Nlmediator seems to be the only one getting the same vibes as I am - this is so disheartening

Post #183 finally passed Gary's message to me. Still, there were too many words here and nothing was gained

garyarnold:

@wordtalk,

And where did the KJV ever use the word income?

I have shown what Hebrew word conveys several meanings INCLUDING the word INCOME - see it here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-739830.0.html#msg8970086  

Then I asked you: "what word do you know in the Bible that is used for INCOME and REVENUE?"

You can either argue that there is no Hebrew word used for INCOME - which then would mean that you deny the word in those verses that actually convey the meaning of INCOME. It is not that no such word exists in the Bible - you just don't like to see it used as INCOME.

The word used is not the issue. A duck is a duck whether you call it a duck or not. Income is income whether you call it income or not.

If the word used does not matter or is not the issue, then why have you been hell bent to make that an issue simply because it is not your preferred word? So, indeed there is a Hebrew word IN THE BIBLE that is commonly understood as including the meaning of INCOME - but where is your verse for the Hebrew word for "ASSET"?

An assets is an asset whether you call it an asset or not.

Just show me the verse, please.

When you want to know if something is income or an asset, consult a reliable accountant.

Which accountant - 'Gary Arnold Finances Without Budgeting Inc.'? I'll pass - thanks. Or those "accountants" you can conveniently recruit for your man-made "ASSET" that you haven't been able to show from the Bible? You know how to complain about "man-made dictionaries" - so please give me the Hebrew word for "ASSET" in the BIBLE! Don't even try to cheat or change your goal posts on this one!

nuclearboy:

Nlmediator seems to be the only one getting the same vibes as I am - this is so disheartening

Post #183 finally passed Gary's message to me. Still, there were too many words here and nothing was gained

Sorry Nuke, but I'm interested to know why you find these proceedings disheartening?

@Wordtalk,

I said the KJV of the Bible does not use the word income. I don't care what Hebrew definitions are, words have several meanings and the KJV did NOT choose income. You must think you are smarter than those who translated the KJV.

I am out of here for now. Wordtalk is just to irritating.

garyarnold:

@Wordtalk,

I said the KJV of the Bible does not use the word income. I don't care what Hebrew definitions are, words have several meanings and the KJV did NOT choose income. You must think you are smarter than those who translated the KJV.

Please show me your KJV verse for "ASSET". Just that one will do - it's not difficult, unless you just want to cheat in the hope that nobody will notice.

IEnigma:

Because we're getting no-place! think the problem here is emotions. They have risen so high that they cloud not only judgement but even understanding of the questions

@Gary:

Please stop for awhile. Just hold on so this mess is unravelled!

@wordtalk:

Look at this matter this way -> Abram did give a tithe of ALL he won from war. That "tithe" was

1. Voluntary as it was his decision
2. But that also meant he chose what to tithe I.e. Spoils of war

He could also thus have chosen to tithe only on "SOME" or to have tithed on othet things

I believe this is what Gary used to deduce : IF Abram is our example of a tither, then someone, say me, could (using the same owner-decision capability) decide (once in my life) to tithe a 20 dollar gift I got yesterday and by above criteria, still be considered a tither as much as any other person who tithes daily and on everything.

The above is so of course, only if Abram is our basis for tithing. If he is not, the allegory does not stand

His question thus is with the stated, do you agree a one time tither (like Father Abram) is as justified (tithe-wise) as an Israeli vineyard owner in the time of King David?.

If all would leave the flOor to wordtalk, we may get someplace now

@ Nuke

If you read my posts carefully, you will see that I have remained calm --- so it is not about emotions. It is about fighting an insidious technique --- of "we are on the same side" when the person saying so is truly trying to undermine.

See the simple question: Mr A chooses to give 10% of his (monthly) income to charity rather than into church: I have no problem to call him a tither or a giver or his action either tithing or giving!


Why would someone who believes in "voluntary" tithing have difficulty accepting such an act as "tithing" and the person as a "tither"?

Unless the person really agrees with the "lemon" (but does not want to say so openly) that it is not appropriate to call it tithing since it is not given in/to church?

nuclearboy:


@wordtalk:

Look at this matter this way -> Abram did give a tithe of ALL he won from war. That "tithe" was

1. Voluntary as it was his decision
2. But that also meant he chose what to tithe I.e. Spoils of war

He could also thus have chosen to tithe only on "SOME" or to have tithed on othet things

I believe this is what Gary used to deduce : IF Abram is our example of a tither, then someone, say me, could (using the same owner-decision capability) decide (once in my life) to tithe a 20 dollar gift I got yesterday and by above criteria, still be considered a tither as much as any other person who tithes daily and on everything.

The above is so of course, only if Abram is our basis for tithing. If he is not, the allegory does not stand

His question thus is with the stated, do you agree a one time tither (like Father Abram) is as justified (tithe-wise) as an Israeli vineyard owner in the time of King David?.

Thank you, nuclearboy. I don't get what you mean by "justified". I believe I have answered this question and don't see a need to repeat it here. If you still want me to give an answer again, please clarify on "justified".

Enigma:

If you read my posts carefully, you will see that I have remained calm --- so it is not about emotions. It is about fighting an insidious technique --- of "we are on the same side" when the person saying so is truly trying to undermine.

Let's just be clear here. Who exactly would you mean by "the person" trying to undermine?

Sorry!

Let me rephrase -> is an "Abram (one time tither who decides he wishes to tithe on one loaf of bread once in his life)" as much a tither as a salary earner who tithes on every dime that gets into his hands?

My question is based on the Abramic example that has us saying tithes came before the law (alluding to him as a tither) in effect, WAS Abram a tither and can people do exactly as he did, decide to pay once (probably on a gift or cash they found by the wayside) and YOU agree they are tithers?

nuclearboy:

Sorry!

Let me rephrase -> is an "Abram (one time tither who decides he wishes to tithe on one loaf of bread once in his life)" as much a tither as a salary earner who tithes on every dime that gets into his hands?

My question is based on the Abramic example that has us saying tithes came before the law (alluding to him as a tither) in effect, WAS Abram a tither and can people do exactly as he did, decide to pay once (probably on a gift or cash they found by the wayside) and YOU agree they are tithers?

Abraham gave tithes - Israel gave tithes. If that should bring issues about whether one should be called a "tither" and the other not a "tither", the important thing is that what they gave is TITHES.

I am not fixated on just one "example" because I have made this comment when garyarnold raised just about the same question -

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

wordtalk:

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

But my brother, this is not so difficult! Okay - Suppose I too and like Abram have paid tithes ONCE in my life - am I a tither?

Or specifically, was Abram a tither? Can we follow his example?

I've been absent from this thread, but I have managed to read the last two pages. . . I have to call some of you out though.

There's no need to descend into name calling  - both Enigma and wordtalk are guilty of this. We are all supposed to be brethren and creations of God, so no need to demean each other.

My personal views on some of the contentions at present:

- It is quite pedantic (and not beneficial) to argue over whether an 'asset' or 'income' was explicitly mentioned in the bible. If you give from what belongs to you, that should be sufficient.

- If you are willing to pose questions, it only follows that you should give responses when questioned in return. While not taking sides, it almost appears as if wordtalk's views are on trial here and the 'judges' have the right to question but not be questioned.

- As far as I'm concerned, whether you give 10% or 1%, and give it to church or someone in need, as long as your heart is right with God it is recognised by Him, whether you call it tithing, giving or donations is more a matter of semantics than anything else

By all means let the discourse continue, but let's reduce the confrontational/defensive nature so we can learn from each other.

^^^ Could you point out the name calling I did --- other than my "sleight of hand comment" which I stand by?

Could you point out the question that I have not answered on this thread other than refusing to say what I do in terms of my giving?

@nuclearboy,

Let me explain something to you that you don't seem to get. I have borne with these chaps for so long in the assumption that they would be reasonable. I took time to succinctly explain my position - and you had no problem with that. The problem for them is that they do not believe that 'voluntary' means 'voluntary' unless it must-needs be read in precisely what they hope to see.

So, if I have made my case clear on voluntary tithes, how is that an issue? On the one hand, garyarnold wants to argue long and hard on tithing not based on income; whereas Enigma has been arguing initially on tithing based on income - are they saying the same thing? So much ho air passing here and there, until I felt something was amiss - which was why I felt it was probably best to ask THEM their own question. The evasive swings from them were uncalled for - it is rather an unwillingness to discuss that would make someone ask questions and refuse to oblige answers when questioned!

If this whole drama from them is to try and find a gap where they can hang on to accuse me of arguing for voluntary tithes while actually meaning compulsory tithes, that is simply disingenous! How else do I have to express my position on this matter? Or is it not clear enough?

debosky:

I've been absent from this thread, but I have managed to read the last two pages. . . I have to call some of you out though.

There's no need to descend into name calling - both Enigma and wordtalk are guilty of this. We are all supposed to be brethren and creations of God, so no need to demean each other.

Thank you for showing such maturity, and it's true I have been guilty of what I did not want to be drawn into. I apologise.

My personal views on some of the contentions at present:

- It is quite pedantic (and not beneficial) to argue over whether an 'asset' or 'income' was explicitly mentioned in the bible. If you give from what belongs to you, that should be sufficient.

- If you are willing to pose questions, it only follows that you should give responses when questioned in return. While not taking sides, it almost appears as if wordtalk's views are on trial here and the 'judges' have the right to question but not be questioned.

That's precisely what I've been trying to say in so many words! Thanks again.

- As far as I'm concerned, whether you give 10% or 1%, and give it to church or someone in need, as long as your heart is right with God it is recognised by Him, whether you call it tithing, giving or donations is more a matter of semantics than anything else

By all means let the discourse continue, but let's reduce the confrontational/defensive nature so we can learn from each other.

Good reasoning.

@ Enigma

Don't turn me into the name-calling police oh.

What I meant was that the language/demeanour of the exchanges was getting demeaning and non-respectful - let's move on from that as it distracts from the main issue.

As for the question you didn't answer, you provided two 'sample' answers - you can confirm which of the two aligns with your view without having to disclose the details of your own giving practice.

If you did confirm which answer you agreed with, apologies for the oversight.

In all sincerity, your position was clear to me after my first question to you and your response!

Maybe my problem here is the same Debosky mentioned - I was not in the thread, just joined, saw a couple of posts (especially the one I quoted you from) and jumped in. So I may not have a concise idea where this is coming from.

My continued questions (from them, as it were) come from bewilderment at why something seemingly so simple became so personal.

Plus the last question brings something to light (in me). If pro-tithers state that Abram instituted tithing, I think its only fair they follow his rules! If its the Mosaic law, then the rules in that should hold sway! So which is it?

I ask that last question sincerely because in my estimation, it puts all pro-tithers in a quandary and I wonder if scripture and good sense can get them out of it - I want to know.

I am NOT trying to put anyone in a corner and you can see Enigma who is one of my closest friends (part of my 'gang' as our unfriendly unhappy NL pastor would say) is also now wondering at me!

@debosky

You see, I resent the false accusations -- especially now you can't sustain them against me.

As to my "two" answers --- here you make another false accusation ---- the two answers are one and the same except one is an expansion of the other. Read it again --- carefully!

Nuke

I no wonder at you oh! I know where you stand ----- my only concern is to have a true appreciation of where wordtalk stands. I maintain that an honest and straightforward answer to the following simple question would have looooooooooong settled the issue.


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

nuclearboy:

I ask that last question sincerely because in my estimation, it puts all pro-tithers in a quandary and I wonder if scripture and good sense can get them out of it - I want to know.

This was why I noted that it is unfair for people to generalise or tar everyone with the same brush. This is the same mistake that many people who oppose tithing have made - they assume by default that any pastor who even remotely mentions tithes should be considered as [- - - - - (all sorts)- - - -], and that doesn't make sense in face of the reality on ground. If I stated my case as simply as I could, and there is nothing there that you saw to have put me in the said quandary, should we then assume that you're justified in making that assumption? Would that not be ignoring what has been shown in order to maintain such an unfair assumption?

I don't try to put everyone or anyone in a default position on whatever side they hold on this subject. I don't mind if others want to so earnestly argue their own biases into my position. What would be funny to observe is that they do so by totally ignoring what I have said for myself.

Enigma:

@debosky

You see, I resent the false accusations -- especially now you can't sustain them against me.

Ok sir - I apologise. Like I said in my previous post, the import was the increasingly fractious/dismissive nature of some posts. I simply felt that was not beneficial to the conversation.

As to my "two" answers --- here you make another false accusation ---- the two answers are one and the same except one is an expansion of the other. Read it again --- carefully!

Ok sir. Accspt my apologies again.

^^^ No problem and I really appreciate that.

The "two" sample answers one matters to me in particular but I'm glad you now see my point.

The name calling one ---- I've been through the posts again (I stand by "sleight of hand" and "chicanery"; other than those two the only other pejorative words I have used are "tithe mongers" and "lemon" (not even directed at wordtalk and only 'borrowed' for short term purposes). Don't get me wrong; I can be very caustic when occasion demands --- but I haven't been so on this thread. 

@ Enigma

With regards to your question, is the answer below not sufficient?

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

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

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

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

I think the crux is that it is up to the individual to tithe in the way he/she deems fit. That individuals have their own inclinations of how to give/tithe shouldn't mean that they are castigated for expressing a preference.

Again if I have misconstrued things, I am happy to be set right - I'm just trying to progress the conversation.

OK, can I pose these questions to you --- let me test your answers and we will then determine the sufficiency of the answer you point out.

If we believe in voluntary tithing, then:

1. If a person sets aside 10% of his income and gives that 10% to widows/charities and maybe separately gives 5% to "church", is that person "tithing" and a "tither"?

2. If a person sets aside 10%, uses it to buy provisions for widows/orphans etc and gives a separate 5% into church, is the person a "tither" and is that person's action "tithing"?

Enigma:

1. If a person sets aside 10% of his income and gives that 10% to widows/charities and maybe separately gives 5% to "church", is that person "tithing" and a "tither"?


2. If a person sets aside 10%, uses it to buy provisions for widows/orphans etc and gives a separate 5% into church, is the person a "tither" and is that person's action "tithing"? 

In the sense that tithing (in its simplest meaning) is giving 10%, then yes the person is a 'tither'.

My personal view in this regard is that it is ultimately up to the individual. I may prefer to give the 10% into church, because I feel that is the best channel, others might decide to split it as they deem fit.

The most important element in my view is the intent of the giving - if it is done to honour God, who/what body receiving the giving is immaterial.

On a more general note, if we do believe in voluntary tithing, why is it 'important' to define what an individual's own idea of tithing is, as long as it remains an individual opinion and not the sole acceptable means of tithing?

Again i am coming in midstream and the above question might have been answered previously.

debosky:

My personal view in this regard is that it is ultimately up to the individual. I may prefer to give the 10% into church, because I feel that is the best channel, others might decide to split it as they deem fit.

Would this be drastically different from this -

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

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

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

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

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-739830.96.html#msg8974839

@debosky

Ah, that was all we asked ---- the person IS a tither!

Obviously one who gives it in/to church is a tither so there is no debate there.

However, like you said, it does not matter whether that 10% is given OUTSIDE the church, the person IS still a tither!

Now here is a thing: one person on this thread said openly that it is not appropriate to call it tithing because it was not given in church. Well, it is this same question that wordtalk refused to answer directly.

Why did you not have problems answering it directly? Because you truly believe in voluntary tithing. In other words "voluntary" means "voluntary" which also means that the tither determines how and where to disburse the 10% --- which may be entirely outside "church".

^^

I see your point, but I think this is simply a difference of approach.

I may be willing to address a specific case that you have put forth, others may not (for whatever reasons).

My view would be that, in this context, allowing for other opinions and leaving it up to them is essentially the same as saying the persons in your examples are tithers. My saying yes or no doesn't really change the intent of the person in question, and i really don't have any authority to deem them 'tithers' or otherwise, especially since we've already agreed this is voluntary (i.e. self determined).

However, if the debate is about who is a tither or what constitutes tithing with people holding definitive (i.e this is right, that is wrong) views on the subject, then this question would be important.

I don't think the overall discourse has been about defining a tither/or applying the term exclusively to those giving in church. As a result I don't really see the value of trying to get an specific yes or no on a hypothetical giver, when it is only going to be an opinion, not a definitive answer.

I think you should read the thread from the beginning again --- and you will probably see why the question was important. Moreover, the issue is not about one person's practice but rather what the Bible teaches.

But at least we got "somewhere"!

@ wordtalk

I really commend your strong stand on truth.

wordtalk:

Abraham gave tithes - Israel gave tithes. If that should bring issues about whether one should be called a "tither" and the other not a "tither", the important thing is that what they gave is TITHES.

That's just simple enough. We don't need to go into the nitty gritty of the circumstances by which they gave tithes. The bible didn't indicate the details . important thing is the fact that tithing is a spiritual deed in relationship with God.