₦airaland Forum

@ debosky

One question: do you reaaally think garyarnold believes people should be tithing from trash can?

Joagbaje:
You didn't establish anything. You are the one shifting grounds. What was you guys claim before ? That tithing is wrong and refers to children of God who gives tithes asMugus.

Look at this fraud  

We have already established the fraud of your own explanation of tithing before  ---- that one no be issue.

What I have established here is that the new style of "voluntary" tithing is another fraud afterall ----  it is not truly voluntary.

Diafor ---- unless the teaching of tithing,, especially "voluntary tithing",  allows the "tither" to give whatever he likes (not being money) anywhere he likes (not being church) both your own wayo and this new "voluntary" tithing are fraudulent. Una all similarly be wayo.  

And yes, mugu plenty for dis world (along with honest misinformed people), dat's why there is still business for una tithe mongers.

Also, while claim of accident is to be taken at face value for which sympathies are rightly due, what of this loss of "viaro log in details" -- personally, I don't find that credible. In all honesty I see the pilgrim.1/viaro/wordtalk* shenanigans in the same light as the Joagbaje/Akhozem* affair!



PS some will have noticed I continued to use "s/he" for wordtalk. 

*PPS In each case there is actually suspicion concerning a number of other IDs --- ironically it was Deep Sight (another double IDer) who pointed one of them out in viaro's case i.e. Telly B

No problem; do indeed feel free to consider me as evasive. It is neither here nor there now --- I have already confirmed conclusively for myself about your "voluntary tithing".

^ E miss road!

(RIP Abami ẹda)

I have established what I need to establish on this thread - for myself and no one else needs to agree with me.

Your message of "voluntary tithing" is deceitful and is in truth not much different from that of Joagabje or newmi --- the difference is that newmi was at least open and upfront with his position on a key issue. (It was always ever thus anyway whether as pilgrim.1 or as viaro)

From my perspective now, this thread is only useful for dealing with any misrepresentations of scripture or deception that I feel compelled to address.

It is a pity because you could make much better use of your abilities. All the best anyway.

^^^ garyarnold also says you can call anything tithing --- why is he challenged on that? With invectives and misrepresentations about trash cans etc?

wordtalk:
^^ Well what? You have made a statement which I don't find in my comments, so I cannot answer for what I did not say. If you feel that I said what you alleged, please quote me.  

Now I say directly that you are indeed duplicitous. Also, I repeat and stand by my sleight of hand charge. I also repeat that some of us always saw through the chicanery.

@ debosky

They are both in exactly the same position --- each says this is what they believe amounts to tithing.

As far as I'm concerned this is the crunch time, this is the time for wordtalk to put up or shut up.

If s/he cannot answer the question then there is no question that s/he is duplicitous - especially when having a go at garyarnold for not accepting that what most people do is "tithing".

Enigma:
^^^ No need to quote you --- all you need to do is answer the two questions I repeated for debosky's sake on this thread page.

I repeat if you cannot answer them or if the answer is that the person is not a tither then you are engaged in double standards when you accuse garyarnold for saying what most people do is not "tithing".

Well ??

^^^ No need to quote you --- all you need to do is answer the two questions I repeated for debosky's sake on this thread page.

I repeat if you cannot answer them or if the answer is that the person is not a tither then you are engaged in double standards when you accuse garyarnold for saying what most people do is not "tithing".

^^^ Then the way you read is different from the way garyarnold reads. So you must stop the double standard of accusing him for saying that what most people do is not "tithing"!

garyarnold:
@ debosky,

Wordtalk is pulling the wool over your eyes again.

Wordtalk says I can call tithing if I give a tenth of my clothes to the Salvation Army.  But Wordtalk won't call that tithing.  Notice how he words things so carefully as to NEVER say that he would call other than giving a tenth of income in the church "tithing."

This is what many people are missing but that is exactly one of the places where the sleight of hand lies!

@wordtalk

All these long posts are just obfuscation as you well know. What is more I notice again you say people can express their "giving" in different ways --- that is not the issue!

The issue is how people can do their "voluntary" tithing"

As I said, if you do not accept giving in the form of 10% of goods or of money outside church as "tithing", then you are engaged in double-standards if you call up garyarnold when he says people not complying with Genesis, Deuteronomy etc are not really "tithing"!

Simples.  

@ debosky

Let me put in further graphic terms what I am saying.

If wordtalk cannot accept that a person who gives a tenth but either not in money or not in church is "tithing", then

why should garyarnold accept that a person who gives a tenth but not in accordance with Abram (Genesis 14) and not in accordance with Deuteronomy etc is "tithing"?

See?

Let us do a small test:

The following two questions were asked of wordtalk (page 3) --- perhaps if you put them to wordtalk you will get an answer; if you don't get an answer then my charge of double standard over garyarnold's concern about "tithing" stands.

Let me try again: there is this fellow Mr Christian who earns 1000 per month. Every month he takes aside 100 and gives it to widows, orphanages and other charities. He may then sometimes give 50 in church in a month or sometimes less to the church.

Is Mr Christian a "tither"?

Let me try once more!

There is this fellow Mr Christian who earns 1000 per month. Every month he takes aside 100, he buys food stuff, clothing, hygiene products etc, and gives these things (not money) to widows, orphanages and other charities. He may then sometimes give 50 in church in a month or sometimes less to the church.

Is Mr Christian a "tither"?

debosky:
WT has avoided any strictures around nomenclature, while garyarnold seeks to enforce strictures on what can/cannot be called tithes and how that is taught. Surely you can see they are polar opposites when it comes to this issue of nomenclature?

If I see examples of WT trying to enforce personal opinion as the 'final word' on a matter, rest assured I will call him/her out on it.

Ah, you too have the wool pulled over your eyes my friend!

Read wordtalk's posts carefully --- any giving of a tenth which is not in money or to church --- wordtalk only ever calls giving. Only giving of a tenth of money and into church does wortalk ever describe as tithing.

Read carefully. That is why i cannot stand the double standard (not of yours) but of wordtalk's about garyarnold having issues with the word "tithing".

@debosky

If you are posing the question about nomenclature (i.e. "whether it is called tithing or not is immaterial" to garyarnold I think that fairness requires that you do the same with wordtalk.

From what we gather wordtalk would say that a person who gives their tenth in money and in church is a tither. If nomenclature doesn't matter, and if you can so 'descend' on garyarnold, I think it is only fair to ask if wordtalk too would agree that a person who gives his tenth in a form other than money or outside church is also a tither.  If this so matters that the latter person cannot be called a tither, then I think it is unfair to descend on garyarnold about nomenclature.  

He has no problem with voluntary tithing if it means the tither can give tenth of anything anywhere.

I think it remains logical for him to have problems with voluntary tithing that means something else ----- on that obviously I am in agreement with him.

I think post #343 above is a misrepresentation of garyarnold's view

He does not believe in "tithing" as taught; he believes it is not even right to use the word tithing BUT if what some of us have concluded is voluntary tithing is what it is he doesn't mind but for himself considers it meaningless to use the word tithe.

I don't think that is an unreasonable position for him to hold.

wordtalk:
This just sums up the base of a rigid anti-tithing preoccupation. You have said earlier that "If those teaching voluntary tithing as we have concluded here, I would have no problem with it", and honest to God I suspected that such a statement had nothing to it - and you just proved yourself. WHY is it that those who say that "if voluntary tithing is preached as" they have seen it somewhere (like on this forum) would go on to claim that they have no problem with it - only to come back denying what they have just claimed?

I don't see anyone compelling you to tithe voluntarily - but to turn round and castigate what you say 'you don't have problems with' is doing you no good at all: at best, it simply deflates your own claims.

^^ Well it does seem there are two views of voluntary tithing here; my presumption is that the voluntary tithing that garyarnold supports is that in which the tither can give the tithe in a form other than money and/or outside "church". I believe this is what he means by "what we have concluded here".

In that case, it would make sense if he criticises 'voluntary' tithing that does not meet that standard.

@garyarnold

I meant did you know that Russ Kelly once posted on this site --- at least, I believe it was him. 

EDIT PS sorry, I understand you now; you mean you participated in that debate.

All this rigmarole really would be unnecessary if Christians and especially the preachers/teachers/"pastors" would really and truly follow or teach according to the simple New Testament message of 2 Corinthians 9:7 interpreted in accordance with Jesus' teaching and emphasis on helping the needy, Paul's stressing of helping poor Christians and general consensus of supporting churches' reasonable* financial costs.

Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

PS @ garyarnold, did you know of this: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-676553.0.html#msg8403977



* i.e. NOT extravagant.

@ wordtalk

I really do not want or expect (or will derive any joy) that you "bend to my terms"

However, I do think the following two questions follow logically and legitimately from all that you have written on at least three threads now. More critically, I think you will clarify things (and perhaps even show me up) if you do please provide direct answers to them once and for all.


1. Is the "voluntary" tithing to be done only using money or can it be done in any other form e.g. with food crops, clothing etc?

2. Is the "voluntary" tithing to be done only by giving money (or any other thing acceptable) in/to "church" or can the tither instead choose to give the "tithe" to widows, orphans or other needy charitable causes?

^^^ I'm afraid while your summation above is reasonable, it is not a totally accurate summation. (Edited  ) The tithing issue has actually been going on in the last couple of days with the poster wordtalk which is what brought up the issue of that poster being the same as viaro. See especially pages 8-10 of this thread https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-739830.224.html

Let me sum up my position first and then demonstrate its difference from viaro's or wordtalk's

1. What the Bible teaches for Christians is voluntary GIVING.

2. Tithing, as an obligation, has been abolished for Christians ---- certainly in the Bible and in the New testament.

3. A Christian can choose voluntarily to do his giving voluntarily in the form of "tithing"

4. I can just about tolerate "tithing" being taught by preachers but only as totally voluntary

5 Now this is key: voluntary tithing means that the tither can choose not to give the tithe in/to church --- but outside the church to widows etc

6. On the other hand, tithing is taught widely and overwhelmingly at least erroneously and quite often fraudulently as obligatory; that I challenge or condemn.


The difference with viaro and wordtalk

I await to see viaro and wordtalk who claim to preach voluntary tithing accept that the "voluntary" tithing can be given anywhere but in/to "church"; e.g. that the "voluntary" tithing can be given to e.g. widows, orphans etc.

It is a very very very significant difference!

Ahem, https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-742078.0.html#msg8986756 

A similar old thread threw up one of those posts that still make me laugh (because of the language and tone of the particular post) any time I remember them. 

See post no 71 on this thread https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-380651.64.html#msg5312268   

Actually, I have this idea of starting a thread collecting together some favourite/funny/memorable nairaland religion section posts/quotes. 

^^^ See here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=459705.msg6274184#msg6274184

Enigma:
I don't think that I am able to agree that we are saying the same thing! I have never seen any of them (Edit i.e. viaro, Joagbaje etc) agree:

1. That a "tither" can instead of giving the "tithe" into "church", s/he can take that specific "tithe" (not another "tithe" after one taken to "church" and instead give it to widows etc: OR

2. That the tither can take the one "tithe" (not another, not "offering" and share it among "church", widows, orphans etc.

3. The two above are minimal ----- going beyond them I would still like to see that the emphasis is on "giving" which is what the Bible teaches --- rather than the "tithing" scam!

Enigma:
@nuclearboy

I'm afraid I'm not yet convnced we (EDIT i.e. Enigma/nuclearboy on one hand and viaro etc on the other) are saying the same thing. As I said I have never seen her (EDIT i.e. viaro) or any of the others say you don't have to give the 'tithe' into church but can give it specifically to widows etc

nuclearboy:
I get your point. Only Viaro can clarify his position then. . . .

Whence the clarification?

EDITED

Earlier on in the thread, I made the point that those who say tithing is for today because it predated the law through Abram/Abraham really would have to accept that "born again" also predated the law through Abram/Abraham. EDIT (and again) see here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-720610.96.html#msg8867964

Now here is an example of Joagbaje's duplicity, while he continues to deny that Abraham was "born again" and that "born again" predated the law through Abram/Abraham, he praises an article which says that tithing is for today because of Abram/Abraham. BUT then that very article also says essentially that Abraham was "born again" - even though the article uses salvation by faith/grace instead of expressly saying "born again".

See https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-739830.320.html#msg8986187 and http://www.keithhunt.com/Tithe2.html


Here are a few quotes from the article:

The basic truths of the WAY TO SALVATION by grace through
faith have always been there in the Word from the beginning. In
the process of time when that grace and faith was made manifest
to Israel and the world through God who came as flesh and blood
in the form of Jesus Christ, Paul was used to proclaim that truth
more than any other single man in recorded detail for the New
Testament scriptures.

It was not surprising then that when apostles like Paul came
along and started to preach Jesus as the Messiah, and that
salvation was not through ANY works but by GRACE through FAITH in
Christ Jesus, there would arise a certain OPPOSITION from
certain religious Jews.  When Paul preached that "circumcision
was nothing, and uncircumcision was nothing" there would bound to
be opposition from some Jews.

Paul had to DEFEND the truth of his teaching with the truth
FROM the WORD of the Lord.  He had to painstakingly proves from
the Scriptures of old that GRACE and FAITH to be saved came
BEFORE the Old Covenant with its Tabernacle, priesthood and
sacrifices. [b]He had to prove also that grace and faith to
salvation came BEFORE circumcision. [/b]This he did in large portions
of the letter to the ROMANS and his letter to the GALATIANS.
     And one of the most important EXAMPLES he could possibly
give to the Jews especially, as that of THEIR FATHER ABRAHAM!!

Paul proved in his writing that Abraham was JUSTIFIED by God
through FAITH, and that BEFORE he was introduced to the rite of
circumcision by God for him and his seed. Abraham Paul showed,
found the true way to salvation BEFORE circumcision, BEFORE the
Old Covenant with Israel, BEFORE the tabernacle, priesthood and
sacrificial system was given to Israel through Moses. Paul argued
that what came AFTER could not annual what came BEFORE.
     Abraham is held up by Paul and the entire New Covenant as
the FATHER OF THE FAITHFUL, that "if you are Christ's then are
you Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise"
(Gal.3:29).
     Jesus told the Jews that if they were really the children of
Abraham then they
ould do the WORKS of Abraham (John 8:39).

So if you say tithing is for today because it predated the law through Abram/Abraham, integrity demands that you also accept that "born again" ALSO predated the law through Abram/Abraham!

Joagbaje:
Who are the other tithers who didn't know God?

nlMediator:
The Babylonians, for example, who tithed well before Abram was born. See : http://www.keithhunt.com/Tithe2.html. Certainly, they did not know the true God and their tithes were to their gods.

Joagbaje:
Nice Article, but there's no biblical evidence for it that's why I don't quote such. But certain truths are universal . . .

(Edited)

I too have now quickly read the article. There are some things I disagree with in the article especially the assumption that Abram/Abraham must have tithed on other occasions ---- we simply cannot conclude this from the Bible. I also disagree with the conclusion implying that "tithing" is for today because of Abram/Abraham ---- unless the "tithing" is truly voluntary in the sense that we have now established on pages 8, 9 & 10 of this thread.

Beyond that, the article makes one important point that I made on the "Why Evangelicals should stop evangelising" thread  https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-720610.0.html which shows the duplicity of people like Joagbaje! If you say "tithing" predates the law because of Abram/Abraham --- why do you then deny that "born again" or salvation by faith/grace ALSO predates the law?.

Let us take a couple of quotes from the article --- which I will now also go and paste on the other thread.

The basic truths of the WAY TO SALVATION by grace through
faith have always been there in the Word from the beginning. In
the process of time when that grace and faith was made manifest
to Israel and the world through God who came as flesh and blood
in the form of Jesus Christ, Paul was used to proclaim that truth
more than any other single man in recorded detail for the New
Testament scriptures.

It was not surprising then that when apostles like Paul came
along and started to preach Jesus as the Messiah, and that
salvation was not through ANY works but by GRACE through FAITH in
Christ Jesus, there would arise a certain OPPOSITION from
certain religious Jews.  When Paul preached that "circumcision
was nothing, and uncircumcision was nothing" there would bound to
be opposition from some Jews.

Paul had to DEFEND the truth of his teaching with the truth
FROM the WORD of the Lord.  He had to painstakingly proves from
the Scriptures of old that GRACE and FAITH to be saved came
BEFORE the Old Covenant with its Tabernacle, priesthood and
sacrifices. [b]He had to prove also that grace and faith to
salvation came BEFORE circumcision. [/b]This he did in large portions
of the letter to the ROMANS and his letter to the GALATIANS.
     And one of the most important EXAMPLES he could possibly
give to the Jews especially, as that of THEIR FATHER ABRAHAM!!

Paul proved in his writing that Abraham was JUSTIFIED by God
through FAITH, and that BEFORE he was introduced to the rite of
circumcision by God for him and his seed. Abraham Paul showed,
found the true way to salvation BEFORE circumcision, BEFORE the
Old Covenant with Israel, BEFORE the tabernacle, priesthood and
sacrificial system was given to Israel through Moses. Paul argued
that what came AFTER could not annual what came BEFORE.
     Abraham is held up by Paul and the entire New Covenant as
the FATHER OF THE FAITHFUL, that "if you are Christ's then are
you Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise"
(Gal.3:29).
     Jesus told the Jews that if they were really the children of
Abraham then they
ould do the WORKS of Abraham (John 8:39).

So if you say tithing is for today because it predated the law through Abram/Abraham, integrity demands that you also accept that "born again" ALSO predated the law through Abram/Abraham!

^^^ You dis bọbọ, you sabi book small oh!