₦airaland Forum

nlMediator:
. . . . .Finally, I don't know if I'm the only one uncomfortable with the fact that virtually every time the message of giving is preached, the scriptures often cited are those that relate to giving to the poor. But when the message is concluded or offering is taken in church, the message's focus and application shift to giving to ministers and the church. If we truly believe these scriptures, we'd apply them as they exist: Give to the poor, weak etc and you do not have to channel it through the church. I've never seen such emphasis in any church. Instead, giving to the poor is mentioned once in a while, while giving to the church and ministers is mentioned in every service and even outside the service.

This is precisely what the opening post does; all the rambling ends up with (and boils down to) this:

Joagbaje:
. . . . Always cash-in on every opportunity to give in the house of God. Be prompt to pay your tithes, your first-fruit offerings, special seed offerings and other free-will offerings. Never let opportunities to give pass you by unutilized.

Ultimately, in my view, it is just another manipulative brainwashing message to get the victims to bring in the money, to bring in the moolah for the pastor and pastoress. Do you see any mention of giving to the poor ---- which is what God generally prefers? As I like to ask: would we prefer the lies of wo/men (mainly give to 'pastor') to the word of God Almighty (mainly give to poor and needy)?

Some simple reading: http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/Bible05.html


By the way, shouldn't you Moslems be focusing on Ramadan and "higher" things?

And always implicit in the message of these thieves is that the "giving" is to be to "church" or to "pastors". They never mention that the "giving" that God truly wants people to do and that He emphasised again and again in the Bible is giving to the poor and the needy.

Check even the case of the Cornelius that we were discussing elsewhere recently: Acts 10

1 At Caesarea there was a man named Cornelius, a centurion in what was known as the Italian Regiment. 2 He and all his family were devout and God-fearing; he gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly. 3 One day at about three in the afternoon he had a vision. He distinctly saw an angel of God, who came to him and said, “Cornelius!”

4 Cornelius stared at him in fear. “What is it, Lord?” he asked.

The angel answered, “Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God. 5 Now send men to Joppa to bring back a man named Simon who is called Peter.

thehomer:
. . . .
It could be that this matter and energy always existed in some form. Do you not understand this possibility?

Sums it all up, doesn't it?

And irony of irony, the same poster (in the same post) warns someone else to beware of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Image123:
I miss my bro OLAADEGBU sha.

For some time, I've been meaning to ask if you are in touch with him and if he is doing fine; hope he is just taking a break from here for a while, which can be a good thing.

JeSoul:
Just took a quick peek, e long oh! lol but looks quite interesting. Thanks! 

Even me wey I keep the thing open on one tab for several days now never finish de ting!

[digression]

@Jesoul

Something you might be interested in --- from my vague recollection of a not too old thread.  http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm

[/digression]

ogajim:
Is it me or does "wordtalkt" remind anyone else of "Pilgrim.1" (wait for it) "viaro"

I think we've seen this Ecclesiastical gymnastics on NL before especially on the tithe threads.

Oga, you will find that at least two of us had a similar feeling of "deja vu already".  See here and also here.  

Meanwhile is it me or is it indeed the case that amidst all these obfuscatory gymnastics, we still haven't been provided with an explanation of this "principle" thing? Perhaps I should remind honourable posters of the words of the eminently eloquent Sir Humphrey

It's clear that the Committee has agreed that your new policy is really an excellent plan. But in view of some of the doubts being expressed, may I propose that I recall that after careful consideration, the considered view of the Committee was that, while they considered that the proposal met with broad approval in principle, that some of the principles were sufficiently fundamental in principle, and some of the considerations so complex and finely balanced in practice that in principle it was proposed that the sensible and prudent practice would be to submit the proposal for more detailed consideration, laying stress on the essential continuity of the new proposal with existing principles, the principle of the principal arguments which the proposal proposes and propounds for their approval. In principle.

^^^ Not to repeat but just to add and empasise that God accepts . . . .

In the Cornelius example, Peter indicated that God had already accepted Cornelius and his household before Peter visited them

These are the first words of Peter before going into the story of Jesus' death and resurrection or before "preaching salvation"!
Acts 10

Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right.

Also, when the Holy Ghost had fallen on Cornelius etc, Peter says, nay asks

Then Peter said, 47“Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

It seems to me clear that Peter recognised that Cornelius & co were "saved" both before and irrespective of Peter's "preaching of salvation".

As ever, good riddance to dishonest and really intellectually fraudulent evangelical atheists. In fact, let me borrow the epiphonema from that other thread. 

Breeze5000:
. . . . A lot of them just make mouth and ask all those kindergarten questions sometimes,  Like lil kids who ask! ask! and ask without pausing to think or imagine if what they are saying makes sense. [/b]Since they are the ones that says there is no God, the burden of proof lies with them and [b]I don't see them coming up with anything meaningful! . . . .

^^^ And above the typical evangelical atheist dishonest tactics.

Even honest non evangelical atheists and other honest non-Christians would readily acknowledge that Christianity does not believe in putting witches to death.

The article quoted extensively in an older thread should also be relevant for those interested. https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-645892.0.html

reini:
@omo_to_dun; I have often heard it said that God did not create evil and if you think about it, it makes sense. They say that evil, or darkness, does not exist in itself; Evil is the absence of good just like light is the absence of darkness. When "Good" moves away, you're left with "Evil"; when light moves away, you're left with darkness. You never heard of anyone creating darkness did you? But you hear of the creation of light, even here in the physical world. You enter a dark room, and light a match and voila! there's light. We've even created the torchlight that you flick on in the dark and light comes out of it. But have you ever been in a dark room and tried to shine darkness out of light? Imagine that you're in a well lit room and you have a torch that when you flick on, darkness comes out and starts to over power the light. I don't think so. The darkness only comes when the light "moves away". This is the eternal stronghold that Good has over Evil.

You see the truth is that it is easy to claim that the Bible has so many contradictions and therefore one should not believe in God. But this is not enough reason not to. It is cowardice to run away from something because you don't fully understand it. Yes, it seems like wickedness to punish someone for all eternity regardless of what they have done, but we did not create the world nor the universe. We do not have the blueprint of things that were before us, or things that will come after. We do not have the grand design to fully comprehend all of this. we cannot fully comprehend the mysteries of the world with our human minds. You said in one of your posts that Faith is the strongest weapon an individual possesses and I agree with you. But the opposite is also true; "un-faith", or anti-faith, when one closes their minds to the possibility of existence of these things, automatically hinders one's own spiritual growth. All that is required is an open mind and a willingness to understand.
Remember this: no one has all the answers. Whether you claim the existence or non-existence of God does not make Him any more or less real than He is. Personally, I believe. And not necessarily because of being indoctrinated, but because of my own personal experiences. In nature, there is balance. Everything is perfect. you reap what you sow. If you reaped what you have not sown, and you die, there must be a balancing element somewhere else. If you sow and you haven't reaped, there must also be a balancing element somewhere else. A lot of people who claim the non-existence of God laugh at believers and call them myopic fools, etc etc. It's not like those people have discovered the mysteries of the universe themselves. It is taking the easy way out when you choose not to believe because you can't explain why there are famine and wars, or because you cannot fully comprehend the Bible. We didn't create the world and so we do not have the blueprint to understand completely. Again this lack of understanding comes in when it comes to choice. It could be possible (and I'm not saying it is), but it could be possible that the outcomes to every choice that you could ever make has been mapped out; so perhaps you still have the choices, but these infinite choices have been mapped out so every choice and sub-choice you make, the outcomes are already there. In this case, you're still filing out a script, but with the "choice" to find your way back home. Like I said, this analogy does not need to be true but it just goes to show that there are things we do not know that we do not know. Closing your mind to the existence of God because of a lack of knowledge or understanding is not sufficient. It is written in Isaiah 47:13 "thou art wearied in the multitude of thy counsels. Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from these things that shall come upon thee".

Look for the answers and in your search don't rely to much on your own abilities. Remember: you did not create the world and thus the world cannot fit into your narrow understanding of things. Keep your mind open, and the Truth will possess you.

Have a good week.

Missed this before; glad I got a chance to see this thoughtful post.

^^^ If you are interested, then first take your time to learn and be informed; there are a range of resources at ready disposal to help to satisfy such interest.

Enigma:
^^^ Christians know its place; [size=14pt]anyone else who is interested should first take their time to learn and be informed about its place.

[/size]

OK then; if you think so.

^^^ Christians know its place; anyone else who is interested should first take their time to learn and be informed about its place.

nuclearboy:
^^

Which is part of why such as Martian glorify in Jo and use him as a prop. Contradictions
, lies, self-serving moronic postulations and ignorance disguised as scholarship all in a bid to mystify and thus seem special.

An enemy from within does help the effort of the thief coming from outside as the yoruba say

Ah, I actually (forgot) wanted to add that, talking about 5000 years old theology, did the apostle "put the girl to death" as the poster quoted from Leviticus?

Of course not --- anybody who is honest and who knows anything about Christianity knows that that is not Christian theology. That example of Paul was a demonstration of how Christianity handles these things (in spirit and power) ------- just as Jesus Himself did.

In the meantime here is a contradiction as typical of "pastor" Joagbaje.

Joagbaje:
Two common ways children get into it. Is through food or dedication. They do their own evangelism as we do ours. When they give a child such things his soul lust after. (a cursed food). The child finds himself in the coven in their midst at night. The next thing is not try and initiate the child by drinking blood. On the drinking of the blood ,the initiation takes place. Demons will enter into them. It is this demons that make such a child do wicked things. Some have killed family members,destroyed pregnancies ,ground vehicles, business . And all manner of wickedness you can imagine. The child is actually "inocent" or rather a victim as well. The demons needs a body to operate. Some children on their own will open up when an anointed minister talks with them. Because some of them wants to come out of it but fear hold them back.They usually  give them fearful instructions, like "YOU WILL DIE IF YOU TELL ANYONE"

It's not just children . This thing doesn't know age. You can dictect some of them by their action. Some do certain physical wicked things . When a christian counsellor talks with them in love ,they may open up. You will be amazed to hear a little child give specific dates of events in the family ,how many people he has killed or made sick , one made a little baby sick ,he confessed and said he put something in the baby and that if he removes it ,the baby will be well , he did ,and the baby who had been sick for days instantly became. Well.

Some people know them by discernment also. Like paul did

Acts 16:17-18
. . .  The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation. 18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her And he came out the same hour.

Simeon others are dictected when the spirits manifest in them during prayers. or in an atmosphere where the anointing of Gods spirit is at work.

Of course I don't.  The children are not the enemy. At the same time we can't deny the fact of wrong accusations among certain feshly people. But for the children who are into this thing, they are not the enemy .The witchcraft spirit or demons in them is the enemy .To help such, we ought to first love such children, The first deliverance is salvation . Sharing the message of Gids love to them , and assuring them that they won't die if they come out of it.  Most of the time after being born again , there is instant freedom. But in case the child still experience them you may need to cast the devil out by simply using the name of Jesus. Sometimes the spirit will even shout through such person saying "THIS IS MY HOUSE,LEAVVE US ALONE. HE/SHE BELONGS TO ME". "I WILL KILL HIM" etc

The "pastor" says the first "deliverance" is "salvation". Meanwhile the apostle Paul didn't follow this idea in the example that the "pastor" himself had first given of Acts 16; the apostle was irritated and simply commanded the spirit to leave; he did not first do "deliverance" of "salvation" for the girl. In fact, if you read the passage further, you will see that the owners of the girl picked a fight with Paul & co, got them beaten up and thrown into prison.

Eureka - got it!

From http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0030014/quotes


Sir Humphrey

It's clear that the Committee has agreed that your new policy is really an excellent plan. But in view of some of the doubts being expressed, may I propose that I recall that after careful consideration, the considered view of the Committee was that, while they considered that the proposal met with broad approval in principle, that some of the principles were sufficiently fundamental in principle, and some of the considerations so complex and finely balanced in practice that in principle it was proposed that the sensible and prudent practice would be to submit the proposal for more detailed consideration, laying stress on the essential continuity of the new proposal with existing principles, the principle of the principal arguments which the proposal proposes and propounds for their approval. In principle.

Oh and if tithing is a "principle" for application, how is the tithing in Deuteronomy 14:22-29 (which someone raised) to be effected in application today? In "principle", of course.

@  garyarnold

Mark my words, the poster wordtalk will just keep taking you to more and more digressions and irrelevance.

If "tithing" is the "principle" today, then why is it only about money?

Can a person not tithe crops from his garden?

Can a carpenter not give a tithe of his furniture?

Can a person not tithe clothes he recovers from the back of his debtor?

All these of course as a matter of "principle"! Unless it is only a "principle" when it concerns money! Yeah, right.  

And Azibalua.  

Edit: "giving children sweets to turn them into witches" lol

Next we'll hear, they will be seeing ẹiyẹ ajẹ (bird of the witches) coming to school as we used to have all those false scares back in primary school.

Yes, there are evil forces; but then do people have to be so slow retar ded* about it?

Might as well use that to show I know some modern lingo --- useless withcraft-tards!

* (I said ret arded in the post and that is what I want to see)

^^^ That one should just stick to scamming people with his fraudulent preaching of tithes, first fruit and other similar rubbish or to the other nonsenses of Chris Embassy like saying no one needs to obey God's commandments.

Pastor Kun:
@Wordtalk
It's interesting that a newbie on nairaland who just registered yesterday as already log in over forty posts most of which are on tithes, your signature also confirms that you are a tithe monger. Kindly clarify if you are truly new on this forum or you took on a new I.D to argue your tithe doctrine having been dis-credited with a previous I.D .

Hmmmmmm

Enigma:
. . . . stop obfuscating with irrelevance!

Enigma:
Old tricks. . . .

Meanwhile, you have not answered whether a person can tithe crops growing in his garden? Whether the person can tithe ewedu, spinach, garden eggs, onions, apples etc

Can a carpenter give a tithe of his furniture?

Along with the other questions.

^^^ Go and study it and come back to reveal to all whatever your findings are.

wordtalk:
Please stop acting like a legal orator, lol. I already answered your questions and offered to explain my answer if you would like me to do so.

Nope: you have not answered my questions.

wordtalk:
Perhaps you're needlessly repeating yourself in those questions, such as this one already addressed -

Nope, you have not answered that question; read it again --- carefully. It says: Where in the Bible was a tithe or tenth of money or salary required or practised?

wordtalk:
He didn't say so - otherwise it would be meaningless to find the involvement of money as exchange for stuff in Deut. 14:25-26.

God certainly said He didn't want tithes in money. In one instance it was absolute; in another instance he imposed a penalty/levy for whoever wanted to give/pay tithes in money.

wordtalk:
Lol, is that "OK then" somewhat your saying you agree with what I implied? I don't know - but it wouldn't matter.

The point I wanted to highlight is that tithes in the Bible were not "ONLY farm produce" but included other stuff, as well as money. The implication is easy, since most of the anti-tithing theologians I've read also use other passages to discuss 'tithes' from spoils of war (whether or not such passages are not about tithes specifically). I don't know if some of these guys are actually joking around from this point, which makes me wonder at garyarnold's 'tithe of trash'.

If we can see this simple point, why do some keep arguing that tithes in the Bible were nothing other than farm produce?

Nah!

1. You have not shown that Abram tithed money --- you are assuming and presuming.
2. If Abram is who to follow, then people today should also be able to tithe slaves (there is greater evidence that slaves were included in the spoils of war than there is for money)
3. If you are using Abram's tithe as the basis for teaching tithing today, there is no basis for saying "God wants tithes" at all let alone to say that "God want Tithes of Money". At best, you can tell people you have an option to tithe ---- to tithe slaves, goods, ewedu, spinach oh and money too. You will not be fighting such tooth and nail with all these obfuscation.
4. When God asked for tithes, He said He did NOT want it in money --- He wanted it in livestock and farm produce!

wordtalk:
The important thing is that the Bible referred to Abraham's gifts as TITHES in both the OT (Gen. 14:20) and the NT (Heb. 7:6). Some may stretch their denials to say that Abraham did not tithe, etc., etc., in complete rejection of those verses.

Nonetheless, Abraham gave tithes from what he could rightfully claim as his own - otherwise it would be incomprehensible to argue his gifts as his tithes if they did not first belong to him.

So a Christian today can give as/in tithes whatever he could rightfully claim to be his own --- his ewedu, his spinach, clothes that he seizes lawfully from a debtor etc etc.

wordtalk:
Please read me carefully, as I have to repeat this: "I don't argue tithes on a mandatory commandment or law." It is a principle and not by a legalistic exercise.

The thread title is "Does god Want The Tithes of Money"

So Does God want tithes? Does God want tithes of money?

Meanwhile, let us see you stand up and show some courage --- answer my questions/queries.

Please tell us a "tithe" or "tenth" of what exactly are people now supposed to give or "pay"

Of crops grown in their gardens?

Of furniture produced by a carpenter?

Where in the Bible was a tithe or tenth of money or salary required or practised?

Above all, God said He didn't want the tithe in money!

^^^ OK then: Abram's tithe was voluntary and a one off --- thus a Christian can choose just the once to give a tithe of money. In fact, he can choose not to tithe with money but to tithe with ewedu, spinach, onions, garden eggs, clothes that he seizes off the backs of his debtors etc etc

Or when else did Abraham give/pay tithes from his regular income? When else did he give/pay tithes of money or of any other sort?

So on what basis then is the teaching of the continuing obligation to give or "pay" tithes from salary??