₦airaland Forum

^^^ So could you try and give honest and straightforward answers to these two questions?


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?

We will see, my dear friend, we will see. I would like to accept what you say but if "voluntary" really means "voluntary" then why all the rigmarole on various threads and why all the invective --- especially at garyarnold. I think it was nlmediator who made an acute observation asking whether there was an ulterior motive (actually I have my own theory as to that).

But I am happy to wait and see, like I said.

@Nuclearboy

What wordtalk has said is fine as it goes. However, sometimes what is left unsaid even "speaks" more volume.

Let me boil down my issues to three questions ---- an honest and straightforward answer to each would clarify a lot.

1. Is it wrong to oppose the teaching of tithing as compulsory or should this just be tolerated?

2. 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?

3. 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?

As I said, an honest and straightforward answer to each would clarify a lot of things.

Another important point: some of us will ALWAYS continue to fight the tithing fraud as necessary.

The reason? It is at the fulcrum of an important spiritual battle!

If a person is taken in by the tithing scam, he is more susceptible to other false or heretical doctrines that are being spread widely these days.

If a person sees through the tithing scam, he is less susceptible to other false or heretical doctrines that are being spread widely these days.

Why are they not tithing "slaves" if they are following Abram? After all Abram's spoils of war seemed to include slaves? Why are they not tithing anything other than money ---- after all Abram's spoils of war included several things that were not money.

In fact the argument that tithing is based on Abram's example is definitely one of the most dangerous because it is much easier to fail to see the fraud ultimately underlying it. It is easier to see through the fraud of tithing preaching based on Malachi, Leviticus, Deuteronomy etc. That is why tithe mongers have now shifted to the Abram chicanery.

Really, any argument to support "tithing" other than saying people may do it as part of their voluntary giving and maybe in part to assist with "church" expenses simply cannot be supported from the Bible without sleight of hand.

I will not bother to respond in any detail since your answers are revealing enough. 

As I said before I have seen the sleight of hand before whether the poster was called wordtalk, viaro or pilgrim.1. I even had a quick look at some of the posts to confirm what I said.

Until tithe mongers agree that (a) "tithes does not have to be money", and (b) "tithes does not have to be taken into only "church" but can instead also be given to widows, orphans and other needy people etc, they are only playing games and some of us can see through the chicanery.

@Nuclearboy

I am afraid, I have a few things to question in wordtalk's post - especially because I have seen exactly this same sleight of hand before (a matter I expect to come to in another post).

wordtalk:
. . .
However, I think why some are concerned about this issue to the point of 'daggers drawn' is because a lot of people (not everyone) have assumed that all pastors who even remotely mention tithes/tithing from within Nigeria must by default be preaching a "mandatory" or "compulsory" tithes. Example to the reference from nlMediator in his argument that - "Not one of them I know or have heard makes any exceptions" (although he explained his context, and I don't want to push it any further).

I don't know all the pastors who preach tithing to their congregations in Nigeria; but let me draw from a few sources even on this forum where a Nigerian pastor stands as an example of voluntary tithes: Pastor Tunde Bakare of LatterRain Assembly -

So, while I have given an example each of Nigerian pastors for compulsory and voluntary tithes, I don't think every pastor who preaches tithes should be tarred with the same brush.

1. This also requires an explanation of why tithes mongers are also "concerned to the point of daggers drawn" if it is accepted that "tithing" is not compulsory but should be voluntary.

2. Bear in mind that those of us against "tithing" have repeatedly stated that we have nothing against voluntary tithing particularly if the "tither" knows that tithing is not an obligation, and the concern is about the mistaken or fraudulent teaching of compulsory tithing ---- so why the vehement and frankly often rude, "daggers drawn" defence?

3. It is all well and good using Tunde Bakare as the one and only one example of a prominent Nigerian "pastor" who suggests tithing should be voluntary; what about the fact that overwhelmingly tithing is taught by other prominent pastors as compulsory and sometimes with various threats?

4. What is the percentage of compulsory tithe preachers in Nigeria versus voluntary tithe preachers?

5. What is the percentage of compulsory tithe preachers globally versus voluntary tithe preachers?

6. What is the percentage of tithe payers globally who see it as compulsory versus those who see it as voluntary?

wordtalk:
. . .My conviction is that tithing is based on two important factors (priesthood and worship), and these two factors stand above every other consideration in a believer's life and ministry. So, if someone is not moved to express their giving this way, there should not be a do-and-die argument to bend such a person to do so. What the anti-tither should not do is join a band-wagon to campaign that every Christian must-needs stop tithing altogether.

1. Is it only "tithing" that is based on "important factors" of "priesthood and worship"?

2. Is freewill giving, which is what the New Testament teaches, not based on "priesthood and worship"?

3. Even if we stick to "tithing", if a goat seller chooses to "tithe" based on "priesthood and worship" and he does so by bringing some goats into church, is that "tithing" and is that acceptable?

4. Or is the "principle" of tithing based on "priesthood and worship" confined to tithing with only money?

Let us stop here for now --- but as hinted, I have quite a lot more to say.

A Message for young lawyers:

When you go to England and the authorities there impose conditions on you to re-qualify that are more difficult than conditions for lawyers qualifying in say Ghana, Kenya etc, then realise that in part it is because of the actions like the idiots doing the dance of the mad men that we are currently seeing.

Interesting.

@ogoamaka

I have wondered for a little while how old you really are; whatever the case I think you need to grow up a bit and show maturity. The funny thing is that in the very post that you accuse others of lack of maturity, you show very clearly that you indeed lack maturity. Similarly, while accusing others of "incoherence" you did not notice the grammatical errors in your own post; I am actually going to point a couple out especially as, beyond you merely, one of them ("been" instead of "being" is a particular pet peeve of mine.

ogoamaka99:
. . . I wish members of this forum could analysis this and pass their judgment.

ogoamaka99:
How can nuclearBOY . . . accuse ogoamaka99 of been empty and mentally deficient?

ogoamaka99:
You are accusing ogoamaka99 of been lazy, empty and mentally deficient in a thread originated by ogoamaka99,what an irony.

Anyway, the threads that you start, each and every one with the sole purpose of defending "MoG", in my opinion, are usually incoherent, illogical, immature, unbiblical and inadvisable. It is also not about the number of threads started but the quality and, if you use the search engine, you will find that you cannot even approach let alone match Nuclearboy in terms of the quality of threads started.

I honestly hope and pray that one day your eyes become opened and you learn some things that you are presently lacking or missing.

And Joagbaje lacks the integrity to apologise for his false imputation ---- apart from his own inconsistency of "connection" and "connecting". Anyway, not much better could be expected from him or for that matter from Ogoamaka who spams the place with all these nonsensical apologia for "MOG".

@aletheia

Nice to see you here again. I actually interjected a post between yours and Joagbaje's last; (hope readers will understand your post as responding to Jo's last).

ogoamaka99:
Any man/woman who never acknowledge his or her mistake is a fool. To say you never make a mistake is a sign of ignorance.

You mean you did mistakenly write "collection" at first! Well, nobody is blaming you for the mistake apart from my little joke about the freudian. 

[digression]

ogajim:
. . . .
This is another reason we must put our TRUST in GOD ONLY and not man for we know not what men/women do behind closed doors or when no one seems to be watching.

@Ogajim, something you might like: http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/i/a/iamtrust.htm


[/digression]

ogoamaka99:
You can partake of the blessing of Abraham through connecting to a MOG because it is been said in Genesis 12:3 “And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee:and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

The above is the current version in the OP; thus it is most likely a case of unacknowledged editing by the opening poster rather than manipulation by zikky (edit: unless Joagbaje too is guilty of "manipulation"!). Indeed if the opening poster wrote "collection" originally it would be an unsurprising freudian. 

@toba

There are two problems with your post.

1. You have so far been arguing that church is not business --- now you are arguing that it is!    Is that because of Oyedepo?

2. Jesus did not describe ministry as a "business". If you care please explain how Jesus' statement means that church work/ministry/affair is a "business" in the sense of commercial enterprise. Also, please explain then why Jesus drove out the money changers from the temple!   

toba:
Of i know that u arent close. the point is you said church is a business. all im expecting u to do is to provide verifiable evidence that the church thats supposed to be for propagating the gospel is a business. U ve made an assertion. kindly back it up. if u failed to do so this time then u are not to be taken serious hence forth . . . .

Some of the pastors themselves have been quoted as saying church is a business. Examples:

From here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-681393.192.html#msg8454389

http://www.newswatchngr.com/editorial/prime/Cover/10820085539.htm

David Oyedepo, bishop of the Living Faith Church, also known as Winners Chapel vividly captured the reason for the business approach of many Pentecostal pastors to evangelism in his book Exploits In Ministry.

In the book, he [b]described ministry as "essentially business." He says: "Without doubt, one of the reasons why most ministries ordained of God fall short of expectation or collapse completely is due to their unbusiness-like approach to ministry. Ministry is essentially business. Jesus said: Wist ye not that I must be about my father's business (Luke 2:49). It is God's business, not the father's religion… We have been accused of turning ministry into a business. But that is not true.

We met it as a business, Jesus, the author and founder of Ministry told us it is a business."

Oyedepo explained that just as business involves investment and profit making, pastors invest in ministry to make profit. It is, therefore, little wonder that today, Oyedepo and some other wealthy pentecostal pastors have re-invented the core meaning of Christianity by pushing the frontiers of affluence in the socio-political, business and educational realms of Nigeria[/b]

(EDIT Please note that it is a huge fat LIE that Jesus said ministry is a "business"; it is a very disgraceful misinterpretation of scripture!)


From Eddie Long's website http://www.newbirth.org/contact_us/directory

Office of the Senior Pastor
The Office of Bishop Eddie L. Long (BELL) serves as the Chief Executive Office of New Birth. The office is comprised of the Office of the First Lady, Executive Office Staff, the Father’s House and the Spanish Ministry.

There is also a quote where Eddie Long said that he is to be compared to the Chief Executive of a multi-million dollar corporation. If I find the quote, I will post it here.

@ogoamaka99

It is all well and good that you are posting to let us know that Jesus Christ taught, indeed commanded, that His disciples especially Christians should love one another. However, the particular "pastors" that you constantly defend here and that your thread is about say that

(a) nowhere in the New Testament are "we" told to obey God
(b) the commandment of Jesus that you posted in the OP is not for Christians because it is not "New Testament"

I am talking specifically of Chris Oyakhilome and his nairaland representative, Joagbaje.

If you don't believe they said these things, please read the following links  https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-704762.0.html
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-704762.128.html#msg8695653

So on the one hand you are trying to use Jesus' words to fight for these "pastors" whereas these same "pastors" say that those very words of Jesus are not for Christians and Christians are not told to obey them.

So, please square that! 

@ Jesoul and petres

I sorry ma and sir; make una no vex, na small pickin dey worry me, i am ver very sorrity and very sorry at all at all.

@toba

TV ministry m-industry is wholly ineffective at making new converts to Christianity, the "returns" (i.e. new converts or repentants) are very small in numbers; it is only useful for brand awareness, marketing the particular "GO" and his "church" and in some circumstances raising money. Go and do a bit of research and see if what I'm saying is not true.

On the other hand: imagine if a church has 1000 members and even only 500 of them are exhibiting Christ-like fruit and demonstrating it to people they come in contact with ---- TV m-industry will not be able to match the results. Think about it. 

God did not send anybody to preach the gospel advertise on MITV or OGTV or any other TV. End of story.

It is much better that a "church" (a) teaches its own members godliness (rather than all this rubbish "prosperity" and, (b) teach its members each to influence other people they come across with their own Godly behaviour and carriage; in other words each member is to preach the gospel, particularly by actions (including charity) and by words if necessary.

razznaija:
i have only seen a few churches that give out to charity in Nigeria, but in the U.S alot of churches have food banks and soup kitchens that feed the poor and they also donate school supplies and give scholarships to less priviledged children and some of these churches don't even have as much money as some Nigerian churches, but they try to give out what they can. Why aren't Nigerian churches like that? instead of giving out to the poor, they would rather buy private jets and live the lavish lifestyle

A lot of these people are really thieves disguising as "men of God". That is why they follow mammon and Satan and their doctrines constantly contradict the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles.

^^^ Still making the same mistake I tried to point out to you the other time. What you have said is that you disagree with the previous post.

kenny1st:

who says church is not a charity organisation ? then what's church for, , for pastors to be enriching their pockets and beautifiying church and making expensive advertisments on televesion through their preaching that has other persona reasons. Although some churches do some charity work but it's just too little and the impacts are not being felt in the society as people are getting poorer, even the so called dedicated church members. This is just an eye opener.

Well, that's what Joaghaje says . . . though he will add for bojuboju sake that the "church" is to "preach the gospel".

Some more kindly soul (than myself) should please explain to him the statement below attributed to St. Francis of Assisi:

Preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words.

justcool:
. . . . I don’t have any scientific evidence that God exists; neither do you have any scientific evidence that God does not exist.. . . .

davidylan:
Neither does the atheist have any empirical evidence that God doesnt exist at all . . . infact the only argument the atheist has is that the theist has not provided God's home address to him.

MyJoe:
That won't do. They'd want to shake hands.

Now, how such can qualify to be God in anyone's view beats me.

Na their very problem be dat! Dat's why dem only fit ask "define god"; "do you believe in Sussicorn" and all kind of silly stooopid questions that really should not be associated with people even with just pretensions to intellectualism!

Any person who thinks he can prove through science or logic that God does not exist is either a beginner or a dunce or intellectually dishonest. It really should be elementary that for a person (or science for that matter) to be able to prove that God does not exist, the person (or science) would have to be omniscient. Thus all these juvenile requests (which I called childish sophistry elsewhere) asking for a "definition" of God are really pathetic and a sheer waste of time. It is amusing that it is the same request that the evangelical atheists make in a number of presently ongoing threads. They keep playing the same broken record ---- when they should change tune already.

Oh, and on the point whether something preceded the universe, the evangelical atheists, if they want to be intellectually honest, do not need to ask silly questions here; instead, let us see them engaging with the well known arguments e.g. distinguishing between a necessary being and contingent beings or arguments for e.g. a Prime mover, a First Cause, an Uncaused cause ------ the kind of thing that eventually persuaded the evangelical atheists’ long time champion, Antony Flew, to renounce atheism as the evangelical atheists seem to hate to hear.

davidylan:
Neither does the atheist have any empirical evidence that God doesnt exist at all . . . infact the only argument the atheist has is that the theist has not provided God's home address to him.

MyJoe:
That won't do. They'd want to shake hands.

Now, how such can qualify to be God in anyone's view beats me.

 

^^^ Well, the case was proven here on another thread not too long ago that evangelical atheism is indeed a religion.

^^^ What's the matter with this one? Look, just stick to being an accessory for thieves by trying to provide "intellectual" and "scriptural" justification for blatant fraud. 

^^^ Even the tithing that they are trying desperately to justify involves sharing part of the "tithes" with widows, orphans and aliens in the Old Testament. Yet, you never hear any of the tithe-mongers agree that tithes can be shared with the poor and needy. Instead it is all to be brought into the "storehouse" aka the "church". They say the "tithing" for today is based on "principle" but that principle is only the "principle" of bringing the money into "church" and for "pastors"; it never involves the "principle" of helping the poor and needy! In "principle", of course.