₦airaland Forum

Word!

Excellent article and well written.

In addition to what trustman has written above :

I wish to respond to Image123's Rebuttal M5 by making comments on three issues, even though Candour has done a good job at responding to it already:

1. The matter of tithing getting its definition as agricultural produce or food.

2. The historical account on tithing and the need to quote BC and AD

3. Free will Giving.

1. The Tithe Definition

Image and his partner have gone a great length to argue that it is wrong to limit the definition of the tithe to agricultural products since tithes were given by Abram and possibly by Jacob and those included things other than agric products. The first time we would hear the God of all the earth mention tithe is in Leviticus 27. In the Genesis account were tithes were given by Abram and Jacob there is no account of God instructing them to give the tithe. We see that the tithe that Abram gave was in keeping with the tradition of his time to give a tenth of war spoils to Kings or Priest; and from Hebrew 7 we see that that action was a prophetic act that will help us understand Christ as one with a Priesthood of the order of Melchizedek: a priesthood greater than that of Aaron. As for Jacob's account of tithing, there is no evidence that he gave the tithe he promised. And in two incidences after that account, there is no reference made to the tithe Jacob promised to give. In Genesis 35:1,10-15, God again appears to Jacob and recalls the incidence at Luz were Jacob had made the promise to God. In all of the account in that scripture, there is no where God reminded him to tithe. Rather God recounted his promise to him and the fact that he will meet it - an example of grace. In Genesis 48: 3-4, Jacob recount again this incidence at Luz but he didn't say anything about his promising to tithe, how he kept his promises or otherwise. Rather, he spoke of the grace of God and how God has kept his word up till that time. That was the purpose of the encounter at Luz: for God to reveal his grace to Jacob and for him to receive it with thanksgiving. Rather, like Peter on the mount, who thought he could build shelter for Jesus and the prophets revealed, Jacob also felt he could trade with God. "Bless me and I will tithe, etc." At the end of the day, Jacob realized that it was all God and none of him.

It was not until Leviticus 27:30-33, that we see God mention tithing and it was under the context of the laws given by Moses:

30 And all the tithe of the land, whether of the seed of the land, or of the fruit of the tree, is the LORD'S: it is holy unto the LORD. 31 And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof. 32 And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the LORD. 33 He shall not search whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it: and if he change it at all, then both it and the change thereof shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed.

Since up till now, God had not spoken of a tithe and all the tithe given by the patriachs in a dispensation different from that of Moses were very much like free will offerings, the description above, which is the first mention of tithe from God's lip, is the safest to call a definition of the tithe. And from Leviticus 27 we see a couple of things that God will call his tithe:

a. The tithe is the Lord's and it is holy.
b. The tithe is to be taken from the seed of the land or the herd of the flock.
c. As, we will see in Numbers 18:21, this tithe is to be given to the Levites.

This is the reason the tithe is defined using Leviticus 27. And all through scripture from this point on, the tithe remained agric products until sometimes in the 19th century when it became monetary.

The Issue of BC or AD:

Christianity did not start in our time. Christianity did not start with the Azuza street revival and Pentecostals need to know these truth. Christianity has a history. It started with the death and resurrection of Christ. The record of the apostle ended in Revelation but Christianity did not end there. There have been milestones in the Christian Church and good bible students need to learn Church History to be able to teach scriptures correctly. For example, Jesus spoke of the destruction of the temple in Matthew 24. In AD 70 that prophecy came to pass. It helped confirm the teaching of the apostles in Hebrew 7:12 that with a change of priesthood will come a change of law - the priesthood having changed, its activities were brought to an end with the destruction of the temple. History shows that with the dispersing of the Jews into Gentile nations following that event, the Judaistic religion suffered a decline and tithing was worst hit. In fact no Jew tithes today. We can conclude from this that that event, in which the temple was destroyed, was God's providential means of ending the levitical priesthood, the law that sustained it and the practice of tithing. Why do we wish to re-enact it today?

Another issue is this: when tithe was mentioned in the NT, everyone knew that it was tithing according to the law and not Abraham or Jacob's kind of tithing. They knew it was based on the definition above, agric products, and Jesus' comments on tithing Matthew 23:23 confirms this. By the time of the apostles no one could collect such tithes from the disciples in the church for obvious reasons: based on this same definition. Even Jesus would have broken the law to collect tithes in his earthly sojourn. However by the time the Catholic Church will re-enact it in the 6th century they defined the tithe based on agric products only, and not money. It was not until the 19th Century that American preachers popularized the tithes as monetary.

So there is simply no way to talk about tithing without tracing its history. This is the reason why Candour and Miiwerds mention it. For Image to simply choose to discard all these historical accounts is probably because it helps jettison the monetary tithes that is fraudulently or ignorantly collected in many churches today.

3. Free Will Giving

Following the death and Resurrection of Jesus, and the enactment of the Church, there is not one account in which tithes and offering were received in the church. The closest that we have to any kind of giving were some collections made with the purpose of meeting the needs of the poor. However we have a template for which any kind of giving can be done in the Church. It is 2 Corinthians 9:7

7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

Free willed giving.

Now, bc of the emphasis on tithes, very little emphasis is paid on free will giving. Truth is that if the church will give the way God want them to, they will give much more than what is gotten from the tithe. Why? What informed the writing of Paul in 2 Cor 9 was the need to raise money for poor folks in Jerusalem. We see that one of the people who responded were those in Macedonia. Paul said though they were poor also, they gave generously. what informed this giving? The fact that they had given themselves first to the Lord and then God could command what else to do with their finances. This is the key. In churches today, we do not have people who have given themselves to the Lord and for this reason free will offering is very poor. The only way for the clergy to get money is to institute the man-made doctrine of compulsory monetary tithing. If not no one will give anything. In the day of God's power people will be willing. That there is an un-willingness to give shows that there is no power in church. In spite of all that is said in many of these tithe collecting churches, a good number of people still do not tithe!

So the solution is to go back to the basics. Ministers must trust God to preach, live and desceminate his word until people give themselves first to God and then they can give generously to the church. If this cannot be done, the religious tithing will continue to be sustained at great cost to the life of Christianity and gospel preaching world wide.

END

Following...

Image123: Tomorrow is compulsory sabbath oh. We'd be replying after tomorrow thanks.
Happy New Year in advance, all.

[size=20pt]HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL PARTICIPANTS ON THIS THREAD DISCUSS AND TO OUR AUDIENCE!!![/size]

Bidam: KJV Galatians 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions ...


The Levitical priesthood was added because of the sin of the golden calf.

- Drummaboy

THE LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD WAS OUR TUTOR TO BRING US TO MESSIAH.

KJV Galatians 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

The law = Levitical Priesthood which was added because of the transgression of the golden calf

I have said it that the only thing left is for you to prove that Paul was not an inspired author of scripture. Until then...

I have no further comments on this matter.

DrummaBoy: @ Goshen

I am a so called anti-tither but I cringed when I read Candour say that Christ did not tithe. I think a better way of putting it is that there are no records of Jesus tithing in the NT. If tithing was meant for people involved with agriculture, it makes sense to say that Christ did not tithe since he was a carpenter; but still it is safer to say there were no records of Jesus tithing than saying out rightly he did not tithe. I knew that Candour and Miwerds had opened up an opportunity for tithers to key into in making that statement and I am just going to watch and see how they come out of this.

And they did come out of it with this excellent explanation from Candour:

To use Matt 5:17 as proof that Jesus had to have tithed is proven to be fallacious. Jesus kept only the ordinances that pertained to Him. Some of the ordinances could not apply to Him. He was not a sinner, so He did not need to go to the Temple yearly with a sin offering. To take one to the Temple, He would be professing Himself a sinner and therefore unworthy to be the needed Sacrifice for the Redemption of mankind. A woman, after giving birth, was required to go to the Temple with sacrifices. Christ was not a woman, so that particular ordinance did not pertain to Him. Likewise, the tithe ordinance did not pertain to Him because he wasn’t a farmer nor a herder. We will remind our brothers again that NOT ALL PRACTICES IN THE BIBLE AUTOMATICALLY APPLY TO CHRISTIANS because the cross made and still makes a very big difference.

There is only one thing Bidam has not done, which I believe he will still do on this forum.

Bidam has not told us that Paul is not an inspired author of scriptures.

A lot of people propagate this false truth but Bidam has not joined them. But at the rate in which he is going twisting Paul's writing, re-defining "traditional" or orthodox meaning of scriptures, the next thing is to deny that Paul was inspired.

By that time, I am sure I will not even respond to him anymore on this forum.

QED!

Bidam: The enlarge is a misnomer. I understand where you are coming from. Lemme quote it here.

KJV Galatians 3:19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

This verse is traditionally interpreted to mean that the "Law" was given at Mount Sinai until the coming of the Messiah. After the death of the Messiah on the tree, the "law" loses its purpose.

Is this really what Paul was trying to explain in Galatians 3:19 ?

WAS THE LAW ADDED BECAUSE OF TRANSGRESSIONS?


In order to understand whether is makes sense to interpret these words to mean that the LAW was ADDED because of TRANSGRESSIONS, we need to realize several things.

Is is possible for the law to be added because of transgressions?

WHAT IS TRANSGRESSION?

KJV 1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.


SIN = TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW

IF the LAW was ADDED BECAUSE of TRANSGRESSION then it is NOT possible to sin! You can't ever transgress / sin if the law didn't exist prior to Mount Sinai because sin is the transgression of the law (I John 3:4). Therefore the LAW could NOT have been added BECAUSE of TRANSGRESSION because the law needs to exist in order to sin which is the transgression of the law (I John 3:4).

Bidam,

Thank God you cannot re-write the bible. This is what the bible says:

KJV. Galatians 3:19 - Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

As you had rightly quoted at first. And even in the bid to twist the scripture, your resort to modern translations, whose authors' integrity no one knows, the scripture still says the same things. Quoting your version:

GOD'S WORD® Translation
What, then, is the purpose of the laws given to Moses?They were added to identify what wrongdoing is . Moses' laws did this until the descendant to whom the promise was given came to Abraham. It was put into effect through angels, using a mediator.

Whichever way you look at it, the scripture says the same thing and meant the "traditional" meaning as you have rightly stated in the begining:

Bidam:
This verse is traditionally interpreted to mean that the "Law" was given at Mount Sinai until the coming of the Messiah. After the death of the Messiah on the tree, the "law" loses its purpose.

And not this twisted meaning of yours:

Bidam:
IF the LAW was ADDED BECAUSE of TRANSGRESSION then it is NOT possible to sin! You can't ever transgress / sin if the law didn't exist prior to Mount Sinai because sin is the transgression of the law (I John 3:4). Therefore the LAW could NOT have been added BECAUSE of TRANSGRESSION because the law needs to exist in order to sin which is the transgression of the law (I John 3:4).

Whether you appropriate it or not, the blessing of the NT is that there is a generation that do not live by the laws of Moses anymore; there transgression has been blotted out; I dare to say they live "above the law". Yes, there is the law of God imprinted on their heart and with the help of the Spirit they will bear fruits in love; but they are a generation who transgression and sin have been blotted out.

Let us not derail the thread. It is about tithing and discussing the discuss going on in the discuss thread.

I will leave you alone; Goshen will come and handle you for daring to quote him.

Have you ever read these verses in your bible (1 Timothy 1):

7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.

Oops some want to teach the law but lack understanding of its true purpose - saith Paul not me!

8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

I am sure you came across where Candour and Miwerd did justice to this verse in the discuss. If you will use the law; use it lawfully. Don't turn something agricultural to be given to Levithes to something monetary to be given to Pastor and still call it tithe! Use the law lawfully!

9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient,

This is where I am going with all the gist. The law is not made for the righteous. The one who is made righteous by faith in Christ. It is made for:

for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

Are you any of the above that you are so concerned about this law?

I trust you are getting the drift. Now consider:

11 According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

There is a glorious gospel. It is the gospel of God's grace to man. It says there has been an end to the law that there may be no transgression for the righteous. Yes, we are called to good works but this glorious gospel has blessed us with something beyond what we can earn with our good works.

My prayer is that you understand these things... after years of discussing them with you.

Miwerds and Candour are to present next.

I am not sure which it will be: M5 or M6?

Awaiting the Presentation.

Thank Candour for the prompt response and conclusion on M5.

@ Goshen

I am a so called anti-tither but I cringed when I read Candour say that Christ did not tithe. I think a better way of putting it is that there are no records of Jesus tithing in the NT. If tithing was meant for people involved with agriculture, it makes sense to say that Christ did not tithe since he was a carpenter; but still it is safer to say there were no records of Jesus tithing than saying out rightly he did not tithe. I knew that Candour and Miwerds had opened up an opportunity for tithers to key into in making that statement and I am just going to watch and see how they come out of this.

On a prophetic note, however, we can say Christ tithed. How? Jesus was born from the tribe of Judah. Judah was in Abraham's loins when Abraham gave a tithe to Melchizedek. If Levi is said to have tithed in this manner in Hebrew 7, we can definitely say that prophetically Jesus also tithed. That, I believe is the way our Lord fulfilled the law of tithing and probably did not tithe physically while on earth. I use "probably" because we cannot say authoritatively if he tithed or he did not tithe as there are no records of that in scripture. But certainly he tithed in Abraham. Having fulfilled this law of tithing, however, we have no other law of tithing to keep today. The same way he fulfilled all other laws Moses of and we no longer keep them today.

I believe the discuss in getting more and more interesting...

@Audience

First, I want to thank you guys for forbearing with us up until this time. We are about half way through with the discuss.

Remember that when the discussion is concluded, we will have both pro and anti tithe folks on this forum give their opinion on the subject. After that the thread will be open to all to comment; hopefully the thread would be on front page then.

I am trusting God that the vision that propelled this discuss will be realized and that is for people to understand the biblical tithe.

Thank you everyone.

Finally!

Thank you Candour.

Awaiting Image123 and Rhymeyjohn's Response to Rebuttal R5

@Image123 and Rhymeyjohn

Mark Miwerds and Candour have gotten in touch with me privately about their delay in presenting their rebuttal. I believe ti has to do with some challenges Candour is having with internet connectivity, which he had spoken earlier about and which, hopefully, will be resolved very soon. I felt I should remind you and allay any worries you may have in that regards. I believe any moment from now they will be making their presentation.

Thank you for your understanding.

[size=20pt]Rudedough is not an Atheist[/size]

He is just an individual that is unhappy with God because God killed infants in the Old Testament and because God is blood thirsty.

Rudedough should better be known as a satanist because while he has not ceazed to blashpeme God from page 0 of this thread; he sees no evil in Satan.

Now to the question of if Satan has any record of doing evil in scriptures. Like someone said you will find very few instances of these in scripture because the bible is a record of God; it is His-story its talks about not Satan. And because the devil inherently speaks through men and never comes by himself. The bible records him as an angel of light and a liar.

1. When he appeared first in scriptures he came as a serpent and came to tell a lie. He is a liar and Christ confirms this:

44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. [size=16pt]He was a murderer[/size] from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it - John 8:44

Remember I told you Christians are dogmatic; we believe in dogma. Jesus said it; we believe it; it doesn't matter what you think about it.

Jesus says Satan is a liar.

Jesus says Satan is the father of liars.

Jesus says Satan is a murderer. So just as he came in the form of the serpent to lie, it is safe to say he came into Cain and killed Abel. Consider this scenerio:

26 Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon. 27 [size=16pt]And after the sop Satan entered into him[/size]. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly. 28 Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him - John 13
[/i]javascript:void(0);
So Jesus was eventually crucified but who instigated it: Satan through his vessel Judas. Hear Paul:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory 1 Cor 2

Princes of this world can very well mean rulers of this world like Pilate who crucified Jesus. But we know that Satan is the prince of this world:

[i]30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me - John 14

Please note thus far that I have resorted mostly to the New Testament to show how evil the devil is. He may have hidden well in the Old Testament but Christ revealed who he was in the New. Two last scriptures:

10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly - John 10

That thief is the devil.

15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it - Colosians 2

The joy of the Christian life is not about God being blood thirsty. The joy of the Christian life is that God commended love to all humanity that we were yet sinners Christ died for us. If while we were sinners, God could do this for us; how much more when we are sons shall we have access to abundance of life. The work of Jesus on the cross was to triumph over principalities and power - over the devil (Read Ephesian 6) and he gave us full victory.

You can be part of that victory party, rude, if you will let go of your high horse and extreme intelligence that betray wordly and carnal knowledge, to embrace the love of a Father. It is love that told the Old Testament stories, including the ones that portray him blood thirsty. Do you think if God was as wicked and stupid as you paint him, he would do those things and leave a record of them in scripture? It is because he is not a liar. It is the liar, the devil, that ensure that all his tracks are covered through men's evil, while he comes to you as an angel of light.

Forget it Rude, you are not an atheist; you believe in God, you are simply upset with him. However, I trust that the light of the glory of the gospel will shine on you still and you will understand with time.

Cheers.

Defining Principle, from google dictionary:

[size=20pt]principle[/size]

ˈprɪnsɪp(ə)l

noun

1. a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning.
"the basic principles of justice"

synonyms: truth, proposition, concept, idea, theory, postulate;

a rule or belief governing one's behaviour.

"struggling to be true to their own principles"

synonyms: morals, morality, moral standards, moral values, ethics, code of ethics, beliefs, credo, ideals, standards, integrity, uprightness, high-mindedness, righteousness, virtue, probity, rectitude, sense of honour, honour, decency, conscience, sense of duty, scruples More:
morally correct behaviour and attitudes.

"a man of principle"

synonyms: morals, morality, moral standards, moral values, ethics, code of ethics, beliefs, credo, ideals, standards, integrity, uprightness, high-mindedness, righteousness, virtue, probity, rectitude, sense of honour, honour, decency, conscience, sense of duty, scruples More

2. a general scientific theorem or law that has numerous special applications across a wide field.

Consider Joagbaje's definition of principle:

Joagbaje: Principles in Gods kingdom are revealed in scriptures . Right from genesis . Principles goes beyond commandment (the dictionary says that principle is a rule or belief that governs ones behavior. The dictionary thinks prinicple is a rule or commandment and not something beyond a commandment. So we argue that tithing is a commandment, we are closer in defining it than you are) . They are spiritual truths revealed in the bible.

You don't pray because the law commands it, you pray because it's a kindom principle . You worship God not because the law commanded it, you worship because it's a principle . You give offerings to God because it's a kindom principle same goes for tithing , fasting . And other principles revealed in the bible . If you outdate tithing you must outdate offering and prayer and fasting and alms giving also .those against tithe have no single scripture to justify their error . You can't condemn one spiritual principle and leave the rest out.

So in other words, even if an unbeliever practices these "principles" of tithing he would be blessed. Abi? Just as when an unbeliever prays, fast, gives offering, etc, he would receive God's blessing but perish in his sins, abi?

The truth of the matter is that teaching tithing as a principle is another doctrine of man; just as teaching monetary tithes is beyond the pages of scriptures. This principle is better defined as a means to an end. It is the means to a blessing. And since the blessing is what many Christians worship today, the tithe is the prophet or principle or means to it and they must not let go of it. What baffles people like Joagbaje is that some people know they are blessed already and need not turn God's hand or favor in their direction for blessings.

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ Ephisians 1:3

He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? - Romans 8:32

According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: - 2 Peter 1:3

Thus tithing is very irrelevant for them and the tithing "principle" is simply hogwash.

I thank God I belong to that group of people.

I want to ask both parties who have made changes to their original ten points listed to effect the changes on the list on page 0. Also when we make our presentations, let them bear the original title name and scriptural texts as we have them on page O. This is for the sake of our readers; so they will not be confused.

^^^ I think it is a good idea but following the rules of the discuss, the other party party should consent before any changes can be made. We await Image and Rhymey on the above suggestion by Miwerds.

rudedough: @Drummerboy you opened this thread so I am inviting you to discuss about God with your Christian brother. I think he is confusing the human sacrifices I was talking about with Jesus death and Abraham's son Isaac.

Please save your Christian brother before I take him through the path of truth and you end up loosing one more Christian brother.

Drummerboy please ask your Christian brother to stop writing else I take him on the journey of truth through his bible. I beg you, tell him to shut the hell up for peace to reign on this thread.

One more quote and I won't stop until he gives up on religion.

I think truthislight is doing just fine.

I had to excuse myself from this discuss because it became apparent to me that discussing biblical truths with you is trowing pearls to a dog. The difference between him and myself is that he has the patience to barbecue the pearl and make it seem like edible meat for the dog.

I will advice you attend to the matters he has shured up for you; hopefully by the time he is through, you will learn to distinguish truth from a lie and either of two things will happen: it is either you come to faith in Christ or you seal your damnation with the words you're spewing on this thread - on a collision course with that God of wrath you love to hate in the Old Testament.

Carry go my friend!

Thank you Image123 for the Presentation.

Very nice write up. I wish I could believe it

This is Christmas and I really won't want to offend your mentality, if not I would have taken each line and offered a worthy rebuttal on it. Anyways happy "resurrection" for your thread!

One minute comment on the write up though: The principle that tithing in the Old Testament teaches the New Testament church is giving and not tithing. And that write up itself agrees with this. The writer wishes that more Christians should be faithful givers but should use tithing as a training ground for this. Does the bible teach such? We could as well say that we could wish all Christians were good Christians and thus to achieve this we would use the Laws given to Israel through Moses as training ground.

It makes perfect non-sense!

Merry Christmas OLAADEGBU!!

Goshen360: The covenant before the law was ratified by blood. The covenant of the law (first covenant) was also ratified by blood. The new covenant also ratified by blood. In all cases, something had to be killed to produce the needed blood (in the case of the covenant before the law and that of the law, it was animal which was a shadow of Christ). In the case of new covenant, it was the fulfillment of the shadows which was Christ, blood is the key in ratifying a covenant.

Scripture did not say someone had to die in ratifying the covenant before the law and covenant of the law but of the new covenant. Why? We're told, Christ is the mediator of the new covenant and to effect this new testament, the death of the testator must first be proved and then the covenant takes effect. How each covenant was ratified differs. Blood is the major thing required in all and blood only comes by death, a shadow being fulfilled by Christ's death.

New Living Translation
That is why even the first covenant was put into effect with the blood of an animal. For after Moses had read each of God's commandments to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, along with water, and sprinkled both the book of God's law and all the people, using hyssop branches and scarlet wool. Then he said, "This blood confirms the covenant God has made with you."

^^^ So very well said

rapture_ready: @rudedough

At the beginning of this thread I had thought that you were just some guy with honest questions about God and the bible.

Now it's obvious that you are just some blind crusader on a rampage trying to make God look bad, in other to excuse your atheist beliefs.

You claim to have read the bible over and over again, better than all christians, but all we can see are series and series of erroneous conclusions.

Lemme make this fine distinction for you:

There is a difference between reading - and reading with understanding.

Carry on your roll...

God bless @seemylife @goshen360 @shdemidemi and others.

*unfollows thread*

^^^ I agreed with you up till the point which you unfollowed the thread. Will you come back?

@Enigma

Thine attention needed on this thread: https://www.nairaland.com/1565571/inviting-rudedough-discussion-god

I noticed that this thread has been moved to the General section from Religion. You must have really gotten under the skin of that moderator. I hope these Catholics will not call for your head soon via a 21st Century Inquisition Process

Image123: i clearly stated after christmas, christmas is 25th i think. i opted to post in bits to save time, lets save the insinuations.

I am not insinuating anything, Image123.

I understand you said after Christmas. I only requested a date and time, after the said Christmas; is that too much to ask? I am sure you read the request by Miwerds, what is your response to it? There are four of you in this discussion; we should be considerate of others.

Again, I request Image123 and Rhymeyjohn to give us a date and a time, after Christmas, when you will Present R5.

I believe my request is still within the ambit of the rules we agreed on for this discussion.

Thank you.

@Rudedough

It is my own turn to "chicken" out!

I would no longer be discussing God with you on this thread. Some other Christian can do it but I think I have provided sufficient proof for whatever grouse you have against God and religion in all the posts I have made on this thread.

I still believe that the position you have taken against God for killing infants is an unfortunate one and it proceeds for a very carnal way of looking at a scripture that is deeply spiritual.

Every scripture you have quoted that paints God as a Valian are scripture and very true. I will not disprove them.

As for your question as to whether God is really good and the devil is really bad, I have said enough on that; I do not believe that any other thing I will say on it will change your position.

I wish you all the best my good friend and hope to still meet you up, especially on other tithe threads.

As for those who may want to malign me for "loosing" this "debate"; I would rather take this dishonorable path than get someone who still has a future with God come to discuss Jesus Christ and possibly his Holy Spirit, blaspheme God and seal his damnation.

I will still visit the thread (it is my thread) but will rarely comment.

Cheers guys and Merry Christmas!!!

Mark Miwerds: Concerning our agreement not post to on other tithing threads, I have complied.... but with reserve. As I said at the beginning of the preliminaries to the Discussion, I felt that request was to trap us into something that we should not be trapped in. If God wants me to post in another thread, I cannot due to the restrictions I was made to agree to. And now, this break Are they stall tactics? or is it truly because of Christmas.

If we are made to take a break from this thread, then it is my thought that we should be allowed to post in the tithing threads until at what time this Discussion thread continues.

Pending when we receive the response from Image and Rhymey to Miwerds "protest" above, I will request that Image123 and co should give us a date and possibly time when they intend posting Presenting R5 so that this discuss is not overly elongated.

rudedough: [b]@Drummerboy I've read your reply since yesterday but since then i haven't been myself. I have been pondering upon how you tried to justify the murder of innocent children, suckling babies, and the slicing of pregnant women to smite their unborn children with the sword. I almost cried thinking about this last night.

Can you look within yourself and see what religion has done to you? Look at what your morals and sense of judgement have become. That is what religion does to a man. You talked about grace and sins, you even said "Sin is odious to God. God hate sin. And God will judge sin"

But what sins have these children committed? What sins have the suckling babies in their mothers arms committed? What sins have yet unborn / undeveloped babies committed?

How does God justify killing innocent babies when they had nothing to do with the sins of Pharaoh? Couldn't an all-powerful God simply punish Pharaoh enough to make him change his mind?

How can one kill all the children in Nigeria because the President did something wrong, how does that makes sense to you?

I mean real, live babies in their mother's arms. I mean small children, trying to hide behind the safety of their parent's legs even as their parent is gutted. I mean little boys feeling their life flow out of them through a hole that passes through their lungs. I mean little children who don't even know how to wear their slippers.

I can't believe that you even had the guts to invite me to Christendom despite reading about all the shameful murders and grossly immoral conduct of your God. I think i have had enough of this nonsense and i will like to put an end to this discuss as i am deeply saddened and grossly irritated. I wish you luck in your religion.

END[/b]

@rudedough

Even when I had not read your reply to my post, I did something this morning that I rarely do about my discussions on Nairaland: I prayed that this very discussion will help bring the understanding of Christ in the Person of God to our readers. I thought I should say that for whatever it is worth.

The second point I must state is that I have said in my reply to your question that I believe you are offended with God. It is not a question of whether God exists or not, it is the fact that you are unhappy with him. From your reaction to my reply, this unhappiness stems from why God allowed and supported the killing of infants in the Old Testament, including the ripping apart of pregnant women; and it could include other things that you have not told us here. I do not believe I have an easy answer for you. I do not even think I have an answer. That is why there is the need to pray. The One that can answer you truly is God: and he will give you an answer of peace.

The third point I will like to state is about dogma. Christians are dogmatic. We hold the bible as the word of God and final authority on all issues of life. We may be maligned for it but we simply have no apology for it. That is why I did not dispute the verses you quoted; I only tried to offer some explanations for them.

The fourth thing I must state, sir, is that I do not see the rudedough that I have come to know to be one who will opt out of a discuss that easily. One of the best arguments against tithing in recent times on this forum has come from you; to then "chicken" out of a discuss on God all because of an offence will do great diservice to your person. Or does it reveal something that is yet to be revealed?

The fifth thing: Charles Colson discussed about a famous American Atheist, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, in his book: The Good Life. This woman took American Public Schools to court saying that public prayer and bible reading should be banned in American Public Schools. She won her case at the Supreme Court, bible reading were banned in public schools and became an overnight celebrity. She went on the form an association of American Atheists, that grew to become a very famous association. Rude may be aware of these people. A few years before this woman's death, Mr Colson, a Christian minister met her on a TV show and the host of the show wanted them to discuss the matter of God. Colson presented his reasons why God exists. Miss O'Hair only snared at Colson through out the interview, ranting that God is blood thirsty and that the bible is full of wars were Children were murdered. She refused to discuss any rational thing with this man of God.

Sometimes in the early 90's Miss O'Hair got into some scandals in regards to how resources belonging to the American Atheists group was being used. She was the founder and president (a kind of Pentecostal church). About the time she was going to be indicted, she hired some unscrupulous fellows to help cover her tracks. These guys with criminal records already did a good job but went on to fall out with her. The result of the fallout let to their kidnapping Miss O'Hair, her son and grand daughter for many days. She was declared missing. Many days later her decomposing body and that of her son and grand daughter were found in an isolated place. She had been dismembered and cut in pieces.

The morale of the story? Atheism does not pay. But that is not really the lesson: I wish to show that most atheist really have no argument beyond the fact that God is blood thirsty and kills children. When you explain to them the nature of the Old Covenant and dispensations they snare at it and say all of bible is relevant - the very error of tithe proponents; a position that rudedough uses very well against tithers on this forum but has chosen to stand against to justify his position that God is blood thirsty.

I still maintain the scriptures my friend quoted in page 0 are true and I will not argue against them. But my friend knows very well the difference btw the New and the Old Convenat bc he uses that very argument against tithers on this forum. It is that argument I wish to show to him that justifies a God of grace in the new testament against a God of wrath in the Old.

I am afraid, however, that the more an individual meditates on a lie and allows it to build up offence in him against the truth of the word of God, the more it becomes impossible to penetrate to him. If God asked for the life of children in the Old Testament, it was in keeping with a ministration of death he had with those people then; is there any record of God demanding blood in the NT (My new question to you if you wish to continue the discuss)?

I see that you have returned to the thread and I will encourage that the discussion continues. If however, you are still not interested in continuing the discussion, I believe that you have found all the answers that you have raging against God in this life through his own people. I trust those answers will minister to you and help you to come to faith in the person of Jesus Christ in due time; God is full of grace and love - the very nature of God which he had even revealed to Moses on the mount, even if he didn't practice much of it then until now. We are in a time in which the love of God propelled him to send his Son to die for all men; as many as believe in his will be saved. Those who do not are on a collision course with a God of wrath; revealed in the OT and yet to be revealed in coming dispensations like shdemidemi had mentioned earlier.

Zik:
I don show. O.P bro, I would love to believe like you do. But, i've got a couple of questions for ya'. Please do your
best to answer as logically as possible.

1. What makes your story of creationism fundamentally different from all the others that exist now, have existed before, and will exist in the future?

I believe the biblical account of creationism, as recorded in Genesis, is the first account. There has been no other before. It makes sense that if any other story will come, to gain relevance, it will try to disprove the first. If they say the first is wrong but the second or third are the right one, what is the basis for this. The eternal God Almighty created heaven and earth. The days are coming when the heaven will be destroyed and replaced with a new heaven and earth. May God count us all to be worthy to partake of the New Thing God is going to do

Zik:
2. How did Noah find all of the animals and get them back to the ark? Did he bring them back one pair at a time, or did they all follow him in a line as he visited other continents to collect more animals?

God gave the command for Noah to do bring the animals to the ark; inherent in that command was the ability to carry out the work called grace. The conjecture on how it was done and use this as a basis, to disprove biblical accounts, is the height of folly.

Zik:
3. What did the carnivores eat on the ark?

Same answer as in 2. Or better still What did the Israelite eat in their 40 yrs journey in the wilderness? Does God have oven in heaven?

Zik:
4. How did koalas get to Australia after the ark washed up on that mountain?

I hope you can find the answer in 2 or 3. If you cannot, I do not have any answer for this.

Zik:
5. Why did your god make life that has to destroy other life, often cruelly, in order to survive?

It is called sin. Or better still murder. The first murder was Cain killing Abel. God did not send him. It was the effect of sin that led to this and it is sin that is at the root of all murder. Christ died to save you from your sin(s) so that you or other men may not murder men made in the likeness of God.

Zik:
6. If cruelty and suffering result from a 'fallen world' caused by some original sin of humans, why did your god also punish the animals for it by creating disease, pain and suffering for them too?

I have no answer for this. Scripture does not tell us the consequence of sin on animals. If you have answers you may provide them

Zik:
7. Is it just to punish all humans, including those who weren't born yet, for the sins of one? Would you punish your own younger children for the wrongs of the oldest which occurred before the others were born?

Again God is not man; he does not think like we do. However, the dispensation of grace that we are in has gone beyond punishment for sin; rather we are in a time that there is redemption for sin. Rather than dwell on the punishment, we would appreciate if you understand the Story of Redemption.

Zik:
8. If humans are special creations, why do we share the traits of violence, lust, rage, tribal warfare, homosexuality, etc. with animals?

Sin.

Zik:
9. Why do you believe your god made only one breeding pair (Adam and Eve), instead of many? With only one breeding pair, fathers are forced to have sex with daughters, brothers with sisters, and sons with mothers, in order to propagate the species. Is this a divine endorsement for incest?

Because the scriptures said so. Incest is a definition of man. As at the time of Adam, it was common for close relative to marry each other. Abraham married his half sister. By the time of the law, God prohibited it. Today, there is really no law against it; save for country civil laws. People are discouraged from it for health reasons, basically.

Zik:
10. If all civilisations resulted from Adam and Eve, and oral traditions about the god that created them were passed down from generation to generation, why are there so many other creation stories in the world? Why didn't all civilisations keep their 'true' religion?

The account we have in Genesis is not "Oral Tradition". Those stories were written by Moses as God inspired and commanded him to write it. I have made you to understand that there is no other creation story before the Genesis account; others simply "copy" and adapt what Moses wrote to suit their theologies.

Zik:
11. Why did your god only appear to one group of people? If it can do anything and be everywhere at once, why couldn't it be bleeped to appear to the other people of the world as well?

God is Sovereign. Israel were is chosen one. And you will do well to save the obscenities if you want me to continue any conversation with you. I am a responsible individual and if I find out that your questions are aimed at ridiculing God with obscenities I will simply not respond to you anymore.

Zik:
12. Why do you get your scientific education from people like Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron? These people have no university-level education in science, and in some cases, no university education at all. Wouldn't it be smarter to trust those who are educated, and actively researching, in the field?

I do not know what you are talking about? We are talking God here and not science and scientists.

Zik:
13. Why has the world, including government funding, science journals, reputable newspapers, education standards, etc., moved on without you, leaving your barbaric bronze-age theories in their dust? Why have we made so much progress in our understanding after abandoning religious methodology for a scientific one?

All knowledge is from God. The bible prophesies that at the end of age knowledge will increase. Many scientists were/are Christians. I am a scientist and a theologian for your information.

Zik:
14. Why is there at least some evidence for our scientific theories, but none at all for your creationism?

The evidence is all around you; look up at the sky and behold the birds flying, the vegitation around you; air; the fact that you can take your breadth and not die the next second; it is all God. Science is an extenstion of the manifold wisdom of our God. No true godly person despises science.

Zik:
15. Why is the fossil record arranged in such a way as to suggest evolution?

I know very little about evolution. Many godly people have rationalized evolution in the light of creationism. A simple good search will with the above question.

Zik:
16. Why are the continents shaped like they were once together, and have similar geology on what would be the common edges?

God: Intelligent Design.

Zik:
17. Why are the continents moving apart at a rate that would put them together millions of years ago?

Beyond the scope of this discuss; consult google.

Zik:
18. If humans are special creations, why do we share the same biology, metabolic pathways, etc. with chimpanzees? Shouldn't we have been made completely differently to emphasize the point?

We do share some metabolic pathways but only man is made in the image of God with three entities in one: body, soul and spirit. Animals do not have this.

Zik:
19. To avoid the cruelty caused by life killing other life to survive, couldn't we all have been photosynthetic organisms, using sunlight and inanimate molecules to make our energy? If you're going to say there's not enough energy in photosynthesis, why couldn't your god design a more effective photosynthetic system?

God created the world and he said it was good. All that man needs for life is here and it is in abundance. If there is a need for the suggestion you made above, God will give wisdom for this and we will have the science in operation in no future time. God is the author of all scientific breakthrough.

Zik:
20. Why does the evidence from so many scientific disciplines, astronomy, geology, biology, physics, chemistry, all converge to suggest the Big Bang and Evolution, while at the same time pointing away from your theory?

They do point at creationism. Many scientific discoveries have proven biblical accounts to be true.

Zik:
21. Why do the mathematical models behind scientific understanding of the Universe work so well, while creationists have no mathematical models at all?

Because creationism created Mathematics and all the models it could ever work with.

Zik:
22. Does your creation model or your holy book account for things like quantum mechanics? Why doesn't it seem to contain much useful knowledge at all?

Find your answer above.

Zik:
23. If your god didn't explain quantum nature for these people because they wouldn't understand, then isn't it time your god shows itself and gives us an update now that we have more understanding? Why doesn't it divinely guide some people to write an update to your current holy book? Or is it allowing us to do that through science? Is the reason we don't need an update that science is doing such a good job of answering the questions?

All that needs to be known of God is written in nature. God has taken the effort to also give a good account of himself in the bible. And the best update God has given man is the Spirit of God who makes the very mind of God known to us.

Zik:
24. Why does the human chromosome #2 appear to have been created by the fusion of two different chimpanzee chromosomes, complete with structures which would not be necessary if it was created as a single, unified chromosome?

Question beyond the scope of this discuss. Consider google.

Zik:
25. What is the Cosmic Background Radiation? The CBR is an integral part of the Big Bang model, and is in fact demanded by it. How does your creationism account for it, ie. where does it fit in your model?

26. Why are the galaxies moving apart? Were they once much closer together?

27. Why can we see objects in space that are billions of light years away?

28. What process did your god use to create life? Can you describe how it works?

Question beyond the thread's syllabus. Read the opener again.

Zik:
29. Can you use your creation model to make any helpful predictions that might lead us to further discoveries or understanding?

God the Holy Spirit who inspired the creation story can inspire further discoveries and understanding. Yes.

Zik:
30. What is one prediction that your model can make which could support your creationism to the exclusion of accepted scientific models, and what evidence can you find for it?

That the world that we have today will come to an end. With King Jesus bringing all men to account before him. As many as have not found saving faith in Him will be cast out unto outer darkness. For those who have, they will dwell with him forever in the new heaven and new earth. The proof that this will happen is the fact that this world, in spite of its scientific advancement, is decaying and ready fall apart.

Zik:
There goes. I would be expecting your reply asap. You know I could die and go to hell anytime soon if you don't change my convictions soon.

I really hope my answers have helped you in some way.

Rude this is your question:

Now my question to you is between the character God and the Devil, who has more love in his heart and who’s more evil?

Let me begin by saying that God is not man. Also, God doesn't think like us, his thoughts are far and way beyond ours. Then I must say quickly that God is not humanist. And the case that some make out of the killing of people in the OT and even the killing of animals in our day, as being barbaric is not the way God sees these things.

I will say upfront that I may not be providing scriptures for some of my points bc it will involve more work than I can afford at the moment but you, Rude, being a knowledgable bible person, will know where I am refering to. Also, I want say that this is an exchange and not a debate. I would really love it to lead to you becoming a Christian but if you do not; it doesn't change anything. Hopefully it will help our readers or make some sense to some other atheist who will make the DECISION.

Back to the matter at hand. You have listed a number of scriptures and many of them paint God as, to say the least, barbaric and blood sucking. That is fine. I would not go the extent of disproving these scriptures because that will be running foul of the bible; they are veritable scriptures that anyone can read and those incidences did happen. But let me offer some explanation here:

1. Christ Jesus died that he may save men from sin (Matthew 1:21). Sin is odious to God. God hate sin. And God will judge sin. It was his concern for the sins of men that made him take up flesh and dwell amongst us; eventually dying to provide a solution for this sin. What you listed above in that post is God's reaction to sin. Up until the time Christ died and ressurrected, the dispensation of grace was abscent and men paid for the penalty of the sins they committed. The wages of sin is death. God is not man; he does not think like man. God is a Judge as much as he is love. He will judge sin and when we understand that sin is inherent and not just what men do; we see that the suckling child as much as the grown man is a sinner before a holy God and when God brings his judgement on the land, all men pay for it.

2. Dispensations. God deals with man through dispensations. From what we can understand there have been four dispensations so far. The time of Adam; the Time of Abraham; the time of Moses and the Time of Christ/Church - which is the dispensation of grace. The dispensation of Moses witnessed the giving of the law. With the coming of the law also came the subject of sin and God's righteous judgement of it. Prior to the coming of the law, we hardly read of incidences like the ones listed by Rude. When the law came and sin was defined, man was slayed under judgement. God himself came and judged men's sin; including the sins of Israel and thus we have all those captivity that Israel went on. By the time of grace, this law and judgement circle ceased. And we heard of it no more. That is why there is only one NT scripture in the list that Rude gave to us. There is no other. Even that one is quite understandable as it described the harlot who had or will do abominable things. That harlot is not God; it is the system of this world - Babylon. Its activity have been on going since the Church age began and it will continue till Christ returns. That harlot feeds on the blood of saints. That harlot is not Jesus not God.

With this two points I wish to show then God does not only have love in his heart: GOD IS LOVE! Satan on the other hand is the devil, the deceiver, the destroyer, a lier, a murderer as from the beginning. It was love that drove the Savior to the cross and made him die and ignoble death to save you and I from sin. It is love that makes God forbear with men for years, hoping that his patience can lead them to repentance and faith in Christ. God is a God of love.

It was this love that appeared to me in that room during my undergraduate days and broke me free from my rebellion. God commends his love to you my friends, that while you were yet a sinner, Christ died to redeem you from your sins.

On the other hand, the devil has not iota of love in him.

What I sense in your post is not that you do not believe that God exist, you seem to be mortally offended at him. I can understand what will happen to the psyche of a child who is truly seeking God but ends up with a thorough wiping from an individual God had put in place of himself to explain him to you. No wonder scripture says My people perish for lack of knowledge. If your Dad had taken the time to explain the eternal love of a Father to you then and not bring wrath on you, you would probably have come to know God's love earlier. But it is not too late.

I have read your post on what you think of God's existence but will still like to ask that with all these "evidences" you have against God, can you truly say that you do not believe he exists? Or you would prefer to say that God is the devil, while the devil is God or the good one?

rationalmind: ^ ^ ^lol, nice one only that you won't get an answer

He will get an answer just that it may not be too exhaustive as the questions are many.

Thank you Rude for the post; will get back as quickly as possible to answer the question.

This is coming earlier than I planned:

I was born into a family of a Muslim father and a Catholic Mother. My mother taught us all the basic prayers by Roman Catholics and we recited them. My first perspective of God came from my Mother who will say "God is watching you; so be good". I tried to be good when I remembered that admonition and returned to being bad when I did not remember God.

In 1990/91 I was invited, along with some children in my neighborhood, to a bible study class ran by a Ghanaian man. He was pentecostal. He introduced us to the concept of being born again and he even prayed that we spoke in tongues. I committed my life to Christ according to this man's teachings at that time and had a good time with God at that very young age. When my father noticed that I was becoming fanatical, he withdrew me and my siblings from the bible study and slowly the influence and teachings of that man left me. I remember that what erased my mind of religion completely then was exposure to American Music Videos. The sexy things portrayed on those videos just took my mind off prayer and the study of the word. I was young too and very easily impressionable. By the time Gangsta Rap came to root in Nigeria and we began to have the music of the likes of Snoop Dogg, Dr Dre, Tupac and Biggie Smalls, I left religion completely. My religion became rap music. I had just entered the University then (1994). The death of Tupac and Notorious BIG hit me bad and it was as if I had no prophets to follow. Sometimes I think God took those boys out of the scene for someone like me to reconsider religion again.

In 1998, I was in 300 level, I returned from lectures one hot afternoon and found that my room mates were not back. I made a pot full of rice and beans porridge for the room. Ate my bit and was just relaxing for them to return. I and another chap was squatting with a friend, while there was a fourth chap in the room who was supposed to share the room with my friend ideally (two in a room). This Gentleman was born-again and we hated him. He was the first to come into the room that day. He sat down and I think hen was preparing to leave again; for reasons I do not know, I offered to serve him some food before he left. He accepted. After eating (like Jacob's blessings) he told he me he always knew I was different. He talked to me about Christ and asked me to receive him as Lord. To ward off his presence in that room, because I was becoming increasingly uncomfortable, I decided to accept. Make im just leave me alone; I honestly did not mean to receive any Jesus at that time. I was enjoying my life then and did not want interference. He told me to say some prayers after him I did, half heartedly. Then after it all he prayed for me. As he was praying he began to reveal the content of my heart. Telling me things only God and I could know, and no other man. I was shocked. The room was taken over by a Presence. God began to tell me of his love; that he loved me and that I shouldn't have left him. I honestly expected this God whom I had blasphemed many times through rap music (remember Blasphemy by Tupac? I love that track then!) God, through this man, did not make any reference to the blasphemy, to my hating him, to my having left him all these year; rather he just kept on talking about how he had waited to have me back. I just broke down and began to weep. As I wept the prophecy continued, he told me he will restore me; he gave me many promises. I just sat there and said in my mind what sort of God is this that will reveal himself to a sinner and rather than punish him, he is talking about blessing him. That is the point I submitted myself to the Lordship of Jesus Christ in truth and verity.

Today, I am convinced that mouthing the sinners prayer does not convert anyone; rather it is faith in Jesus Christ that does the conversion. I am convinced that I was converted at the point when I submitted my will to God as he revealed himself to me. The point it really happened, I cannot exactly. Now, the conversion itself was gradual, as it required a conversion mostly in my thinking. So as I studied scripture, especially teachings along Reformed Theology, I began to understand God and accept him by faith into my life. I am still growing in my understanding of God.

I still maintain that religion is an antithesis to the concept of God. And most of what we have today in Christendom is religion. Even the tithe that we debate against on this thread is a product of religion. Religion paints God as evil, when God in reality is love. I met God's love that day and I was transformed.

My question to you, Rude, now, is this: in the light of what you have written about God, can you relate with a God of love? Does the bible teach and show that God is love?