₦airaland Forum

Bidam: ....
It's even in the UK that people don't bother coming to church but send their tithes by post because government has made it easier to cut their taxes since they see the church as a charity organization.So you can imagine it's because of taxes folks pay tithes, not because a pastor says so.....

Bidam bros

What you have above is false information, I'm afraid!

The scheme here is called Giftaid and does not really affect the tax of the "tither" or the "giver" himself.

Rather if a person gives a Church money and the person is a taxpayer who has already paid tax on his income/salary, the govt gives an extra amount to the Church. This takes nothing whatsoever away from the giver/tither or adds anything for him. The benefit is entirely for the Church (or charitable organisation).

Crude example:

Bidam is a taxpayer at 15%.

Bidam gives 100 pounds to DLB Ministry. (edited)

Bidam and DLB Ministry tell the government that the money should be subject to Giftaid

The government will pay an extra 15 pounds to DLB Ministry

DLB Ministry gains an extra 15%

Bidam gains or loses nothing in tax whether or not he pays tithes or makes the gift to DLB Ministry!

^^^

Make you siddon dey look!

foreignstudy: Yeah you write it like it is in nigeria and like i hear it here in my country when they see what christian life means, not giving to the big so called great man of god, giving to the poor the people near you, the little child who has no parents, and i can tell you you will put a smil on such a child and that is what jesus want from us not feed this rich pasors and daddy go#s and what names they all have.

Bros thanks, I pray people learn to be truly Christ-like than being overly blinded by material desires!

Ihedinobi: ...

@Enigma, big bro, thank you. You are outlining it quite clearly. There is a great deal of abuse in the things of Christ in our days. My worry is how easily that abuse results in our throwing out wholesale the good things themselves that are being abused. But thank God for insight like yours, it's invaluable.....

Ihe bros

It's always a pleasure to participate in good natured and good spirited threads like these amidst all the madness in the forum and considering the imbroglios I often allow myself to get roped into. Trust you are doing well, bro.

For insight, permit me to copy from two old threads of mine.

A. "Who is a tither"? https://www.nairaland.com/744234/please-vote-tither#msg9003450

B. "Who is robbing God?" https://www.nairaland.com/747403/another-poll-robbing-god


Here are examples of three Christian givers. (I am using just three examples but people can figure out that there are myriad permutations)

1. Mr A earns 1000 a month; unfailingly he gives 100 a month as "tithe" in/to "church"; he gives 50 a month as offering; he then gives up to 20 to other needy causes outside "church".

2. Mr B earns 1000 a month; he gives anything up to 90 in/to church every month, he then gives 110 to other needy causes outside the "church".

3. Mrs C is a seller of "provisions"; any time that she is going to buy stock, she buys 10% extra (e.g. instead of buying 100 cans of milk, she buys 110); she regularly takes the extra 10% to her local orphanage; she then gives about 5% of her net profits in/to "church".

Now, a few of the somewhat more "antagonistic" points:

1. AFAIK, most people challenging the modern teaching of "tithing" do not argue that a knowledgeable person who chooses to "tithe" is not free to do so or necessarily should not do so.
2. The challenge is not to "tithing" per se but to the teaching of tithing ---- especially as an obligation for a Christian. The teaching is simply not true and cannot truly be supported biblically!
3. The teaching results in contradicting and undermining the teachings of Jesus Christ and of the apostles. Imagine a person who refuses to hand over his "tithe money" to a poor family whose child needs an operation because s/he "must" drop the "tithe" in "church"! Does that square with what Jesus and the apostles taught or stood for?
4. The teaching puts people in bondage of fear, makes them subjects of superstition and scared even of their own shadows! Imagine people saying that if they don't drop their tithe in a particular month, all kinds of bad things will likely happen to them!
5. (My most controversial perhaps): The teaching helps to advance the cause of satan. Many of the "churches" that are mushrooming and so-called 'wo/men of God' tack on to the teaching primarily for "business" reasons and to put it bluntly to line their own pockets by defrauding people!
6. The teaching spawns a lot of other related teachings that are clearly contrary to the teachings of Christ; e.g. the "sowing and reaping" or "give to get" teaching that is now rampant. I once saw live and direct in person with my own two eyes a, maybe the, leading Nigerian "GO" agree with an American huckster that "giving to the poor" is sowing on bad ground because "the anointing into which you sow determines the size of your harvest" --- corrupting a parabolic teaching of Jesus Christ.
7. The teaching of course also helps the cause of private jet "pastors" defrauding unwitting people that jets are necessary for "ministry"! Na so!

I can go on and on and on --- but you get the gist.

Our duty is to be honest with our handling of Scripture and not be scared that "people will not give voluntarily" etc etc.

Our duty is to trust the Lord who has given people renewed hearts to lead them and to cleanse their own volition such that voluntarily and out of gratitude they will be willing givers --- even if its out of their own meagre resources.

Even leaving out the hucksters and turning to people who "honestly" believe that tithing is still "necessary", part of the problem is the structural pattern(s) we have adopted --- e.g.building huge edifices and apparatuses that have to be maintained etc etc etc

@Ihedinobi

I'm sure you know all the technical arguments: in OT "tithe" was never money (subject to one exception with 'penalty' and another for 'jollification'), the Mosaic tithe is gone with the Levitical system and the Temple etc, Abram's tithe was voluntary and not even from his own possession strictly; the NT has now replaced the OT etc etc.

Now let us focus on principle.

1. Abram's tithe: acknowledgment of the position of Melchizedek and show of gratitude for having been blessed especially by Melchizedek specifically.
2. The Mosaic/OT tithe: acknowledgment of God's provision (including celebration and personal enjoyment to the Lord with the tithe) and support for the priesthood quite broadly as well as support for the 'poorer' e.g. widows, orphans and aliens etc.

How do these 'principles' operate in the NT era ---- especially with the disappearance of the Levitical priesthood and system.

Well we have plenty of help:

First, Jesus Christ specifically dictated how to give to Him: give to the poor and needy! He said 'as long as you did it for one of these brothers of mine, you did it for Me.

Second, we see the example of the apostle Paul taking a collection to be given to the needy brethren in Jerusalem.

Third we see the apostle Paul teaching that 'ministers' should be supported; Jesus Christ taught the same thing of course.

Fourth, we see the apostle Paul teaching that people should not give out of compulsion but cheerfully as they purpose in their hearts.

Finally, we should bear in mind that in none of those NT examples was a percentage specified, dictated or even suggested. What amount to give is in each case simply left to the discretion of the giver. And specifically, none of the examples said a tithe should be given nor advocated any of the forms of tithing found in the OT.

Specifically, 2 Corinthians 9:6 - 7 (edit) is legitimately regarded by many people as indicative of NT "obligation"; give cheerfully as you purpose in your own heart.

What is more, in the New Testament, our hearts are renewed by the Holy Spirit and if we submit to the Holy Spirit we will be well guided in what to give, where to give and who to give to.

Now, none of these contradicts the principle underlying any of the forms of OT tithing. The difference is liberty; the difference is freedom. But even the freedom and liberty of a Christian is a captive ---- a captive of the Holy Spirit! That freedom is not to be abused resulting in stinginess; rather, the 'captivity' is to exercise the freedom/liberty in Christ-like manner --- which is the same thing as according to the leading of the Spirit, which is the same thing as according to the teachings and example of Christ specifically and also of the apostles.

None of these contradicts the principle underlying any of the OT forms of tithing; rather they bring them into fulness.

Some additional matter sare more "antagonistic" so I will make the points in a separate post.

Candour: .......Their obsession with the material tending towards conspicuous consumption is at variance with what i believe Christ stood for and for this reason i no longer give them the time i used to. It's mostly about getting and more getting in the faith circle now and this leads towards greed and covetousness anyway you look at it.
........

A very serious problem with each of Word of Faith, prosperity 'gospel' and 'feel-good Christianity'.

Osteen may mean well and may help some/many on the "motivation" front, but his messages are often wooly and not even supported - truly biblically speaking.

The whole prosperity "gospel" thing is New Age stuff clothed in "Christian" garb.

[quote author=uj_sizzle]She did that 'before' she was a moderator and i know this because she told me about the chatbox plan before she did it and i promised to help out..she also got permission from JeSoul to go ahead with the thread.
That thread and the opening post was carefully written(with great care taken concerning her choice of words) to avoid a backlash from non-christians, and so far it hasn't caused a single problem till the second thread was created.[/quote]And that HBG thread has been going and has had the sticky status for some time! And it got the status not because it is a "Christian" thread --- but because it is popular!

Now, some are saying it should be abandoned or replaced by a "general chat" thread. Why?

They will shout "equality"! Which "equality"?

True equality in this context is this: let those who so desire start a Non Christian Chat thread; WHEN it becomes so popular as to be deserving, let them ask for it to be stickied. Shikena!

Anybody notice a parallel to the campaigns for atheist chaplains in the American military; or that public buildings should not have religious displays like the Ten Commandments or the Bible etc etc? Maybe also there should not be religious holidays like Christmas, Ileya etc --- there is no "equality".

It is really very simple jawe, Ishi.

Even on the Moslem people's section - a whole section - non Moslems can go and post there; as long as they keep within the rules and avoid being offensive.

Ishilove: ... I don't regret anything because I didn't break any rules, and I will do it again if I feel the inclination to. Shikena

That is the point.

As long as no rules are broken, respect is observed and offensive posts are avoided, anybody can post on any thread.

That is the way it is and that is the way it has always been --- that is the way it should be!

[quote author=uj_sizzle]....
HBG stated categorically what was and wasn't allowed on the Christian thread,[/quote]Exactly! Got it in one. And the previous Mods always made clear that the purpose of the thread as stated should be respected.

What is more, some non-Christians do in fact post on the thread!

[quote author=uj_sizzle]i'm saying thr Atheist should do the same too.
When a house has no rules, then everything goes since it is a chat thread and technically can't be derailed.[/quote]Again, very much on point.

1. The thread that Obadiah started was not "derailed"; neither was any rule broken on it.
2. The discussion on it was "chat" --- non-Christian "chat"!


[quote author=uj_sizzle]They are even free to borrow the Christian thread rule and edit to their preference.[/quote]No be today (some of) dem dey steal and borrow, jare.

manmustwac: @Enigma
Actually it was me who decided to sticky the christian chat thread because it had done 22 pages in a very short time.

Ah, so you agree that the Christian Chat thread was stickied simply because it was popular and not because it is a "Christian" thread! Cool.

manmustwac: I decided to replace it with the Christian. E Worship thread that only Olaadegbu & Grace5 patronized.

Again you confirm that you stickied it because it was popular --- and you substituted it for one not so popular! Again, cool!

manmustwac: If i had not stickied it. It would have faded out eventually.

1. You do not know that it would have faded "eventually"!
2. One can also say that if the "Best Religion Forum Topics" thread had not been stickied, it would also have faded out "eventually"!

manmustwac: If i had forseen the issues that we're having now because of it i doubt if i would not have stickied it.

1. You have not made yourself clear here; I suppose you mean you would not have stickied it. Even so, no problem!
2. It has been stickied: it was stickied as you said because it was popular. Then let the Mods unsticky the present Non-Christian Chat thread; let the "non-Christians" start their own chat threads according to their own rules; WHEN it achieves the same popularity that made you sticky the Christian Chat thread, then let the present Mods think about stickying it too.

manmustwac: @mods. I stickied the bible quiz thread because its a very popular thread. Which one of you three decided to unsticky it & why?

Pressure was exerted on them by the "spoilers" and hypocrites --- which led to confusion!

Thanks Ishilove.

Actually I have one more observation and one suggestion (tbh partly half-hearted - esp re 2 & 3 below).

The Christian Chat thread did not suddenly become a sticky, it became a sticky because it had certain qualities. Chief of these qualities is --- popularity as evidenced by the frequency of posts that got it noticed by the then moderators.

It is a great indulgence to have a stickied Non-Christian Chat thread when its potential popularity is not certain or guaranteed. This means those who are complaining after having been so indulged are ingrates.

Now let us make a counter suggestion against those intended to undermine the Christian Chat thread.

1. Leave the Christian Chat thread as it is. Afterall it achieved that status looong before and irrespective of the idea of a Non-Christian Chat thread.

2. Unsticky the current Non-Christian Chat thread and let it find its own level.

3. Suggest to Non-Christians to start a Chat thread by and for themselves and let them set the Rules for the thread. Keep an eye on the thread and if and when it achieves a sufficient level of popularity as to be deserving, then sticky it.

truthislight: Then i guess it is the content of a post that determines whether it is christian or not.

So, anybody can post on any thread, but the content is the issue/the determining factor.

Peace

These are two very good points. Even when Christians have different points of view it is easy to tell when people are speaking from a Christian point of view.

In any event, the issue is not that only Christians should post on the Christian Chat Box; the issue is not even that everything on the thread should be "Christian" or on a "Christian topic" etc. The issue is to respect the purpose, history and established members of the thread AND perhaps more importantly to avoid being offensive.

Among civilised people, that should not be too much to ask!

As far as the Non-Christian Chat thread is concerned the very same principles apply! Respect the purpose, history, established members (if any) of the thread and, most importantly, avoid being offensive.

1. Posting a secular love song on that thread IS non-Christian chat! So what offence has been caused?
2. There had been no established pattern to the thread yet and a strong non-Christian poster group had yet to be established --- so, as yet the people posting on the thread currently will naturally determine the pattern and direction of the thread.
3. Nothing done on the thread so far prevents the eventual establishment and even possible dominance of a non-Christian poster group.


Now a more general point: it is quite noticeable that some people are rather keen, for some ulterior motives, to undermine or even get rid of the Christian Chat thread. It would be a travesty if their selfishness is indulged and if they are allowed to have their way.

[quote author=uj_sizzle]No one has ever stopped a non-Christian from posting in a Christian chat thread Striky..they've only asked that no one should post anything anti-Christian in it. period.[/quote]It's pretty simple isn't it? It is so obvious it is even blinding.

Especially for Mods and Obinoscopy (suggested summary):

1. Non-Christians can post on the Christian Chat thread; just be respectful and avoid being offensive.
2. Christians can post on the Non-Christian Chat thread; just be respectful and avoid being offensive.
3. Anyone who thinks a post on either thread is "offensive" could complain on the thread or use the 'Report' button
4. The final decision on what is offensive on either thread belongs to the Mods --- even though they are all professed Christians; the censure of others watching will eventually ensure that they will be objective
5. The final decision on what to do about an "offensive" post on either thread lies with the moderators; whether caution/warn, hide post, ban, ban forever and also in the hereafter and in life everlasting etc etc

Guys, permit me a little levity here --- just for a brief moment. I have read Zikky's traffic light analogy again and it brings this up in my mind.

In Britain --- traffic lights are to be obeyed.

In France traffic lights are mere suggestions

In Italy (and Lagos?) traffic lights are merely [Christmas] decorations!

I'll get me coat!

Ihedinobi:

I was actually describing a personality trait of mine. But it does fit indeed. However, I think that the danger in that position is the tendency to forget that Christians are together one organism, we do not exist independent of one another. We badly need one another to reach the full maturity of the One New Man.

For this reason, while we must be fully persuaded of all things in our own selves, we must be sure to be open to correctuon and advice from one another. Plus, it is not merely some favorite doctrine of any class or stratum of believers that there are those among us to whom God has committed the responsibility for others. I know that all of us are responsible for every other person in those things where God has taught us lessons in Christ but there are such as are particularly tasked with the spiritual welfare of their brethren. In Peter's words, they are "[given] to the ministry of the Word and to prayer".

Of course, they may do other things beside watch for their brethren, but this is their main duty.

Maybe I picked the sentence because it is also "my own way" too. lol

Yes, I agree about the danger you have highlighted --- which may even end up in unjustifiable rebelliousness.

But consider my inbuilt caveat ---- that the person acting that way truly submits to the Holy Spirit.

True submission to the Holy Spirit will lead one also to recognise that one's individual place is to be viewed in light of the corporate whole; in light of the one Church.

And we should also bear in mind that the Holy Spirit speaks and reveals His leading in various ways. If you ask me, this kind of discussion, when done in the spirit of brotherliness and seeking to help each other understand, is in fact one of the ways the Holy Spirit speaks to each one of us.

Ihedinobi: ..... I'd much rather be told the endgame and be left to figure out how to get there myself. ....

I quite like this statement.

Compare with two important things from the New Testament.

1. Jesus said the "endgame" (well, in a sense ) is: love God with all your heart and love your neighbour

2. The apostle John said, you have the Holy Spirit and you don't need anyone to teach you.

Does it fit with being allowed to figure out the endgame by oneself --- except the figuring out is with the help of the Holy Spirit?

Let me also add one dimension.

One key thing about the promises and result of the "new covenant" is that the new man is born of the Spirit. Crucially, he is led of the Spirit --- if he submits of course.

A potential consequence of this is that an action that is truly led by the Spirit may even go against "the law" or conventional understandings of "the law"!

Examples
Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath
Is it "lawful" to heal/forgive on the Sabbath?
Rahab the harlot counted among the heroes of faith in the book of Hebrews etc

Thy nature, gracious Lord, impart;
Come quickly from above;
Write Thy new name upon my heart,
Thy new, best name of Love.

EDIT: Sorry about initial botch! The verse is from the hymn "O for a heart to Praise my God"


Lord have mercy on me and help me, but another favourite verse of mine is:

A heart resigned, submissive, meek,
My great Redeemer’s throne,
Where only Christ is heard to speak,
Where Jesus reigns alone.

Full wording can be found at http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/o/f/oforhear.htm

And my personal favourite tune for the hymn is called 'Abridge', below


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wmjJQJ-sg0

Zikkyy: My view:

The law written on our heart is not a list of dos and don'ts (e.g. the law of Moses), it is a nature. It is what we have become (as true Christians). What is written on our heart is not the list (of dos and don'ts) but the source of that list itself. It is more complete (it cannot be quantified) because they is always a natural reaction to every situation. When you live by a list, you will need to do some scanning to identify the specific part of the law you be contravening (or required) for any situation So, by saying the law of moses is abolished one is not saying the Christian is now lawless, he has taken up a nature from which the law was sourced.

The law (of moses) is like the traffic light at the junction (with camera and traffic police to ensure compliance and sanction offenders), it is there to ensure order and protection of lives and properties (for those that ordinarily will not stop or care about other road users). The man that is by nature disciplined and have respect/concern for life will by nature approach the junction with care/caution (with or without the traffic light/police). This was why Paul stated that the law is good (for maintaining law & order) and is meant for criminals (law breakers), but it is not for the righteous. Any man that respond to an external requirement (i.e. the law of moses) does so based on the belief that he will be sanctioned for non-compliance (or may not reap the benefit resulting from compliance).

Bravo bros! Exquisite.

A few points:

1. Let us just say that the history of papacy is erm "very interesting": surprising that this detail is lost on some people ignorantly shouting "apostolic succession".

2. The impression often given by some Roman Catholics is that the "pope" is "infallible" and seemingly on all matters of doctrine when in fact Roman Catholic documents and teaching indicate that even the "pope" is actually fallible on matters of doctrine.

3. For hundreds of years the head of the Roman Catholic Church was not even called or titled "pope"!

4. It was in fact the Eastern Orthodox people who first came up with the title "pope" and they were calling their patriarchs "pope" before the Roman Catholics first borrowed it and then took it over - at least most prominently.

5. The title "pope" is no better than "Daddy G.O.", "Papa" etc; in fact "pope" really means "papa".

Ishilove: *hands raised*

Yelso. I'm ever loyal, egbon!! Tell me to put my hands down

You know say bifor you tok sef I don efen dey smile wiTT approofa.

Ishilove: Egbon mi!! Twale!!

Na me oh, dearie! Na me na me!

I try to be fair generally but .......... let's just say some (kinds of) things provoke me into all these ruckus!

HumbledbYGrace: Italo, according to you m supposed to show you here that I dealt with the matter your crying fowl for?

You need to check your facts before throwing insults.

Now, I replied you, if you continue with this chitchat I am going to hide your posts and ban you

My dear sis

Many people appreciate that you guys are new and trying your best and a lot of us (if not indeed most of us) are willing you guys to get better and better and to be successful. In other words we have good will and good faith towards you.

Do your best and even if you get removed, you can then hold your head high --- knowing that such a thing will not prevent you from getting on in life and achieving your more important goals.

Re the bolded: I think more warnings and cautions are helpful; perhaps be slower with bans and threats of bans. But I have to say that of course I do not know all the rules, principles and instructions that you have to operate by. Thus if those necessitate you to hide posts, threaten a ban or indeed ban, then just do what you have to do.

italo: No. In that case, the fair thing to do would be for her to communicate that. It would then be taken that she made a mistake. Her current defiant disposition suggests that she did all she did deliberately.

Is this also hypocritical?

Did you give her a chance ---- even solely on the basis of today's events?

Have your colleagues ever truly given her a chance?

Do Moderators elsewhere make mistakes or not?

Pygru: Smh!
This Rcc people

Even before this, they essentially threatened the owner saying they are more in numbers than everyone else etc etc. Honestly, I am not being rude but being factual when I say that they are hypocrites.

italo: You still dont get it...or perhaps dont want to get it.

My complaint isnt: I was insulted. Ban the culprit.

My complaint is: Apply the rules to everyone. And even if I do it again...ban me again (if that is the rule).

That isnt hypocrisy, is it?

I sincerely pray that you can understand it now.

OK because you do not "get it" which is why you are "praying" that I should "get it", let me help you open your eyes.

Supposing henceforth, she chooses not to ban anyone for such things --- would you then say she is "unfair" etc?

EDIT ---- suppose she has gained experience and learned from banning you and chooses to adopt a different approach henceforth, would you say she is "unfair" etc?