Bible says that they should share the tithes with orphans, widows, strangers

Of course most churches do exactly that, so there's no need for you to have complained or try to be presumptuous.

That said, let me assure you of my goodwill in the questions you have raised:

(a) I'm not under the Deut. 14 commandment as a Christian; so I can't follow your point as to why that has become the only chapter and verse on tithing in the OT that you use.

(b) No, I don't equate tithing with giving - see my rejoinder to TV01's enquries just above.

(c) First, I have said a few times earlier that we care for widows, orphans, strangers, and prisoners. I tithe in church as other tithers; from there distributions go out to these folks. Second, the reason why i don't spend my tithe on whatever my soul lusteth after is because I don't live my Christian life on the dictates of the soul. Rather, my aim is to walk by the Spirit, and I have not regretted doing that at anytime. I'll reference two verses for this:

              Gal 5:16-17 -  "I say then, walk by the Spirit and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh. For the flesh desires
              what is against the Spirit, and the Spirit desires what is against the flesh; these are opposed to each other, so that
              you don't do what you want."

There you have it - I choose not to yield to my soulish desires; and that's why I don't spend my tithes on strong drink or anything else.

I'll be glad to follow up on the discussion if I inadvertently missed out or overlooked something.

Regards.

Hi TV01,

My apologies if I've been really hasty in my replies, and I hope you didn't imagine that I was being upset with you - not at all. You can't imagine the fun in working and playing at the same time. . . lol. Fortunately, I get breaks quite often; and I don't complain when I have to work through the night, as is often the case.

TV01:
It's just that your wording seems to suggest that tithing is giving? and that there are different types?

If you equate tithing with giving, I'm not sure there is any point to our discussion, except my question above about "types of giving", as I still maintain that Christians simply give.

Nope, my wording does not suggest what you might have read. There are various types of giving in both the OT and NT. As far as tithing is not condemned in the NT, there's no need to pretend that it is. Second, when you say "Christians simply give" that suggests to me that you probably might not have looked at it from all sides from the NT.

Fellowship and Partnership Offerings

Our giving is not "simply give" - read Gal. 6:6 and Heb. 13:16 (giving that is called "communicate" and "sacrifices". The word "communicate" in those verses is the same in the Greek [koinōneō and koinōnia] from which we get our words "fellowship" or "partnership". This is one type of "fellowship giving/offering" or "partnership giving/offering." Read Phil. 4:14-16 as an example of this type of giving - the fellowship offerings with which we support the ministers of the Gospel.

You'll find again that in I Tim. 6:18, two words are used there - "ready to distribute [eumetadotos], willing to communicate [koinōnikos]." Not really different from this class of giving, but then the words point to the spirit of liberality - being liberal at giving.

Worship Collections/Offerings

1 Cor. 16:2 - "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." This is not the type of giving expressed in Gal. 6:6 and Heb. 13:16. This is points to our Christian expression of financial giving on the first day of the week - our Sunday worship activity. We ought not confuse these types of giving and just indiscreetly give however we think fit. Infact, when you read from verse 1 in I Cor. 16, you see it is the usual practice (and the reasons) of the churches founded by the apostles, not only in Corinth, but as far as unto Galatia as well. I have reasons from I Cor. 4:17 to believe that it was the normal practice of every church in the apostolic age.

Benevolence to Poorer Folk

Distinct from the first two types of giving is that of being benevolent towards people - within and outside the Church. "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35) seems to be the driving impetus of their liberality in this way. We are to give to everyone who has need, both collectively or individually. This is exemplified in Gal. 2:10 - "Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do." Alms giving also falls within this category, and Jesus made reference to it - Matt. 6:3-4.

Tithes and Special Offerings

There are personal matters that each Christian communicates between himself/herself and God. Jesus said this type of transaction should be private (or secret, depending on version - cf. Matt. 6:6). Now, why tithes? It is not condemned in the NT, neither is it viewed as evil as might have been supposed by those averse to it. This is a transaction that I personally take upon my self to give a designated portion of my income "as God hath prospered [me]" (I Cor. 16:2). This is what I lay up in store at designated times, and based on commensurate prospering that God allots me. There are special transactions that Christians have with God that no one else makes their business - that is where my tithes and special offerings come in.

I hope this will be of some help to you, even though you might disagree with what I have expressed. The problem I think, for many, is that they lump up so many matters without carefully looking into them. Let me know where I might have overlooked something in my reply - I'm only human.

God bless.

The Resurrection and the Life

The One nothing compares to

Perfect One in All Ages

The Who Outlives Eternity

spikedcylinder:
I don't know why many christians don't admit that saturday is the true sabbath and it was changed to sunday for political reasons.

Hi spikecylinder,

I'm one of those many Christians who disagrees with you - because nowhere in the Bible does it show that "the true sabbath was changed to sunday for political reasons." Sunday being the first day of the week was the normal day early Christians gathered for worship (Matt. 28:1, Mark 16:9 and Acts 20:7) - not based on political reasons - but rather, because it was on that day that Christ rose from the dead, demonstrating the follwoing things:

(a) His victory over Satan, sickness and death (I Thes. 4:14)

(b) that He was indeed the Son of God (Rom. 1:4)

(c) the establishing of a better covenant based on better promises (Heb 8:6)

(d) His sovereignty as Head of a new creation, for old things have passed away. ( I Cor. 15:20)

Christ rose on the first day of the week - Christians gathered on that day for worship - and the practice continues down to this day, whether politics or not.

Regards.

Thank you ma broder - that is what I have tried to show all along. Anyone could drink wine and strong drink - their choice. But Spirit-filled believers know how to make choices that make them great men and women of faith. Bless you.

Thanks for setting out the points of your concern, Enigma.

Note these few that you might again have missed:

(1) Nowhere did I state that drinking strong drink was soooo wrong - I have maintained the view that strong drink is not encouraged among Spirit filled believers (Eph. 5:18). Something being so wrong and being not encouraged are two different things - yes?

(2) What you call a secondary point is taken - however, the bigger picture was not the "commandment" or the "choice" to do this or that; I offer you what I have before - the bigger picture was to "learn to fear the LORD always". Think about it for a moment: would it have mattered at all that they tithed or drank water or strong drink based on what God said - if the fear of God was lacking? Clearly, God Himself stated that the whole purpose for the Deut. 14:22-29 passage is just this: "that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always." (verse 23).

(3) The real issue was not the spending of tithe money on strong drink - there was a more important issue than that; which was that they were commanded to tithe (v.22). I use 'commanded' deliberately here because -

          (i) everyone was supposed to tithe - if anyone did not tithe, it would be a contravention of God's word on that

          (ii) not everyone who tithed actually bought strong drink - if some tithed and chose to buy other things, they
               would not be contravening God's commandment on tithing.
    The stronger issue in that verse was tithing, rather than on purchasing strong drink.

Now to answer some of your questions:

(a) that the people did not bring up the issue of strong drink and God Himself did - I did not debate that heretofore. But why then would it be a "choice"? First, because whatsoever your soul longs for is a matter of choice, not commandment; God does not command your soul to lust or long after something - it is matter entirely up to you. Second, the underlying reason why it was a choice was because they were to learn to fear the LORD [their] God always (v.23). You choose to walk in God's fear, and Deut. 14:26 was one way a man could demonstrate it.

(b) Sorry, I didn't say that they did wrong by drinking strong drink and wine. Wine in scripture is spoken of as cheering both God and man (Judges 9:13) - and I've said this a number of times in earlier posts. However, even if wine symbolically represents rejoicing in God, there are loads of scripture warning against its indiscreet use; an example - "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise." (Prov. 20:1).

(c) Good point - but not balanced. There could be a choice offered within a commandment and that does not mean that the choice within the commandment automatically becomes a law. Let me put it simpler: "(i)This is the commandment:tithe. (ii) You have a choice to spend your tithe on any number of things."

A commandment is not always established by "Ye shall/shalt" - check the following and correct me where I may be wrong:

              A. Commandments - they had no choice in the matter but to strictly obey what was stipulated:

    Exo. 12:5 - Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats.
    Exo. 12:10 - And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall
                        burn with fire.
    Exo. 12:20 - Ye shall eat nothing leavened; in all your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread.
    Exo. 20:23 - Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold.
   
              B. Choices Within Commandments - they were free to make choices between alternatives offered them

    Lev 12:6-7: "And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, for a son, or for a daughter, she shall bring a lamb of the first year for
                      a burnt offering, and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation,
                      unto the priest: Who shall offer it before the LORD, and make an atonement for her; and she shall be cleansed from the issue
                      of her blood. This is the law for her that hath born a male or a female.
    Lev 12:8 - "And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt
                      offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.
    Lev 19:5  And if ye offer a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD, ye shall offer it at your own will. (no compulsion)
   
Notice that there was a commandment in Lev. 12:6-8; but there was a choice between alternatives - a woman was not to bring everything in those verses, she was to bring either
                   (i) a lamb of the first year for a burnt offering; and a young pigeon, or a turtledove, for a sin offering
                  (ii) if she was unable to bring the above, she could bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt
                       and the other for a sin offering.
She could not bring all the items in those verses.

This may not be related to tithing and drinking wine etc.; but it just shows that when we read carefully, choices can be offered within a commandment.

My points again:

I did not make the inferences you thought I did. Deut. 14:26 was not a commandment to spend tithe money on strong drink - it was rather a choice among several other things to spend the tithe money on - "for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth." Moreover, notice that God was using that small word ["or"] you missed all this while? He said to buy this or that or the other, etc. It was their choice to buy whatever they chose.

Regards.

nferyn:
thx 4get_me,

I agree with everything you said in the last post, except maybe for one addition: when it comes to the natural world, science is vastly superior to any other intellectual endeavor at determining truth. Other fields of learning don't even come close.
The ultimate why [/i]is very much a function of our temporal human existence and cannot be decoupled from it. [i]Why [/i]is a question that is only relevant to us humans. Maybe [i]why [/i]isn't even a valid question in the grand scheme of things

@nferyn,

I'm staggered - please don't let the scientific community hear or read that last line of yours:

"Maybe [i]why isn't even a valid question in the grand scheme of things."

No, it is a valid question - as equally legitimate as other questions, and I find it untenable that it is this very question that some have continued to excuse through the back door. As long as we see this as a weak scientific element in scientific investigations, questions will continue to be asked that elude scientific thinking. At best, science cannot explicate the why of existence in the grand scheme of things; but for any scientist to ignore that question is to fail to appreciate the very core of human existence, or any other existence for that matter. That is why scientists are all the more asking the why question today than in the past - because they suddenly woke up to realise that they've not properly done their home work.

Don't get me wrong: I appreciate science of whatever field, whether the natural or social sciences. But the beauties of the scientific mind and thinking are too constrained in answering questions of the complexities of existence. Both concerns of evolutionism and creationism are simply seeking answers to the question of existence more than anything else. There are widely divergent views as to the inferences, deductions and interpretations of the complexities of origins and existence; the latter of which is of the most concern to me, and I'm sure, to many people as well - religious or non-religious.

However you look at it, scientists in modern philosophical thinking are not seeking to find out merely what exists where; they realise that until an answer is obtained as to the why of what exists where, the basic question of the complexities of origin and existence will remain outside the core reality of our existence in the first place.

I'm persuaded to believe that such questions of the why of the complexities of origin an existence (rather than, and more than, the what how and where questions) is one of the things that informs many skeptic minds in taking a second look at what they've largely ignored. Professor Anthony Flew is not a religious man, as far as I know; but he definitely was concerned about the question of complexities of origin and existence - and it wasn't long ago that he eased up a little and took a deistic worldview on this perspective we're here dealing with at the micro level.

I offer you that the why question is really important in the grand scheme of things, and as long as we're playing down on that, more questions than answers will continue to emerge that science will find cumbersome to handle.

Enjoyed your challenging intellectual exercise, so far.

@Enigma,

Perhaps you're deliberately reading things that are not there and you keep repeating yourself needlessly as though you don't take the time to read through the replies or spend time looking up the verses a bit more carefully.

   #  "God told them to do it" does not imply that if they did not, He would punish them - did I ever make that inference?

   #  "God told them to do it" - does that sound like He was commanding them to do so or He was setting a choice
         before them?

   #  "God told them to do it" - did I object that He did; or did I state that He did not?

What Deut. 14:26 shows is not a commandment - "whatsoever thy soul lusteth after" sounds like a commandment to you, does it? Then please read the text again carefully. You're trying to see it as though if some did not spend their tithes on strong drink, then they would have contravened His commandment, and thus liable to judgement - that's not my inference, it's yours. If they did not spend tithe money on strong drink, God would not have judged them - it was a choice.

God instructed Jeremiah to set pots of wine before the Rechabites - it was a direct insruction from the LORD to them, but they declined: did He burn them in hell? Please look closely at what I have written before drawing inferences I never made.

Peace.

@nferyn,

Thanks for smoothening things off. My basic questions are simply what science has failed to provide an answer to (and you have admitted that it perhaps may not be able to do so for a very long time to come) - that is the question of the why of existence. Scientific interpretations have not always been the same, so philosophy and religion should not be clobbered just because some people feel that science is superior to every other field of learning and experience, which clearly is not the case.