₦airaland Forum

You woke up on the wrong side of the bed or something? 

I don't know what else you had written about evil; I only know the two I've seen which I mentioned i.e. 'something which stifles human development' or 'a conflict between design and purpose'. My interest in your penultimate post was to point out that conflicts between "design" and "purpose" in man's experience have sometimes produced very beneficial results.

I'm not sure I understand your latest post anyway, maybe further posts will clarify what you mean.

Anyway, it's all good.

@Kay17

You seem to have changed your view on evil. I believe previously it was that which 'stifles human development'.

Turning to your latest one, are you aware that "accidental" and unintended by-products of a design (i.e. conflict between design and purpose) have sometimes produced very very poasitive and beneficial results ---- even sometimes much better results than the design purpose?

1. Jesus said that the tithing under the law should be done by those under the law.

2. Why did Jesus Himself never demand or receive tithes from anyone (if we are comparing Him to Melchizedek without limit)?

3. Why did Jesus never teach His own disciples to "tithe"?

4. Why did none of Jesus' apostles (whether Peter, James, John, Paul etc) ever teach anyone let alone any Christian to tithe?

And

5. Earlier question repeated:

Enigma:
. . . If the structure of tithing under the laws law is for the Jews only and has been done away with and if that means that "tithing" today is only in accordance with the example of Abram and not the law:

why then does Oyakhilome say that those not "tithing" are robbing God?

I'd like to repeat:

If the structure of tithing under the laws is for the Jews only and has been done away with and if that means that "tithing" today is only in accordance with the example of Abram and not the law:

why then does Oyakhilome say that those not "tithing" are robbing God?

If the structure under the law was strictly for the Jews, why then does Oyakhilome teach falsely that those not paying tithes today are "robbing God". Afterall the "robbing God" aspect is only tied to the structure under the law! A person following the Abram example but who does not pay tithes cannot be robbing God --- since he is under no obligation to pay tithes!

Ah, I've just thought of a couple of others!

In UK government pays child benefit for children every month ---- should tithes be paid on that?

What about old people, should they pay tithes on their pension or on any money they receive from their children of from other kind-hearted people?

What about infants? During naming ceremonies, they often get given some money --- should the infants be tithing on that? 

[quote author=Omo_Tier1 link=topic=860680.msg10144450#msg10144450 date=1328640047]I know where you stand, so I would not engage you in any discussion beyond this reply 'cos it would be like explaining the death, and ressurection of Jesus to Satan![/quote]Goooo kill am!!!!! Use your CEC "spirit"; flex your "ginosko" muscles on the "nepios"!  

[quote author=Omo_Tier1 link=topic=860680.msg10144339#msg10144339 date=1328639221]. . . see you as an unworthy to live individual.[/quote]Go kill am now! Or do it "spiritually"; send a 'curse' or 'prayer' or something!

Awwww, nice; wish our friend happy married life; I am looking at some time in late March other things being equal.

Cheers, e be like say I dey come Giddy soon sef though still slightly hazy.

Smal small, God go catch them ok maybe change their minds one at a time.

Meanwhile see our "friend" who said Jesus' commandment is not for Christians ---- now saying giving (it is always money) is within the same commandment! You no see say na real waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

Lord Nuke

Howdy now!

I was aware you decided to "chill" a bit; so when I saw you online a couple of times I only said a quiet hello within me.

Nice to 'see' you.

The same royal law that is not a command or commandment for Christians to be following!

Whether it is "honour your father and mother", "do not steal", "do not covet", "do not commit adultery" etc, they are all within Jesus' royal commandment: love God and love your neighbour. Except that false teachers say that Jesus' royal commandment is not for Christians and that there is no commandment in the New Testament for Christians to obey.

What is not within Jesus' royal commandments are empty rituals "sow into pastor's lives", "tithe", "offer 7" etc.

The thing tire person sef!

staggerman:
If you love all men as Christ loves you, and do unto others as you'd like them to do unto you, you'd automatically love and honour not only your parents, but all men as well.
Peace and Grace be unto you.

Well said. Jesus' royal commandment: love god and love your neighbour covers everything - whether it is do not steal, do not covet, honour your father and mother etc etc

The only problem is that Joagbaje has argued on this very forum that the commandment is not for Christians to obey and also that there is no commandment for the Christian to obey.

See also my signature below. 

InesQor:
. . .
Unfortunately your definition of religion is handicapped, quite biased towards the more popular religions.

In fact, and for instance, Deism involves an acknowledgment of deity, BUT it doesn't necessarily acknowledge any divine involvement in human life. Your definition = FAIL.

Let me now give you few religions that do not worship any deity or deities.

[list]
[li]Theravada Buddhism[/li]
[li]Jainism[/li]
[li]Materialism[/li]
[li]Society of Humankind[/li]
[/list] . . .

Another one = evangelical atheism* 



* Edit, although they actually have some things that are basically for them "deities" or "transcendental things" of some sort!

A story:

For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard. “About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ So they went. “He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’
” ‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.
“He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’

“When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’

“The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. ‘These men who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’
“But he answered one of them, ‘Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

Maybe even God the Father shouldn't be called Jehovah Jireh etc?

Joagbaje:
Jesus didnt heap woe not on tithe payers  , he heaped woe on those who neglected mercy and justice.

Exactly, like those saying tithes and firstfruits are not to be given to parents when Jesus said that they can. 

Yep Jesus heaped woe on those who neglect mercy and justice in that way. 

So Jesus heaped woe on the heads of the people "paying" tithes --- nice.

Private jet for pastor of course ---- NID!

"The voice is Jacob's voice but the hands are the hands of Esau."    

BERNIMOORE:
WHY THE ''FIRST FRUIT'' CONCEPT SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED BY TRUE CHRISTIANS AS IT  IS NOT MEANT FOR CHRISTIANS,BUT USED BY[color=#990000] 'SOME INDIVIDUALS WITH HIDDEN CRIMINAL MOTIVES' TO MISLEAD AND EXTORT THOSE WITH GOOD MOTIVES  TO SERVE GOD BUT HAVE LITTLE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT GODS REQUIREMENTS.[/color] . . .

Na Teevs!

I've been watching this thread in silent amusement. The scam is well known; started by American fraudsters calling themselves "pastors" and was (maybe still is) even being practiced by a well known Nigerian ministry m-industry here in the UK.

Another aspect of it that has not been highlighted: once (or even before) the book/material is produced, the entire production is first sold by the author/"pastor" in his own name to the church in its own name; so the "pastor" gets paid upfront ----- whether or not a single copy is sold subsequently.

The two threads are associated; one is a spin off of the other and the OP was first posted on the other.

Those arguing on the other thread that first fruits cannot be given to parents and must go into "church" are those also emphasising sowing "into pastor's life" on this thread.

We also know other aspects of the false teaching from elsewhere e.g. that sowing into "pastor's life" is what brings "prosperity" to the sower with the concomitant that sowing to the poor does not bring "prosperity" though it might have its own "reward".

And where did God say first fruits are to be given into "church" or to go into "church finances"?

And where did God say "tithes" are to be given into "church" or to go into "church finances"?


I repeat: under the Bible, whether it is first fruits or it is tithes, it can be given to God by giving it to the poor; that is what the Bible teaches.

God's word does not say give first fruits to a minister or into church for that matter!

God's word does not say pay/give tithes to a minister or into church for that matter!

Therefore a person can choose how he gives his first fruits or tithes to God ------ one major way that Jesus Christ said it should be done is by giving it to the poor!

In Mark 7, Jesus said people should not use the excuse of "giving to God" when they should be giving to their parents. So, in Jesus' eye, if one's parents are in need, one should give to them (whether it is "first fruit money" or "tithes money" and not rely on the tradition of men that one wants to "give to God" instead. The very thing that Jesus condemned is what the first fruit etc preachers are asking people to do! 

Elsewhere, Jesus made clear that if you give to the poor you give to God. He didn't say it is "general" or "specific"! In Jesus' eyes, giving to the poor is giving to God --- end of story. Jesus did not make a distinction between "church finance" or "gift to the poor". Neither did He say giving to "church finance" is 'specifically' giving to God while giving to the poor is only 'general' and not specifically giving to God.

Proverbs also says giving to the poor is giving to God ---- it does not say that is 'general' or that the 'specific' way to give to God is giving to "church finance".

Back to Jesus: Jesus' own words and emphasis are that giving to the poor is giving to God ----- no matter how much modern "pastors" want to twist things.

Therefore:

1. A person can give first fruits to God by giving it to the poor.

2. A person can give ("pay" "tithes" to God by giving it to the poor.

Jesus said you give to God when you give to the poor.

The book of Proverbs says you give to God when you give to the poor.

Only false teachers and frauds (and their victims/followers) disagree and refuse to see giving to the poor as amounting to giving to God.