₦airaland Forum

And real life proof that your mind is mature (or more mature than mine) is what? You guys never cease to amuse me: Eager to ascribe superiority to yourselves because you attend a particular church. If it makes you sleep better at night, please continue in your delusion.

I get it. Because Jesus used some things that look silly, we should erase silliness from our vocabulary. Any thing silly that comes our way we should accept, because we'd be like Jesus. What is the point of being big-minded if our mind is only used as decoration?

Helping the poor is part of preaching the gospel. Besides, I think the key question is: After the church has used its resources to organize crusades and other things that come within the traditional definition of preaching the gospel, what should it do with the rest - offer the pastor a lavish lifestyle or help the poor within and outside the church?

Joagbaje:
[Sometimes while in church, the Pastor makes everyone stand up; don’t complain that he’s making you stand again and again. That’s not learning to listen to the Holy Spirit. You may not know, but He’s training you to endure hardness as a good soldier.

I'm sorry, but this is one of the silliest things I see in church. Are we so low in our thinking that this is even considered an effective way for us to learn or train? I don't think the Holy Spirit has much to do with it.

Joagbaje:
It's poverty mentality. Those who worship money find it hard to give.

When you have a different opinion about a doctrinal position or any teaching in Church, you call it higher revelation. When somebody has a divergent opinion on the teaching and practice of finances in Church, you do not see it as a difference of opinion; you conclude it is a poverty mentality. We all really need to watch out for the love of money, which is the root of all evil. I know many christians are quick to correct those who say that "money is the root of all evil" by noting that the scripture says "the love of money," not money per se. Yet, the way they approach this money issue raises concerns that they may love money, perhaps without knowing it.

frosbel:
^^^


Absolutely.

For example I have met many who blame the GOD factor for all wars since time immemorial.

Anyway address the 10 points mentioned in a logical and relevant manner.

The God factor and God are not the same. The atheist is saying that people's belief in God is causing wars, etc., not the atheist's belief in Him. If anything, he's saying people should discard such belief, not that he believes it. You don't need any signs to know that someone is an atheist. Anyone who does not believe in the existence of God is an atheist. That's all you need.

wordtalk:
I'm quite aware of the use of either terms ('give' or 'pay') in relation to tithes, even where you're referring to something other than the language or expression - as I've observed in commenting to k.c1.

I may not speak on everyone's behalf; but this is what I hold: it's okay to 'give' tithes rather than assume it should be 'paid' as a legal debt. Although I already commented on this, perhaps i should repost that article with the link so you understand what I'm trying to say:

I hope that helps in some way.

Thanks. I have a question or two but would defer till some other time.

wordtalk:
This is not rocket science, lol.

Instead of arguing who's right or wrong, one should look at the context of language use. Some people tend to say 'pay tithe(s)' from traditional use of language; others understand it simply as an act of giving ('give tithes'). Both expressions are valid, although neither use of term ('pay' or 'give') should translate into a form of legalism.

Take Abraham's experience, for instance: Genesis 14:20 says that Abraham 'gave' tithes to Melchizedek; and in Hebrews 7 it uses 'gave' (vv. 2 & 4); yet, referring to Levi in Abraham, it uses the word 'pay' (Heb. 7:9). In all this, we know that Abraham's act was voluntary rather than obligatory.

It is not every thing that the apostles tried to explain in detail, for that would tend to our being spoon-fed. Yet, I know that not every pastor who encourages tithing would tend to forget 'grace'. It does not help to make sweeping generalizations about people.

It goes beyond language use. There are people here that believe that a tenth of your income belongs to God. That being the case, when you put the money in an envelope, you're not giving to God, you're paying what you owe. I understand that both words can be used - as in Hebrews - to refer to voluntary giving. But that's not the case I'm referring to here. So, if you don't mind, do you think it's a payment as they use the term and why (not)?

wordtalk:
That again is strongly unfair, if not patently misguided. I have not been quibbling on minor points - unless you're asserting that anti-tithers have been quibbling over non-essentials, for it is what they have argued that I have responded to. I think you've rather not read my comments before jumping to conclusions - if you missed them, please go and read again.

- - - - - - -
Edit


As far back as post #259, I said this:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=724424.msg8869922#msg8869922

- and also in post #264, this is what I said:

I therefore don't understand why you're suddenly making unjustified comments that I had "never" given a direct response! This is why I urge you to please check carefully before you make untrue statements.

A direct response would be that somebody made a statement - that tithing is a payment or requirement for salvation, etc.- and you responded to that person. If you have an instance where you did, I'll like to see it. Remember, this should be in response to a pro-tither, not an anti-tither (using both terms for convenience).

And yes, both sides have been quibbling. Which is the more reason why you should have responded with equal graciousness when the other party called a truce because both of you were focusing on irrelevant stuff.

wordtalk:
Some teach tithing as obligatory or 'required'; many others do not teach it as such even though they encourage tithing in their churches. At least, I know of one church (among several others) - the Assemblies of God Church: they use terms such as 'pay tithes' as well as 'give tithes', but they stress that tithing is not a legalistic obligation.

So, who's right, in your opinion - those who say 'pay' tithes and those who say 'give' tithes? And in the universe of tithe preaching, there's no contest between the quantum of preaching on tithes as required and tithes as voluntary giving. Even preachers that are big on grace abandon that when it comes to tithing. You can be a prostitute or fraudster and prosper because God is a merciful God who has forgiven you your sins. But you can't prosper even if you live a pure life, pray a lot, clean the church premises so long as you do not pay your tihes. God's grace ends at that point. There must be something about this tithe. If only the man with the deepest revelation, Apostle Paul, had taken time to give a detailed exposition on the subject.

wordtalk:
^^
I was actually going to edit that line, but since you commented on it before I could.

I think there's a difference in what we're saying. If we were close, there would be no arguments sustained between garyarnold and me up until now - would we not have simply left it at saying that Christians could tithe as long as they do not suppose that tithing procures salvation?

However, when he goes on and on completely and vehemently disavowing any hint of tithing among Christians, that takes the cake! That is why I have kept my comments on the issues he raises rather than on other things.

At least I posted a link - and if there are questions, I would oblige answers. To whom would I be responding to when such 'direct responses' have not been called for? I think your comments are rather unjustified.

Not been called for? That's a central part of this discussion. Should christians 'pay' tithes or not? Every other thing is tangential. Yet, you've not done much to address that other than post a link buried in a long post, while you quibble over such minor points as whether 1% of 10% is a tenth or tithe or whether giving done after taking care of family responsibilities constitute a tithe so long as it called that.

wordtalk:
What do you call unfounded accusations from the 'gentleman' you're inferring - graciousness? I've tried to accommodate dialogue as much as it can be given; but when they turned the discussion into ridicule, where's the graciousness in that?

FYI, I'm not 'fighting' anyone - those who feel a 'fight' only show us how much of a dialogue they desire.

I think you mistake me for someone else. Not in one place would you read such an idea even remotely suggested in my comments.
I'm not 'debating' - there's nothing here that looks like a 'debate'. I have given a link to the article for anyone interested to see what I was on about - unless someone specifically calls for a reposting of it here, which I will oblige.

Read mine again. I think we're saying the same thing - that you do not require tithing for salavation, blessing or protection. Others do. Why not show them why they are 'wrong'? Instead, you've never given a direct response to the claims about 'paying' instead of 'giving' tithes.

wordtalk:
Sorry for your loss! This is not a personality contest, so stop having headaches for being a poor communicator.

There goes the usual jingoistic pity-party again! And you didn't consider yourself 'knowledgeable' when you kept bringing up the slogan of 'lack understanding' because your views were shoddy? Sorry again.

Is this about the flat-earth theory now? Is tithing at par with the end of the world? More clutching at straws.

Good - that's why you should let others account of themselves to God, rather than fidgeting about their choice to tithe. For all that, God is not going to judge anyone for tithing.

Your choice, their choice - everyone is free to choose whether to tithe or not.

It has not been a 'debate', so stop pampering yourself. It would not be a waste of time if folks like you had shown some deference to those who are persuaded contrary to your arguments.

You're sounding like a convert. Miles ago on this thread, some have already expressed that tithing for them is not a rigid law; but anti-tithers did not let it rest at that point. Hiding behind this excuse of 'the real message' is nothing short of a make-over.

I'm just wondering how many such churches count on your list of 'EVERY'. Have you never heard about the recent survey by the NAE (National Association of Evangelicals)? While about 58% of Evangelical leaders say that tithing is not 'required', yet "about 95% of those who responded to our survey said that they at least tithed – they give 10% or more. So, they do tithe even though they think that it is not a requirement" (NAE President, Leith Anderson).

This is just to show that there are many Christian leaders who encourage their congregation to tithe without making it a requirement in legalistic terms.

If you want to understand something about my persuasions to tithe as a Christian, read this article:

Lol, is that not the 'real message' in your anti-tithing campaigns? Those who choose to give tithes understand what they are doing - they do not have to wait for you to "encourage" them to avoid using that word. Many people who oppose tithing also use another word: "freewill offerings", even though that term does not once appear anywhere in the NT.

This game of words where anti-tithers have a problem with 'tithes' is conveniently hidden behind fancy talk of 'encourage' this and that - soon we will be reading how you don't have problems with people tithing "per se".

Oh pleease! How many of your recruits have become "generous givers" above a tenth of their resources? If 1 out of 10 is a problem, who would you convince of your "generosity"?

If you ask me, I'd think it would have been more appropriate to respond with the same level of graciousness that the gentleman extended. Your persistence in 'fighting' even when it is clear there's little basis for these arguments suggests that you have something else in mind beyond your claim to voluntary tithing. If anything, your position is much closer to his than those who argue that tithing is required for blessing,salvation or protection from physical and financial ruin. Maybe, you should spend more effort explaining to those people why you do not 'pay' tithes, but instead 'give' tithes. That would be a more fruitful debate.

Zikkyy:
Oga Jo, which one be this again we work and make a giving? what happened to receiving from our work? is that different from the harvest? how do you give the fruit of your labour when you have not received? you see yourself na you are desperately trying to justify the sermon and in the process provide further evidence that the whole thing was 'wash-wash' (scam)

My brother, I found that puzzling too. Get a job, get paid, give, wait for harvest, then live off the harvest, including providing for your family. I  bet even the pastors do not practice that.

I concur with the advice that you should have stayed. And I encourage you to move back, if possible, unless he's using force to prevent you. What happens from now may even add a chapter or an epilogue to the book. The truth is attaining success is way easier than managing success. From my experience, while many have experienced the former, only a few has done well with the latter. And a lack of the right people or supportive networks often contributes to it. I believe everyone in this world needs a Dutch Uncle - one who can tell them the truth when they're going the wrong way. Unfortunately, the nature of ministry today is that many senior pastors are surrounded by hero worshippers who are afraid to tell them what they're doing wrong or those who choose to keep quiet in order not to elicit the pastor's ire.

Joagbaje:
You are adding your own interpretation now. We work and make a giving, we recieve a harvest. We live on harvest. The first thing God gives us is opportunity to sow seeds.

Are yo now saying that the word of God is a lie. That giving doesn't have a harvest? It's either the word is true or not. What do you say?

I hardly hear a minister talk about people giving to him. Even though it's there in he bible and nothing is wrong with that. It's something most minister avoid so as not to be misunderstood. If a minister talk about church project and other things ., it's a right thing. A real minister is the number one giver many pastors these days work ,do business and make money . They as Christians put their money into the gospel as well.

There are different kinds of giving . Giving to the needy is only one of them. If someone address the issue of giving generally and mentions different kinds of giving , what is the fuss ?.

The fuss is that the scriptures quoted focus on giving to the poor but the purpose of this message - or 99% of what I've heard - is not about giving to the poor or needy. If you want to preach giving to the ministry, why not use scriptures on that? Also, since there are scriptures on giving to the poor, why not use them to preach giving to the poor, instead of as in this case, using them to generate money for the church, not the poor the scripture was referring to. I donot recall hearing any message on giving to the poor and challenging christians to give to the poor, with the same emphasis I hear messages about giving to fund the ministry.

Sure, ministers talk about giving to themselves, often in the form of testimonies about how people gave to them and reaped a mighty harvest.

I believe that giving brings rewards. But giving based on wrong teaching and wrong motives may not be rewarding, accounting for why many are persuaded to give in the church and still lack consistently. Better to give 5 Naira out of sound motive and right knowledge than 500 naira out of the wrong ones. That's why the pastor's focus is important. But as long as he receives 500 instead of 5 naira, he's happy. But the flock is suffering.

I hope I'm wrong in interpreting what the message said about the reason for work. But it's clear enough that the pastor said that the purpose of work is not to make a living but to give. What other interpretation can one give to it, other than what it clearly says? Your own interpretation is no different from the one in the message, i.e., we do not live on what we earn but from the profits of our giving of what we earn. Again, that's why many in the church are essentially starving. The Bible says no such thing and many that give on that basis are not seeing the results promised by the preachers.

wordtalk:
Lol, you get it all wrong! Many people who tithe are not sticking to a tenth - you will find in most cases that their giving exceeds a tenth of their resources. Anti-tithers often bring up a strawman argument that 'tithers' stick to 10%, which is not true; whereas I have found many anti-tithers claiming they 'give, give, give far greater than 10%' where in fact their arguments betray they are very stingy. [b]A question I often ask is this: have anti-tithing arguments increased giving in Christianity?[/b]Do you give 99% of your own resources? I'm not putting you on spot; but then there's no reason to mock at what others are doing when you yourself cannot show how you exceed what you're complaining about in reality.

That's a completely irrelevant question. Increased giving out of fear is no better than little giving out of love. Reminds me of pastors that tend to measure the success of their ministry by the increase in revenues, when a cursory look suggests that the bulk of the money is coming from thieves and other immoral sources. Why should a pastor preaching the truth and receiving less money be made to feel inferior to the pastor of questionable wealth? How sad our priorities are in the church today.

Joagbaje:
[There’re people who say the reason they work is to make a living, but that’s not what the Word teaches, it lets us know why we ought to work:

“Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth” Ephesians 4:28.

I'm not sure that's excactly what that scripture is saying. That we should give part of our earnings to the poor is not the same as saying we work for the sole reason of giving to the poor. It's saying that when we work, we have enough resources to give to the poor. But it also means that we have enough resources to do other things, including providing for our family, which the Bible says those that fail to do so are worse than infidels.

The danger in this kind of interpretation is that people continue to give endlessly to church programs and neglect other uses for the money that God has given to them through work. No wonder, many of such people continue to struggle in life and do not see any or commensurate results from their giving as promised by the pastor.

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.

wordtalk:
The point I was making is that Kennedy believed in tithing, which is the one thing anti-tithers are struggling to deny. How Dr. Kennedy saw tithing is an altogether different thing from saying flatly that he did not believe in tithing. How he counseled his congregation on tithing does not lead to making flat statements that he did not believe in tithing. This is why I implored you to first try and access his material on tithing before drawing any conclusion.

On one level I see your point: he believes we should give a tenth of something, although that something is different from what others believe. Well, is that what the titing debate is about? Choose any number, give a tenth and you're a tither? If that's the case, I agree that he believed in tithing. But I have a feeling that would not satisfy those who believe tithing is a principle or requirement.

wordtalk:
Perhaps it's easier to see I've said it plainly many times over. But since those asking are denying categorically that no theologian has ever spoken about tithing as a principle, that was why I made reference to Thomas Aquinas who appears on the same list that the denier had posted. There are other theologians (tithing and anti-tithing) who have also done the same; since those who are vehemently opposed to any mention of tithing can't read beyond their cubicles, I thought they should leave their arm-chairs and look over such references - it's not difficult.

Again, it's easier to say what the tithing principle is than all this rigmarole. It'll also save us all a lot of time.

wordtalk:
Not if you have read Kennedy. If you can access some of his material on the subject, you'll find he was using the word 'tithe' and 'tithing' in clear and deliberate manner. Those who probably have read his material have issues with him because they know what he was talking about - and he made himself clear enough.

However, although I don't have direct access to link to in this post, you might like to consider an extract of a review -

The highlighted is a quote of Dr. Kennedy's in reference to Malachi 3. Nobody should feel his or her intelligence insulted if they would only do a simple check

One need not read a lot of what Kennedy wrote before his passing to understand his position. If he says – as it is clear he did – that one can deduct his family expenses and give a tenth of what’s left, he’s not talking about the tithe as is being discussed, regardless of whether he bases his messages on Malachi or not. When you hear statements such as “tithe is a payment, not giving”, you can’t square that with taking the liberty to make all those deductions and effectively “pay” 1% instead of 10%. That view is also in alignment with non-tithers, who believe that Christians should give generously whenever they can, including after taking care of family needs.

wordtalk:
Since I outlined what I meant by my use of "Biblical principle" in consonance with Biblical hermeneutics and exegesis (and even gave you a quote from Thomas Aquinas' use of it), you guys felt it was way beyond your horizon and never tried to discuss it. So, I'll just let you wallow in your self-pity by asking you again to explain for me what Russell Kelly was claiming "in agreement" of the "biblical principles" in his quote of Dr. James D. Kennedy - have you even attempted a dot on that?

I think it's easier to state in one sentence what the tithing principle is than making reference to Aquinas or such big words as hermeneutics and exegesis. Those ones can come to support your position after you have stated in simple terms what the principle is. And while at it, you can also clarify on the issue of whether tithing is a principle, as opposed to being based on a principle and what the difference is.

Reading through the discussion about what James Kennedy said, it's obvious that he does not believe in tithing. He may use the word "tithe" but when you make all the allowances he made - for paying for food, etc - and giving a tithe of the rest, that's neither Biblical tithing nor the tithing preached in churches today or even on this thread. In fact, he "short-changes" many tithe preachers. E.g., you earn $10,000. Many tithe teachers would tell you your tithe is $1000. Others, would say, your tithe is a tenth of your net, i.e. post-tax income. So, if tax is 30%, your tithe is 1/10 of $7,000, which is $700. What Kennedy is saying is that from the  $10,000, you can deduct your taxes, mortgage, car note, food costs, etc. When you've done all that, you may have $1000 left. Then you tithe $100 which is a tenth of  the remaining $1000. There's not one tithe teacher I know that believes that that $100 is a tithe and that a person that does that is a tither. Please, nobody should insult our intelligence by saying that because Kennedy uses the word tithe, he's saying anything remotely close to what tithe teachers believe. Instead, he's saying something closer to what non-tithe teachers believe - in fact he's more lenient than they are.

Joagbaje:
Tithes and offerings are all based on spiritual principles . They are beyond the laws and commandment. Tithing is least in our givings, I still wonder why the fuss over it. People give land ,cars ,houses. If a pastor want to deafraud why go or ten percent why not 50 percent. All these scamming alarm are very funny.

I happily drop 10%. It does not bother me. And no pastor I have been under has misused church members' contributions. But there are core issues beyond the size of the tithe:

(1) The need for our practices to be grounded in the Bible.

(2) The need to be sincere in what we are teaching, even if it only takes one penny out of people's pockets.

(3) The need to explain things clearly. We keep on hearing that tithing is based on principles, but not one person has mentioned what these principles are. Yet, we're supposed to simply accept it.

(4) The need not to keep people in bondage or guilt if God has not imposed the duty to do a particular thing.

(5) The need not to keep people away from God's plan for them. E.g., X just received 100K Naira. Immediately, an opportunity came for him to invest the money and reap extra 50K by month end. If tithe is an obligation, he cannot do that. He misses the opportunity. If tithe is not an obligation, he takes the opportunity. With the new 150K Naira, he gives 20K Naira to the church (God). Everybody wins. With obligatory tithing, he only gave 10K Naira. Everybody loses. Now, if tithe is really obligatory, it doesn't matter that he only gave 10K since following what God says is better in the long run. But to be dismissive on the basis that the tithe is a small portion is unhelpful.

Note, I've not even mentioned those that do not have 10% to give from their income. People, who after their creditors have taken monthly obligations such as mortgage, rent, car note, children's school fees, feeding, have less than 10% left. The children of Israel never faced this kind of problem and were required to tithe out of their abundance. Even Abraham gave 10% when he didn't have to worry where fuel money would come from after tithing. Pastors need to be more sympathetic, instead of adopting a cavalier attitude that dismisses people's concerns. [BTW, I have the same atittude toward any "obligation" in the church, even non-financial ones]

wordtalk:
The highlighted words are the answer you seek concerning my identifying the said principle.

What does the word "tithe" mean to you in basic definition? I'm sure you saw where I defined other terms such as circumcision (ie., consecration), etc? When you see the basic meaning behind the term, it would not be difficult to see the difference between a legalistic application and an application in principle.

The reason why some keep asking this question repeatedly is because they ignore the explanations and references cited already in order to maintain a legalistic argument.

Forgive me, but I've read most of what you've written on this thread, but have not seen where you explained the principles behind tithing. If you don't mind, indulge me one more time. Your explanation that the tenth is the principle does not satisfy, since the tithe itself is the tenth. Are you saying that God has a principle of honoring the tenth (of things) so that when we give a tenth of income, we're following that principle? If so, where in the Bible did you find such principle? Why did God choose ten and not, 9,8, 7 or any other number?Also, shouldn't we then be honoring him, in addition to income, with a tenth of other things - yet I don't hear that preached? And how often should we honor him with the tenth in a year? For you to be consistent, our fulfilment of the tithe cannot be a repetition of the OT practice, because that's not the approach you take with our fulfilment of other practices, such as circumcision.

wordtalk:
I apologise. To be honest, I passed it over simply because I've answered such a question in the body of my previous comments. I have said repeatedly that Christians are not called to legalism; rather, we are to seek principles from the OT Scriptures for our application today.

But let me oblige you -

Among others, the operative covenant has changed - from the old covenant to the new covenant.

What implications does this have? Here are a few for your consideration -

1.  While we are not bound to the Mosaic Law in a legalistic manner, we as Christians cannot make it void of its substance or principles - "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law." (Romans 3:31, ESV).

[b]2.  When we find references to the Law as used by the apostles to teach Christian doctrines, it is not a matter of legalistic applications, but of principles - please see my comment above where I tried to distinguish between the 'letter of the law' and "the spirit of the law".

3.  To ask questions like, 'why are we not tithing as God instructed in Deuteronomy 14 vs 22-29' depends on what you're driving at - that is, are you asking that we should adhere to a legalistic application or rather seek out the principles that the Law provides us with? If you're asking for a legalistic application, then perhaps you should understand that is not my view - rather, I propose that we look for the principles instead.

4.  Let me give you another example apart from tithing (I have used the example of circumcision before, so I won't repeat that here). What if I read a passage in the Law regarding the Passover in Exodus 12:11? And then I ask you: do you as a Christian keep a "passover" feast? If you say 'No', then I point you to 1 Cor. 5:8 where Paul says "Let us therefore celebrate the festival" (from verse 7 it is clear he was talking about a "passover". So you agree that Christians do celebrate a passover, right - since "Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed"?

5. So far so good. The Passover is part of the Mosaic Law. But in the NT, Paul also teaches that Christians should celebrate "this festival". The problem here is this: a legalist would ask the same question in the manner you asked: "why do we not celebrate the passover as God directed in Exodus 12:11? What has changed?"

However, any reader who is acquainted with the OT knows that the idea of the Passover is intrinsically imbedded in the Mosaic law. But for us as Christians, when we celebrate our "Passover", it is in principle and not in the literal manner as stipulated in the Law. What this means is that the basic meaning of this feast is what we are pointed to, rather than outward "letter" in the Law.

6.  [/b] This is why we find in many other things that the apostles used the law of Moses to teach Christian doctrines without seeking a literal application, but rather seeking out the principles. Circumcision is not denounced; rather it is the "outward" circumcision that people tend to read in "the letter" that is the problem (Romans 2:29). The "passover" is not denounced; rather it is not a matter of "the letter" (1 Cor. 5:7-. The Sabbath is not denounced; rather, it is the legalism in application that becomes a problem (Heb. 4:9). Etc. etc.


So, when you ask: "what has changed", I ask: "what has changed" in the passover or circumcision or sabbath, etc, etc. Look for the principles, not "the letter".

You make some solid points and your effort is commendable. But the essential weakness of your argument that you've not been able to overcome is that you've not identified what the tithing principle is or the principle behind tithing. You mention passover, human sacrifice, circumcision and talk about how christians observe them today - in principle. However, when it comes to tithing, you state that christians should observe it - as it was in the Old Testament, that is, a tenth. So, while you preach against literalism, you embrace it wholeheartedly - only when it comes to the tithe. I'm sorry, but that doesn't sound consistent with your position on passover, circumcison, etc where you accept that substitutes are fine and the way to go today. What's the substitute for the tithe, so that the christian would be seen to be observing the principle without giving or paying a tenth?

Finally, some people say that tithe is not a law but a principle. Others say, it is based upon principle. Which is it?  And if it is a principle, what is that principle? If it is based on principles, what are those principles? These questions are at the core of the debate.

^

That's your best parting shot? How utterly disappointing! Of course, every negative wish or curse is of no effect here but returns to you with 1000-fold velocity, ferocity and intensity.

^
Home? You assume everybody is working a night shift with you? OK, looks like I've spent enough time with you. Your jokes are getting drier and you're now borrowing my words more and more. That's not enough to make me laugh. Take care, my friend.

coogar:
if you are idle - go and watch a paint dry.
it's so obvious you cannot cope with the pace of the debate - so you back off like nitwits do and decide to take a back seat and watch intellectuals tackle things that are far beyond your understanding.

just sit back and watch how educated people debate.
the moment you mentioned credit card reh reh reh. . . .i knew you have to be a lummox.
what a spaz!


you have answered yourself. abraham was rich in gold and silver.
so what did the not-so-rich spend?

what was this currency called then? naira or dollars?
is it a universal medium of exchange like today's money? is it something that everyone had but the degree of riches vary from individual to individual?
can you go to a car shop now and exchange 6 cows for a honda saloon car?

Watching a paint dry is not as much fun!!

Intellectual, indeed. Almost sure, you've never seen one. You would know how they behave. Hint: they don't go about calling themselves intellectuals.

coogar:
indulge me, please.
show me one direct quote from any of the nigerian pastors where it was mentioned the tithing of today has nothing to do with what was said in the bible. please just one quote.

how can it be the same? back then, the medium of exchange was livestock.
men were adjudged to be rich by the number of cows, rams, etc they possess. do we then convert our cash and start taking live rams to church in the name of offering and tithes? dang. . . . . .why are christians of nowadays so obtuse?
you have to factor that 2000 yrs have passed. civilization has brought it's own challenges in this matter. money is now the currency, not rams.

[b]i only insult people who insult me.[/b]an eye for an eye.

I would have let this slide, but I want to keep you talking. Can you point to where I insulted you before you started raining your infantile insults? IIRC, all I did was point out that your claim that only Nigerians complain about tithing was not true. Even if my claim was wrong, which it's not, could you not point out the error without insult? Anyway, I'm glad you took the course you took so everybody can see who you are. I've never seen such a combination of idiocy and mendacity in one person. My vote: a spot in the Guinness Book of Records, if you're not there already.

coogar:
the person asking you better dial 9-1-1.
another serial w@nker has been added to the statistics of the association of mental handicaps!
you should be muzzled n shackled before you bite and spread your insanity.

While your jokes are not that imaginative, this one was the worst. Are you losing your edge already? Please up the game. Today is your lucky day, as I have many more hours to burn on you. So, I'm up and waiting. And you didn't answer my questions about whether there are other sites where you market your idiocy. People like you are rare in these days of high-seriousness.

coogar:
my days. . . . .see the effects of a negative integer intelligence quotient.
the same priggish twit that said americans are poorer than nigerians has changed mouth that nobody said the poor in america ain't better than the poor in nigeria? so what about your ridiculous analysis on "the other way round" - americans should be tithing more than nigerians?

i have got a zero tolerance for troglodytes like yourself.
you are half-witted with little or no penmanship. you have shifted posts more than 20 times tonight after being boxed into a corner.
if intellectual debates ain't your forte - why not go home and learn some knitting with your nan?
bloody asswipe!

All along, I thought you're just a mere simpleton. Now, it's clear you're a bald-faced liar. Shifted post 20 times? Said that ALL the poor in Nigeria are better than ALL the poor in America? I love you man! Do you frequent other sites, so I can come over there enjoy you more! I'm here typing and laughing and somebody is asking me why! It's my new found cyber-friend!!