₦airaland Forum

noetic2:
Like pilgrim pointed out. , . the existence/non-existence of these gods is not the bone of contention for a christian. The bone of contention is their acknowledgement. Whether they exist or not is not an issue. . . .they are NOT acknowledged.

Lol, bros noetic2. . . don't let these gentlemen trap you. You seem to have set a clap-trap for yourself, so watch it. The thing is not so much about "acknowledging" anything. The point in mine to huxley2 was clear: the Christian does not have a "need to disprove" what deities he (huxley2) mentioned. If he believes in them (not as a matter of teasing), all well and good: and, of course, his colleagues would have to ask him the simple and necessary question: WHY?

That is different from 'acknowledging' anything. Not because of the convenience of evasions and prevarications; but rather because the one who postulates seriously that he does believe in those entities as regards their very "existence" should demonstrate satisfactorily their veracity. That again does not mean that he is obliged to; more seriously, it would help his atheists colleagues come to a common grounds of their most cherished underlying bolt: the grounds for denying anything that does not square with their naturalism. Can they actually do so? That is what I am waiting for. This is why I remarked that dalaman was very, very smart (I don't know if he actually read where I was going; but he has a good head on his shoulders to at least decode my point). Tùdor, on the other hand, is yet to see it - and that is why he assumes this is about the same approach he's familiar with.

noetic2:
so when are u going to provide this "evidence" of urs.

I'm eager to see it.

noetic2:
Who is allah? . . . , if u can tell me who he/it is, then ur question can be answered.

I think he just did - in uppercase, as highlighted below:

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3977013#msg3977013 date=1244129606]DO YOU BELIEVE ALLAH THE CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH,THE ALL POWERFUL,OMHNIPOTET AND MERCIFUL GOD,WHO SENT HIS PROPHET MOHAMMED FOR THE LIBERATION OF THE WORLD?[/quote]That was why I asked him: "Do you, Tùdor?"

If he believes that Allah is what he proclaims, let him first show us why he believes so, then we can take it from there. Noetic, just leave these gentlemen alone for me at the mo. . . I wan help them THINK!


_________________

Edit:
I was joking about the frown, lol. Of course, you know I won't be angry at you, abi?

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3977013#msg3977013 date=1244129606]Pilgrim i want you to come out straight and answer the question
DO YOU BELIEVE ALLAH THE CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH,THE ALL POWERFUL,OMHNIPOTET AND MERCIFUL GOD,WHO SENT HIS PROPHET MOHAMMED FOR THE LIBERATION OF THE WORLD? Yes or no[/quote]Do you, Tùdor? You cannot arrogate to yourself the birthright of throwing questions at other and addressing none yourself. The several questions you proffered have been answered, and I haven't seen you address the basic point raised in my discourses. When you come forth honestly to discuss your own claims, then we move on from there. Am I being fair? If not, how not?

davidylan:
Bindex cuts and pastes ANOTHER "argument" without citing sources?

Yes, he does. . . he cleverly does/did. Unbeknownst to him, I was already aware of that same argument, even though he quite blended it so nicely to sound like his. Just an observation though, as I won't break his neck on that!

ogajim:
No one attacked those who tithe, all we said was that it was not necessary since Jesus himself said there were "weightier matters" but if they see someone trying to block their hustle, they come out swinging, not mad at you at all.

You don't have to shamelessly be so dubious. What did tithers do to you before you called them 'pharisees'? What did tithers do to you before calling them "stupid"? Do you really feel a need to protect your self-righteousness that you have to be so shameless and cowardly on top of it all? Your conceit is unimaginable.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:
I think that it is wrong to take a particular instance of anything and then apply it broadly to anyone and anything vaguely associated.  I don't think that anyone, much less everyone, who tithes is being attacked.

Precisely my point, as in your first line, thank you. But I don't agree with the second line, for indeed people have been attacked merely for tithing or preaching tithes. This is why I and a few others have consistently borne out that very point and constantly called such people making such mudslinging to be clear so as not to be misunderstood.

Pastor AIO:
But rather the PREACHING OF TITHING is what has been attacked as far as I can tell.

That's rather surprising. How is it that the PREACHING OF TITHE should be attacked - and that has not seen tithers and tithe-preachers being slurred as well? Afterall, 'tithing' doesn't just preach itself - people do; and as far as we can tell, pastors who preach tithes have been attacked on the mere question of their preaching tithes.

Pastor AIO:
It is of course naturally for humans to associate themselves so strongly with a doctrine whereby any attack on that doctrine becomes a personal attack on themselves.

True - especially so is the case when both the subject and the people associated with it usually come under the slurs of those averse to it.

Pastor AIO:
The subject of the thread suggests that pastors are not telling their congregation the truth about tithes and in fact are lying to them.  That is a far cry from accusing the people who actually tithe, many of whom do so under the false notions fed to them by mendacious pastors.  That has parallels to punishing a rape victim for falling victim to the crime.

There are three things I should remind you of here:

1. People err on both sides of the divide; while tithers do not spend so much time seeking to slur anti-tithers, the latter seem to resort to that same attitude when discussing the subject.

2. One who claims that "pastors" are lying is making a broad and inclusive case about pastors. How does he know that 'pastors' (how many of them) have been lying, if he is unaware of all pastors who preach and teach about tithe?

3. Accusing those who tithe - please just look at this page alone - pls scroll up and see how many times those who tithe have been slurred.

     --   It is hard not to look at those advocating 10% . . . as 'pharisees'

     --   Giving 10% to secure the grace of Christ is "unchristian" in my book

     --   tithe advocates will give you every excuse in the book

I mean, what are those saying? Is it too much to ask that the subject be discussed for what it is instead of these unnecessary insinuations? How many people have been preaching that giving 10% is a matter of "securing" the grace of Christ? What is the reason for branding tithers as 'pharisees' and then justifying such an attitude? Certainly, if we go through this thread and several others, we find even far worse scenarios; not only pastors who preach tithes are by default 'criminals', but even others who choose to tithe are brough under every slur one could think of.

Pastor AIO:
When I take a closer look at the passage in question what I see is God giving the people an injunction to come and eat 3 meals three times a year in his presence.  These meals are namely, the Feast of Unleaven bread, The feast of Weeks, and The feast of Booths.  

When they come to these feast they must not come empty handed no matter how small the food they bring is.

Yep, so it is.

Pastor AIO:
When some then takes a verse from this passage and tells their congregation that God is saying never come to church empty handed I am inclined to believe they are twisting the scripture.  What do you think?

'Twisting scripture' is a familiar refrain; but I don't think that would be the case here. There's nothing wrong in someone taking a verse to make a general principle - it all depends what they mean, but not necessarily twisting scripture. A few examples might be helpful:

1. In the NT in 2 Cor. 8:15 the apostle Paul quoted Exodus 16:18 to exhort about Christian giving. If you check the Exodus 16 verse, you find that it has nothing in context to do with ANY type of giving or offering - NOTHING at all! But Paul used that verse and quoted it directly in 2 Cor. 8:15 to speak . .  what. . Christian giving? Yes, he did. How is it then that anti-tithers do not make the same charge of 'tiwsting scripture' against Paul?

2. Again in both 1 Cor. 9:9 and 1 Tim. 5:18, the apostle Paul quoted Deuteronomy 25:4 - "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn", and he used that in speaking about Christian giving to support Gospel ministers. Checking carefully, the Deut. 25 verse has nothing to do with financially supporting preachers or ministers - but no anti-tither has screamed the charge of 'twisting scripture' at Paul.

What's the point now? You can see examples of seemingly totally unrelated verses which Paul quoted from the OT to speak about Christian giving. In context, the OT verses have nothing to do with giving or any type of offerings or financial support; but rather than looking for legalistic reading, we understand he was more concerned with the principles which those verses provided to support what he taught.

In the same way, if someone quotes from Deut. 16:15-17 to exhort or preach about giving (whether tithes or some other offerings), I don't see how the charge of "twisting scripture" should arise - as long as the general principle is being encouraged. Otherwise, we might as well charge Paul for "twisting Scripture" for quoting totally unrelated texts from the OT to exhort NT giving.  

ogajim:
Good reasons must of force give room for better so if you don't have the scriptural backing other than "same old same old", it is better to shut your trap unless you can advance superior argument to back up your claims.

Thank you. I think it's unnecessary to join issues with you if you're beginning to foam in the mouth. Usually, when people tire themselves out, they often tend to behave as you do, and often times it shows they either do not read or are to challenged intellectually to demonstrate any reading skills. You are a late comer to NL, and most of your queries have been well addressed in other threads. Since arriving, you neither have presented anything intelligent nor been able to discuss without vexations. If you want a discussion (or even debate if you're able - fingers crossed), then either open a new thread and present your endless worries there, or keep feeling sorry for your drama here. The choice is yours, and you're entitled to your endless whinging.

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3976500#msg3976500 date=1244124596]Pilgrim.
Good. Now can you then tell me why you don't believe in the supremacy of zeus, allah or buddha? What 'credulous reason' do you have not to believe in them?[/quote]@Tùdor,
Again, many thanks - and here are my answers:

1. It all depends on what you mean by "believe in".
I don't 'believe in' Zeus, Allah or Buddha because obviously I'm not an adherent of the religions or worldviews prescribed by them.

2. That I don't "believe in" does not mean I "deny" anything about their existence - implied or otherwise. I've not argued that neither Zeus, nor Allah nor Buddha existed/exists; and again, I haven't affirmed their existence either. My approach has already been enuciated from the context of my own Christian worldview - "there may be" such as thus described, but my devotion is not to them (1 Cor. 8:5-6).

3. Consequently, it is not a "need to disprove" any so-called deities that defines the veracity of my Christian worldview. For instance, I cannot set about with a "need to disprove" Buddha's existence; the atheist may feel so polarised towards that 'need', but where has he satisfactorily "disproven" Buddhism?

4. Now, more to the point is not about believing in "the supremacy" of any deity - the basic question here has been about EXISTENCE. This was why I observed earlier to bindex that my discussions so far were not "a matter about qualities that are relative", which would include here your idea about 'supremacy'. It's a question first about settling your denial of EXISTENCE of what is outside naturalism before assuming qualities of supposed deities within existence.


Now, in fair turn, Tùdor: I must observe that you typically did the same thing as we've noted about atheists' discussions - broach something for query when you have no answers yourself! Do you have answers about the "existence/non-existence" and/or "supremacy" of the deities you mentioned? You're asking someone else to provide answers to questions about issues you do not believe in - is that not the same weakness we have observed about typical atheist logic? It makes me wonder that since you cannot proffer satisfying proof or evidence for the typical atheist positivist claim about phenomena which lie outside his worldview of naturalism, the best (and perhaps the weakest) cop-out is project quesries about issues he does not understand nor even is willing to consider. Since I'm not a Buddhist, are YOU one? If you're not one, what is the substance of asking for answers from others about the supremacy of what you do not proclaim your devotion to?

@bindex,

bindex:
I don't think I am . Now i will like to consider what you have said and say a few things about the existence of the supernatural. I take atheism to assert that when all the evidence for and against is weighed, the best conclusion to draw is that there is no God But theism in contrast is the doctrine that there is good and sufficient reason to believe that God or the supernatural exists. All gods are fictional constructs invented or created by clever humans for a variety of purposes usually ranging from psychological comfort, emotional comfort, hope and some times for entertainment. According to the god hypothesis or concept god has some defining characteristics. He is a person, supremely powerful,  morally perfect, all-knowing, the uncreated creator of the universe, specifically concerned with human beings, the only deity, and essentially immaterial or non-physical.

It is important to spell these criteria out somewhat more carefully. The god whose existence I deny is supposed to be a person to have a mind, will, intelligence, purposes and desires. I am not interested in debating the existence of an impersonal god, who could be identified with nature, or fate, or any other vague "something" that is supposed to run the universe. I am more interested in debating the existence of who has the qualities I have listed above. God's supreme power or omnipotence means simply this. There is no possible state of affairs which God could not bring about, if it should please him to do so.

The moral perfection of this deity will, I think, be easily enough granted. god, as generally conceived, inflicts no unwarranted harm and can never justly be blamed for anything.That god knows all things is also part of the standard definition. If god exists, there is no fact of which he is ignorant. God's status as the supposed creator of the univere should also be relatively unproblematic, but I would like to stress an important point here which is that in postulating god as creator the believer in god claims that god's existence explains something about the way things are and belief in god is thus supposed in some way to make the world more intelligible and better. God is also thought or belived to have a special interest in human affairs. He is not taken to be some kind of disinterested observer but is supposed to love humans protect those who call on him and help them by providing for them or being there for them all the time, he is also offended by their misdeeds, and to be particularly upset if some humans do not believe is his existence.

[size=14pt]>etc.<

>etc.<

>etc.<

>etc.<[/size]

Awww. . . poor you, lol. Dear bindex, I'm very well-acquainted with the 'story-line' above, and have discussed it several times with a few atheists here and outside Nairaland. I don't have the stomach to run round yet again in a circle with that cut-and-paste argument (without your leaving any links of acknowledgement) between Doug Jesseph and Wlliam Craig cut out from the The Secular Web website. . . . unless you're trying to tell me you are Doug Jesseph himself.

However, it still amazes me that your best shot for the denial of the existence of the supernatural is an argument from Jesseph that does not address that simple question. What in the world am I to do with that excuse?

@ogajim,

ogajim:
I am sorry for using the word "stupid" if that's offensive to anyone but that word is not too far from "ignorance" that I have seen in some of your stuff but then again who is counting?
People are wired to react to what they see around them and when you see too much of a bad practice among some of these "churches", it is hard not to think that if it quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. From what I see here, those Nigerian churches and their stat sheet of parishes/branches is nonsense because the only folks that worship there are Nigerians for the most part and a sprinkle of spouses and friends so their claim of spreading the gospel to other countries is bogus at best ( I might be castigated for going off subject here)

It's actually sad to observe that you really have nothing of substance to say on this subject. This is precisely what I meant in observing several times already that it seems most anti-tithers cannot hold themselves until their grey side rises to the fore. One wonders: is it really tithe that is your problem - or something else? You make a case for not condeming anyone, and yet your posts are often littered with such tirade just because you haven't been able to grasp this subject.

ogajim:
If you have not walked on someone's shoes it is hard to criticize their views unless you've been there your self, the Nigerian charismatic/pentecostal churches are fast becoming like their government so it is hard to find something to celebrate there with cult personalities and other trappings we didn't see from Jesus Christ our savior.

I've once been an anti-tither until I discovered the false assertions and attitudes of most anti-tithers in discussing the subject. You only criticize, not because you are being objective, but rather because you can't find anything better to say.

ogajim:
I am not saying the American churches of the same flavor are any better, it is an endemic problem that has to be addressed, I see a lot of them as hustlers to tell you the truth, the lips of the righteous does teach us many,

It's simple enough: stop attending any church if none is as righteous as your own righteousness.

ogajim:
I would not deride anyone for doing what they feel is right but I am entitled to my opinion which I don't need to shove down someone's throat.

Then just what is the substance in your new-found love of deriding people - just for tithe? I wish there could be more substance in your post; so far you're just being an interesting piece of drama - and you're definitely entitled to keep acting.

@Tùdor,

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3976090#msg3976090 date=1244119866]Dalaman, how could you agree with pilgrim?[/quote] 
Well, I don't know how he could have agreed with me; although if he never did, I still would have considered his reply very intelligent indeed, just as I observed in my reply to his.

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3976090#msg3976090 date=1244119866]I stated honestly i've never seen,heared,tasted or smelt your god neither have i experienced him yet she called that narrow. How ridiculous![/quote]I don't think it's ridiculous what you stated - infact, and honestly, I think it's quite interesting and worthy of consideration. Which was why I tried to address it precisely and wondered if knowledge about the realities of our world are derived through ONLY those approaches. Suppose someone else (not pilgrim.1) tries to present some kind of 'evidence' for what is beyond the naturalism of atheism, what would you say to such an atheist who is not willing to consider such an evidence - simply because he fears his naturalism may have to be adjusted? Such a scenario was why I posted the example of Dr. Rupert Sheldrake's (Ph.D) experience with Richard dawkins.

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3976090#msg3976090 date=1244119866]If she indeed has seen or experienced god,do show us.[/quote]I have experienced God for myself - and have also shared a few in my testimony on Nairaland. Of course, that is my subjective experience, not yours - so I understand that it may be rejected out of hand even before considering it. My experience may not be yours; and yours definitely may differe from mine - which is why I'd like to also consider this next line in yours:

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3976090#msg3976090 date=1244119866]What if i said i saw aliens who landed in my room last night and they have asked us to worship them,how would you prove me wrong? The fact they didn't land in your room doesn't mean they didn't drop in mine.[/quote]I won't believe you if that's what you are claiming - whether or not you believe in your own assertion. Do you? Of course, perhaps that is a hypothetical case, and yet I would say that I won't disbelieve you merely for stating it so. Why would it not be difficult for me to believe you? Simple: I don't have any credulous reason to deny the possibility of the EXISTENCE of aliens - and I've tried to discuss a few of these in a thread (Our Orphic World).

_______________________

Edit:
I beg your pardon, Tùdor - the first line of the last paragrasph there was a typo: pls let me highlight and then correct -
[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=279631.msg3976223#msg3976223 date=1244121424]I won't believe you if that's what you are claiming - whether or not you believe in your own assertion.[/quote]I actually meant to say: "I won't disbelieve you". I hope that clears things up.

@dalaman,

Many thanks for your reply.

dalaman:
Let me begin by saying that I am not an atheist I am just trying to present most of the arguments that they are have been presenting and I also get some talking points from my colleague and very good friend here who is an atheist.

I understand and appreciate your dialogue. Not that I considered you an atheist (as long as you haven't self-identified as such), but my approach was more reflective in consonance with the strain of your outlook on their behalf.

dalaman:
I do not agree to any thing I am just presenting the case that atheist have made that is way I admitted that I might be wrong when stating some of the case, my friend (atheist) friend here saw me reading the post and told me what he believes and I typed it based on his reaction to the first post. I again agree with what you have said.

Okay. Again I well-appreciated your observations even though I did not consider you an atheist. My apologies if you read my seemingly addressing those concerns as though you were mistaken for one.

dalaman:
I said the atheist believes that the evidence is not credible, I also said that when Christians(I speak about Christianity because I believe that is the theism we are talking about here) presents the Bible as his evidence the atheist say it is not evidence enough or evidence at all because of some of the problems that are associated with the bible like contradictions, historical and scientific inaccuracies and the somewhat contradictory nature of God himself that is portrayed in the Bible. Even though I agree that the bible is evidence for the Christian faith, the atheist disagress based on the problems I have outlined.

I got you the first time. However, like I said, my approach is rather slightly different. I wasn't droning like the typical 'Christian apologist' some atheists here are acquainted with; that was why I broadened the context (as it should) and took their concerns out of their cozy boxes.

dalaman:
True. I completely agree with your point but I believe the atheist might look at it differently.

Certainly, I'm just guessing what that might be - so I'm eagerly waiting.  Bobs, you're a very, very smart dude.

dalaman:
After reading your second rejoinder I fully understand what you are saying and I also agree with it.

Lol, okay.

dalaman:
Don't you think you are presupposing something here? There are very open minded atheist and I have meet a some of them. They are willing to go with anything that can convince them, infact I know atheist here that have never practiced or have never being exposed to any religion in their lives, their parents were atheist who did not expose them to any religion and they grew up with non beliefs, so I don't think it is right for you to say that some of them don't like thinking out of the box, There are a lot though who do not like thinking out of the box and are just happy to disbelieve anything and throw silly excuses at everything that has a supernatural claim without wanting to "test" it or examine it and see if it's true or not. Some have tried but dismiss the claim based on the lack of evidence I have been talking about.

Hehe. .  nope, I wan't presupposing here at all. If I were, I wouldn't have entered the discussion in the first place. Notice I didn't make a sweeping generalization of all atheists - if I did, that indeed would have been preposterious of me. However, in taking care to observe that not all (that is "some", I granted in hindsight that atheists are not clones of one another - there are atheists who disagree with other atheists on many things. Yet, my observation was more to the point that the attitude of some self-identified atheists on Nairaland is that if something does not square with their naturalism, it just is not credible enough and thus is grounds enough to reject the possibility of the EXISTENCE of what is supernatural.

dalaman:
I agree with you here, so I will wait and see how the atheists here will respond to this.

You anticipated me.

dalaman:
One(mazaje or toneyb) atheist here has made that point he said that, the theist does not have any evidence of any God revealing or creating any religion, then went ahead to say that all religions were created by men because men wrote all the religious text, choose what should be considered the word of God/gods, readacted the holy text, interprete the holy text and ascribe it to God/gods and also the continous change in the nature of God. This is the case that the atheist have made, they say the theist has no evidence to show that any God created any religion but he has his own evidence to show that men created religions. I might not agree with it but that is his position and the evidence he has been able to present.

I already saw such ideas expressed - not only by mazaje and toneyb. Even so, you would observe now that my approach is to come to terms with the underlying ideology of such atheists. It is not so much "evidence" they're after - for if they are really after evidence for ANY God anywhere at anytime, they would not easily denial the EXISTENCE of such a being. It's alright for them to discredit and disregard the 'evidence' set forth by Christians any which way; but such denial does not constitute proof for their own equally positivist assertion what "IS" and what "IS NOT". When someone says 'I don't know', he has not acted like the conclusive atheist who assumes that something DOES NOT exist - the latter is assuming he knows that something actually "does not" exists, no matter what 'evidence' is presented to him. Therefore, we want such an atheist to do us the favour of demonstrating the "science" that led him to deny the EXISTENCE of any Being who might be called God, even if he does not agree with the concept of 'God' in any religion. He cannot excuse responsibility to do so and claim weakly that one cannot prove a "negative" - that is a whimper and not intelligence. Has anyone wondered why Dawkins went from "God does not exist" to "there is PROBABLY no God"?

dalaman:
I am already tired of speaking for the atheist so I will allow them to speak for themselves.

Lol, thank you again for your dialogues. Interesting, and much appreciated.

bindex:
You should be able to prove or provide evidence that your god is greater or better than the other gods don't you think so? You should be able to show that all things came into being by your god and not the islamic god.

I think you're typically shifting grounds here, lol. Even if I provide you such a 'proof' or 'evidence', how does that help your own claim and position improve any nearer to its own affirmation? The basic question here is about EXISTENCE and the supernatural. That is what I've been asking you guys to consider - whether one deity is "greater or better" is a matter about qualities that are relative, and not about whether such a deity exists or not. Now when you as an atheist assumes a position to deny existence of anything that does not fit your worldview, you're making a categorical statement that requires proof and evidence. It assumes that you've carefully investigated your idea to have come to that dogmatic conclusion that God DOES NOT exist, not whether he is "greater or better".

@Tùdor,

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3975986#msg3975986 date=1244118428]Pilgrim you're extremely wrong.[/quote]Thank you for your concerns. I'm glad to be told sometimes that I'm "extremely" wrong, and then I want to see how my discussant shows the case. I still don't see how you've demonstrated your assumption about my being wrong, though. Yet, let me address the basic flaw in yours:

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3975986#msg3975986 date=1244118428]If there were no communists,anti-communists will be non-existent. No terrorists therefore anti-terrorists would be unnecessary.so also if religion didn't exist there'll be no atheists.[/quote]This is basically not saying anything for your own "proof" or 'evidence' for the the non-EXISTENCE of God or gods or even the veracity of the supernatural. What you're basically saying is that if "something" did not exist, then the antithesis would not exist. As a matter of consequence, since the antithesis exists, then that "something" actually does exist. Which is a very interesting logic that destroys your premise - because you're leading us to believe that the claim for the EXISTENCE of God is a veritable statement, whereas your counter-claim of the NON-EXISTENCE of God was necessitated by the veritable statement. That being so, how have you "proven" that I was 'extremely wrong?'

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3975986#msg3975986 date=1244118428]With every new ideology,there'll be those who dnt subscribe to the idea.[/quote]Not subscribing to an ideology does not constitute "proof" or "evidence" for your claim that something does NOT EXIST.

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3975986#msg3975986 date=1244118428]Atheists like me dont have a dogmatic hypothesis as you claim,we just choose to disbelieve the hypothesis of a god put forward by religionists based on your lack of evidence.[/quote]I'll be genial enough to allow you hold your own claim, not because you're thereby justified; but more because you have not tendered a satisfactory evidence for the DENIAL of the "existence" of the supernatural.

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3975986#msg3975986 date=1244118428]You can't expect me to prove your own postulations,do you?[/quote]No, I haven't asked you to do so. I've only entered this discussion with a different approach that you were not prepared for prior to your reading my comments. Rather than ask you to 'prove' my own postulations, I'm asking you to re-examine the veracity of your own dogmatic position - the position that arrogates to itself the necessity or "need" to "disprove" anything that does not fit into your own worldview.

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3975986#msg3975986 date=1244118428]If you present the idea of a god,i choose not to acknowledge based on your lack of evidence,you can't call that my dogmatic hypothesis. Thats wrong.[/quote]Again, wrong. My approach is to invite you to examine your own comfort zone and prod you on to thinking outside your own cozy worldview.

huxley2:
Atheist need to disprove the existence of god in the same way that Christians need to disprove the existence of Zeus, Dionysus, Sussicorn, Taqata. Once I see evidence that disproves the existence of these gods( Zeus, Dionysus, Sussicorn, Taqata) then I shall show you the evidence that disproves your god.

What evidence "disproves" the EXISTENCE of God, huxley2?

Just so the discourse does not get lost in this kind of mix-up statements in your quote, let me remind you: Christians do not "need to disprove" the existence of any of those 'gods' you mentioned - that is not a "need" that defines the veracity of the Christian faith. Atheists such as yourself may see a "need to disprove" the EXISTENCE of any 'god' - and yet you have never been able to credibly satisfy that need!

On the other, I as a Christian understand that my worldview does not have any such "need" which the atheist often dreams of. How is that? For one thing, I know that the Biblical faith does not set out with a "need" to disprove the EXISTENCE of such deities - but it reminds us as Christians to approach this enquiry with this mindset:

[list][li]'For though there be that are called gods,
whether in heaven or in earth,
(as there be gods many, and lords many,)
But to us there is but one God,
the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him;
and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things,
and we by him"
~~ 1 Corinthians 8:5-6[/li][/list]

This is echoed throughout the Bible, and the informed Christian understands he/she does not have the atheist's "need to disprove" the EXISTENCE of such gods as may suit your worldviews.

@dalaman,

Let me clarify my reply with some example for your consideration. I had stated:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=279631.msg3975449#msg3975449 date=1244112049]At least, I know indeed of a researcher (not a Christian, as far as I know) who has tried to investigate evidence for the reality of our world that are outside the ambit of naturalism - and when he invited Richard Dawkins to consider such an evidence, you can't imagine Dawkins dishonest disinterest. Such incidents only make some enquirers believe that such atheists (not all atheists) are not honest in their claim to be "interested" in any evidence for the supernatural.[/quote]This is a reasonable claim which should be substantiated, so I don't run the risk of merely asserting it emptily. So, please consider the following, as I had in mind a fellow British biologist - Dr. Rupert Sheldrake:

[list][li]Dr. Sheldrake had pointed out that Dawkins (who often asks for “evidence” in reason) was NOT interested in any such evidence; and suppressedscience.net notes the following –

Unfortunately, Dawkin’s behavior with respect to observations and evidence submitted to him by Sheldrake demonstrates little evidence for “reason or respect for evidence”- it rather suggests that Dawkins is a materialist fundamentalist who “profits from obscuring the truth”.

Please observe: suppressedscience.net is not quoted here as if it were making a case as a ‘creationist’ media; so the thinking atheist should keep that in mind.[/li][/list]

[list][li]An article republished in Skeptical Investigations (skepticalinvestigations.org) by Dr. Rupert Sheldrake was first carried in the Network Review No 95, Winter 2007, Journal of the Scientific and Medical Network. The article (‘Richard Dawkins Comes to Call’ – also published in Dr. Sheldrake’s website) was perhaps in reference to the incident just cited above in suppressedscience.net, where Dawkins is reputed to have stated: “I’m don’t want to discuss evidence” (sic). More surprising was that the director of Dawkins’ Channel 4 programme “confirmed that he too was not interested in evidence”. In the end of that article, Sheldrake made this poignant observation:

’Should science be a vehicle of prejudice, a kind of fundamentalist belief-system? Or should it be a method of enquiry into the unknown?’[/li][/list]

Just so you might understand where I was coming from in my observation earlier. If there's something you may not be clear about in other areas, please don't hesistate to let me know. Cheers.

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3975481#msg3975481 date=1244112360]The 'GOD' hypothesis was invented and made up by religion. I as an atheist choose not to subscribe to your flawed theory based on lack of evidence,yet you expect me to provide evidence for your OWN hypothesis. . .how crazy is that?[/quote]Indeed it's unreasonable for you to ask another person to answer your own questions - which is what you just did above. If you notice, I was not making an argument based on "God-hypothesis" - my discussions are asking the typical atheist who assumes far too much of the hard claim of "there is NO God" to consider his own dogmatic hypothesis. One way I have approached that is to look at the basic claim of such hard core atheism (naturalism) and bring him/her round to mirror his own naturalism in the reality of phenomena that are supernatural.

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=279631.msg3975481#msg3975481 date=1244112360]What is asserted without evidence can also be summarily dismised without evidence.Shikena![/quote]True - which is why the same can be applied to your type of atheism.

Hi dalaman,

dalaman:
It's true, but the Christians has to provide some evidence and present it to the atheist so that the atheist can disprove it, no Christian has done that so far on nairaland.

Just a salient point here: you assume far too much and arrive at a narrow conscript. Why does the atheist assume that it is his prerogative to "disprove" the claims of theism - whether Christian or any other? Does that not in itself suggest that you really haven't grasp what atheism is in essence? It is not about whether a particular deity exists or not, but whether ANY evidence could point to the reality of the supernatural. It is not only the Christian that believes in the supernatural, but other theists as well do - which again would in essence draw in the claims of atheistic religions involving belief in 'gods, spirits', etc. If the 'atheist' whom you hoot for is going to be quite informed about the realities of our world, what would be his focus - to "[b]dis[/b]prove" this reality? It's like you already made up your mind even before asking for a dialogue.

dalaman:
There are some militant atheist here on nairaland who forcefully declear that there is no God at all, there are others that declear that there is no God based only on the fact that no believer in God has ever provided any evidence to support his assertions that there is a God,

It could be taken in precisely the same way as you assumed earlier - to say that there is NO evidence does not mean that the Christian has not made any attempt to provide such an evidence; at best, it is rather that the atheist does not agree with the evidence thus proffered. To assume there is "no evidence" is to arrive at a dogmatic position before even investigating evidence for the reality of the major claim that the atheist is averse to: the supernatural.

dalaman:
toneyb said that when Christian tell atheist to look around them and see the "evidence" that is not evidence for him that is only evidence for vision and environment he said.

Could that also not be read as the preference of toneyb? If that is so, then he's not asking the right questions; rather, he might have been musing about ideas that tend to polarise towards his own idiosyncracies - and yet, he goes on to acknowledge that is "evidence" - but only in terms for vision and environment. This is what I meant in the previous paragraph: it is not an argument that there is "NO evidence" whatsoever; rather, it is about what type of "evidence" such a person is asking for.

dalaman:
Tudor on the other thread said "we'have never seen,heard,smelt,tasted or experienced him. We have not seen his works and no evidence whatsoever to confirm those attributed to him.
If indeed you have seen,heard tasted or felt god/allah, then PROVE IT TO US.simple ".

Just in the same way as above for toneyb - here Tùdor narrows evidence for what could only be 'seen, heard, smelt, tasted, or experienced' - and he assumes that if he himself has not experienced the supernatural for himself, then no one else might have had that experience. If one provides an experience to him which the claimant has had, would that not be easy enough to reject out of hand simply because Tùdor has not had that experience for himself? Such an idea is narrow and a very queer way to assume 'evidence' for the reality of our world. At least, I know indeed of a researcher (not a Christian, as far as I know) who has tried to investigate evidence for the reality of our world that are outside the ambit of naturalism - and when he invited Richard Dawkins to consider such an evidence, you can't imagine Dawkins dishonest disinterest. Such incidents only make some enquirers believe that such atheists (not all atheists) are not honest in their claim to be "interested" in any evidence for the supernatural.

dalaman:
While others deny the existence of all Gods without ever stating their reasons some have stated their reasons and the reason all boils down to the lack of evidence, Christians point to the bible and the atheist say that the bible was written by men and contains a lot of errors and contradictions.

The "reasons" in themselves do not point to a lack o 'evidence'. What is supposed is that the atheist is looking for pointers to an affirmation of his naturalism, not because he's honest about thinking outside his own box. Any source today that an atheist may point to is also written by men - and in many other fields of enquries and worldviews, we find grounds for contradictions and disagreements. This situation does not point conclusively to a "lack of evidence", but rather a limp excuse to sit cozy in one's naturalistic worldview so that responsibility is shifted to the believer in supernaturalism.

dalaman:
I also agree with this, I think and (I might be wrong though) that they deny the existence of God/gods based purely on the assertions made by those who believe in God and the evidence or lack of evidence we have put forward.

Yes and no. It's alright to deny the "existence" of what does not square with one's worldview(s) - which is descriptive of what you just stated above. The atheist could deny the "existence" of God based purely on his own disagreement with the assertions or claims made by those who believe in God (which includes others besides Christians). That in itself does not mean therefore that the atheist is justified in denying the "existence" of God. I do not deny the "existence" of other gods or lords or the supernatural that are not within the subject of my worship and life of faith; but even though I acknowledge the possibility indeed of their "existence", it does not mean that I'm an adherent of such worldviews. For someone to therefore deny the "existence" of what he does not know beyond his own narrow experience is not an intelligent attitude to open-minded research into the reality of our world.

dalaman:
They do not say that there is no God because they know that there is no God, they deny the God hypothesis (a word that is mostly used by atheist) based on the unconvincing evidence that is presented to them. So they conclude that men created all religions.

Even so, they are still wrong. If an atheist comes to the conclusion that "men created ALL religions", he is making a positivist statement or claim - and he therefore has to 'prove' that every single religion in the world (including the claims of the supernatural) from the very history of man was indeed created by men! This would also mean, by extension, that he provides proof and evidence about his own conclusions about the supernatural, whether or not such a phenomena exists. If he says again that the supernatural does not exist, he would also have to show how he arrived conclusively at such a claim - using the same approach of his acclaimed idea of "science" to verify such observations. He cannot expect to make bland statements by "faith" and expect also by "faith" that such claims cannot be questioned, and then keep making excuses to shift responsibility to others for his own "faith-statements".

hubreality:
I give You praise O Lord. You've given me a glorious life. Hallelujah!

Amen.

_{Just what I had in mind.}

More. . .

https://www.dreamicreativity.com/naijalife1/images/stories/nigeriahair4.jpg


https://www.dreamicreativity.com/naijalife1/images/stories/nigeriahair2.jpg


https://www.dreamicreativity.com/naijalife1/images/stories/nigeriahair.jpg


https://www.dreamicreativity.com/naijalife1/images/stories/nigeriahair1.jpg




And. . . my favourites!!

https://thepeoplescube.com/red/richedit/upload/2k9a9bd50e23.jpg


https://wysinger.homestead.com/hair.jpg

JeSoul:
Sister Pilgrim how you dey?
hehe trust Naija.

My sister, I dey O. , na by grace! Praise God! And you? I trust all is in control.

____________

[quote author=$osisi link=topic=279224.msg3973410#msg3973410 date=1244061529]LOL
so mineral doesn't qualify?
In Nigeria,we usually used Ribena back then but I haven't had communion in Nigeria in a while so maybe they now use Ava non alcoholic wine.[/quote]Nne, you sef suppose decode say na ignorance dey worry me at that time. I didn't know 'chickom' for Christianity as such; and when they used 'mineral', belle turn me inside. But I must confess sha - after the cell-group meetings, dem offer me biscuits and Scwepps, my sista. . I grab fast-fast!

[quote author=$osisi link=topic=279224.msg3973410#msg3973410 date=1244061529]What wine do you think should be used?[/quote]Me, I no fit talk. However, where I often fellowship (USA or UK), the church uses any grape-fruit juice or wine from grapes. I haven't asked this question though, for there was a time when it was treated in one of the mid-week meetings when I was absent.

ogajim:
I am a strong believer in loose coupling and could care less what others are doing with what belongs to them. I went to an Anglican elementary school and a Catholic high school and don't see a need to shoot indiscriminately unless I feel a need to. I could have chosen not to contribute to this like I did with the "pastors and body guards" thread which is hilarious on it's own but this is something I have seen too much of in all flavors.
We are all equal before God and when a church get's hierarchical, it's time to move because it is not too far from a cult and in terms of financial transparency, PG.1, I am not in the business of trading insults with anyone but I will tell you that I understand a lot more than you think when it comes to the so called "established churches" because a lot of them actually left the business of winning souls for Christ a long time ago and is way too deep for me to engage in an "unsecured environment" but you can start by looking at their buildings and see if you understand everything thing in it or if it is of God's. Bob Marley was right when he said "there is a natural mystic blowing through the air; If you listen carefully now you will hear, "
Things are not the way they seem so you stand to learn more by humbling your self unless you are part of the "powers" I am not better than anyone because of anything and I see his blessings upon me every second of the day and I also do believe that folks that don't want to learn have a right to remain stupid.
May his grace continue to follow all his true Children.

@ogajim,

My apologies if you felt insulted - I didn't mean it that way. Indeed I was teasing you all the way through, as I didn't see any substance in what you were arguing. Many churches preach tithes - and on either side of the debate (pro-tithing and anti-tithing), people err gravely. There's no reason for us as Christians to be flailing by using tithes to attack, condemn and/or slur all tithers; nor is there a sufficient enough reason because of tithe argument to do the same against anti-tithers. Nobody has to bend backwards to your vexations because you believe if they don't listen to you, then they must be called "stupid" - afterall, you haven't shown anywhere that you have any clue what you're arguing about this subject. How many people have insinuated that uncouth word ("stupid" at you? People who choose of their own accord to tithe should be appreciated for what they do; and if you don't feel inclined to give any percentage of your resources at anytime, it's all up to you as well. I think these seething vexations against tithers should be minimised or even cease, seeing that the many false assertions used repeatedly by many anti-tithers are misplaced.

[quote author=$osisi link=topic=279224.msg3973340#msg3973340 date=1244060392]I will not use peanuts to do it when Christ used bread and asked us to do same
It's called breaking bread not munching peanuts [/quote]No, you wrong! Very, very W-R-O-N-G!
It's called "breaking bread" and not "breaking groundnuts" - afterall, we don forget say Naija people dey 'break groundnut, colanut, and all sorts of "nuts"'?  
[img]http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:f0DqYsh-8gauWM:http://img.alibaba.com/photo/11283780/Groundnut.summ.jpg[/img]

You get my meaning, abi? 

________________________

On a serious note, the bread is significant - as much the wine. I think there's a reason why it is called "the fruit of the vine" in Luke 22:18; and although there's some sense in the question of the sincerity of the heart, it is not enough to make special effort to substitute these for something else. Someone has suggested something alarming ("bushmeat & beer" - and they could as well say it's according to the sincerity of their hearts as well. Where do we go from there?  Once I was in a friend's church in Nigeria where they used Fanta for communion one week; and then used Coca-Cola several weeks later - in a house fellowship. I was a little embarrassed for my friend who invited me as I didn't partake, although I went several times to the house fellowship (cell-group meeting) and enjoyed the teaching there.

dalaman:
You ask questions that you have no answers for and you talk about objectivity?

Lol, is that not the very same thing people have observed about atheist discussions? Are you being objective at all?

However, I don't know if you're just teasing here or just saying this wishfully:

dalaman:
The atheist does not believe in the God the theist tells him about , They do not say that there is no God(I can speak for my atheist friends here) but they say that the evidence we the theist provided for them as evidence for the existence of God is not evidence that is credible so they reject our evidence or lack of evidence and deny the existence of the God we talk about(The Christian God in this case) since we can not provided credible evidence to them.

While I appreciate the sense you make here, I would seriously contest the highlighted part. Having read through some of the arguments of self-identified atheists on this Forum, it is obvious that their arguments is simply that there is no God - that includes ANY God or god. It does not matter whatever "evidence" one proffers, the atheist does not stand to say that he is not sure about the existence or lack of existence of any God/god(s) - he denies them entirely.

However, only recently are we beginning to see a sort of redaction, or  more correctly a 'reductionist' position with atheism. As such, many atheists fancy flirting with the idea that "there probably is no God"; but at the bottom of it all, what they really are arguing is the denial of anything supernatural. An atheist who's quite informed does not have to narrow his arguments solely on Christian theism - which is why I often wonder why they rarely question the claims of atheistic religions involving belief in "gods", spirits, etc - whatever meaning may be given to such terms in those atheistic religions. I trust that the atheist is not simply one that does not believe in the Christian theistic worldview of "God"; but rather, he/she is someone who does not believe in ANY 'God/gods' or the supernatural - 'ANY gods', regardless whatever religion espouses them.

On the other hand, we know that not all atheists make a hard claim of the denial of any deity or the supernatural - some tend to be self-identified as "agnostic-atheist", and we can allow them have their say as best defines their own worldviews. However, for purposes of discussing on Nairaland, we know that the one thing many atheists argue is funnelled down to just one thing: the denial of the existence of any 'God/god' and the supernatural.

ogajim:
The tithe advocates will give you every excuse in the book as to why you should join their ranks. When it comes to matters of God, it is our duty to make sure what we are being told/advised on is correct and not some scam like this. Any other form of milking the congregation dry should be opposed as well and not just the tithe. Anyone that builds a big place to be like some other pastor and now has to tax folks 10% when they're not the government and provides no social service has to be exposed because big buildings don't glorify God as they claim but the man who put his own name on it one way or the other. We have to be like Jesus Christ (meaning of Christian) and if he didn't advocate building big "tabernacles" to honor him, why do we need to do it? Jesus' life was simple enough for every Christian to emulate and his blood is sufficient payment for our sins, Jesus didn't come to abolish the law, he came to fulfill it.

Find something else to complain and whinge about. What did I just say a moment ago? Here:
[list][quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=113108.msg3973158#msg3973158 date=1244057986]Lol, . . . 'scam' this, 'scam' that, 'scam' the other. . . everything with you guys na "scam". No wonder you're ever full of complaining! Enjoy - na your calling. [/quote][/list]

ogajim:
To be blessed don't mean you have to be "rich", money doesn't guarantee happiness and only a really poor person will believe it does. One has to be vigilant against these evil forces distorting the scripture for financial gain, Jesus withdrew from the "multitudes" to pray meaning prayer should be personal between the person and God and not some rehearsed mumble jumble that one sometimes hear, I know God understands all languages but don't you need to understand what you're asking of God? Don't go to work and believe that somehow your bank account will over flow, that's a recipe for homelessness and other stuff if you ask me. I am a believer who understands the scriptures and really need fellowship with fellow believers rather than going to a "church" to find salvation.

The understanding you claim has yet to be seen in your posts. If your understanding is mainly about reharshing complaints over and over again, we can bear with your scholarship. People who have been called and have committed themselves joyfully to tithe to their churches do not need to bend over backwards to your "understanding". Shalom.

ogajim:
I can see why most people would leave the subject alone altogether because the argument is not going anywhere but I don't have any problem with knowledge transfer of any kind.
Giving 10% to secure the grace of Christ is "unchristian" in my book and I am entitled to my opinion, if tithe was that important, Jesus would have made it very clear for us to do it like he did with other matters of faith, worship and compassion, etc but he didn't and I can't be fooled by these tithe preaching, high flying pastors ever.

I don't know how many people have been preaching that "giving 10%" is a matter of securing the grace of Christ. Is that what your pastor has been teaching you? If not, why are you stuck on that one mantra and constantly using it to slur other people? Of course, you're entitled to your opinion - but when you opinion is becoming a boring broken record, you unwittingly cheapen your arguments.

ogajim:
I am not touching RCCG at all as enough has been said about them already, their associations here in NA doesn't even encourage me to get closer to them. No one is dumping on the Nigerian pastors here ( I know I am not), there are enough stuff on you tube on the prosperity pastors here in NA to see that they're under fire as well for all this prosperity nonsense they've been preaching.

Hmm, self-righteousness no be virtue o. . those who display this holier-than-thou attitude should constantly remember Isaiah 65:5.

ogajim:
I went to "Gbagada" in the early 80s and don't have anything against them either except the tithe preaching, everyone who know Nigeria ought to have seen the major contributions of the Anglicans, Catholics, Baptists, etc either in the schools or health clinics but I may have been away for a while and nothing from the charismatic/pentecostal ones other than the colleges that their average member can't afford to send their kid.

Oga, I know that many Anglican, Catholic and Baptist churches also preach tithes in Nigeria. I've cited a few examples of the first two, and I could give you a list of so many churches in Nigeria that also preach tithes. Do you also have nothing against these churches "except the tithe preaching"? Good that you're aware most of these tithe-preaching churches have made major contributions to positively impact some quarters in Nigeria and beyond - but they also preach tithes, no?

ogajim:
I have said in another thread that "you don't tell someone with oil what to fry" they can fry sand if they so chose which is why I won't condemn anyone for paying 10% but don't tell me I am wrong because I chose a different approach.

Pay wetin dey your mind - even if na zero. You no dey condemn 10% tithers, but your posts are littered with that very same thing.

ogajim:
Those tithe advocates forget the fact that this was some kind of tax in those days since it was also used for administration expenses.

They don't forget anything - that's why I selected well articulated examples in my earlier reply to show the point as in the Anglican Church. Abi you wan start to condemn the Anglican Church as well? Please let me know - I have here a list of many, many well-established denominations which preach tithes in Niegria and beyond, and who have made such impact that you're happy to celebrate.

ogajim:
I have heard their argument "if 90% doesn't do it for you, the extra 10% can't make the difference", maybe only in Nigeria do folks take home 100%, so if uncle Sam already got his 30+%, we will be talking of less than 70%,

Hahaha. . . you too funny!    has anybody asked you for either 90%, 70% or 30%? Wetin dey bite you for body that nothing ever seems agreeable with yopur spirit about what other people have determined to give? Did they deduct it from your life-insurance or family inheritance? Why the thing dey pain you so badly??  Even the example I posted earlier made a simple case of "five percent" - that one sef go raise dust o!! Oga mi, wetin dey worry you for this matter? I even get several examples of churches that preach a tithe of far less than "five percent" - I'm sure those again will cause civil war for your corner!

ogajim:
We are in the royal priesthood my friends and if you chose to have a pastor that can't work, then you ought to support him but he can't be living larger than the other members either, offerings should suffice.

You go do your own - abi you no get pastor? If your pastor determine to live from the offerings of your church and has plenty more than you, wetin you go do. . fight am, or poison am?  How large is your church, may I ask? Do you even realise that you're making your own law to determine for others what you can't do?

ogajim:
I saw a video recently where one of "them" was even claiming that Jesus had to be rich himself or else he wouldn't have needed a treasurer", this is the kind of distortions of the scripture we are talking about, if the pastor is the only one benefiting from the prosperity then something really is wrong.
It was 10% of gross income, now the Anglican guy said their own was 5% of disposable income, hhhhmmm, no consistency here is there?

The Anglican is not preaching a "do-or-be-damned" kind of message about tithes; and yes, some of them exhort a "five percent" recommendation, as it is clear that even anti-tithers know and argue that the term tithe in the Bible is not only and always "10%". So, what is your problem with anyone asking for less than "10%"? I'm sure if another church even exhorts only 2%, you go start wahala again!  This is why the problem with anti-tithers is far more than any percentage anyone preaches - it seems more like you guys are allergic to any amount people choose for themselves! haba!! Nothing will ever satisfy you in this matter.

ogajim:
I am not one of those Christians who are swayed by "financial blessings" preaching because that is not my reason for becoming a Christian in the first place, I want to make Heaven not get rich quick or die trying, (hard to believe some preachers are like rappers now)

There's an easy way to be a Christian the way you have prescribed for yourself: give everything you have away, then become a beggar in any street of your choice from now till Jesus comes. Too hard? Bros, that's the easiest thing going for you!  As you lose everything and own nothing, you will then begin to learn to read the whole Word of God before attacking 'financial blessings'.

ogajim:
Jesus promised to take care of our needs not our wants so we need to be clear about what we preach, I don't blame those who benefit from this misinformation but feel sorry for them because they have to keep this scam going so as to continue the "lifestyle". Thank God I don't need to scam to maintain and to him be the glory and not some "solid personal achievement"

Lol, . . . 'scam' this, 'scam' that, 'scam' the other. . . everything with you guys na "scam". No wonder you're ever full of complaining! Enjoy - na your calling.  

chukwudi44:
Please young lady,am not against anyone who purposes in his/her heart to give any amount to the church be it 1,2,, 100% of their incomes.

Young man, your excuses will not wash here. Anyone who has been arguing to condemn tithes on recycled fallacies should first get their acts together before making otiose noise. If you are not against anyone preaching or giving any tithes, why have you been finding it difficult to encourage people to give tithe? It is simply not enough to condemn something - and please throw this exculpation behind you: it's now a bore to keep recycling your life-long adventures of snooping your own perceived "criminals".

chukwudi44:
What I preach against is heretical teachings by criminals who call themselves Men of God saying it is compulsory to pay 10% of their incomes to the churchI can assure that the RCCG is not up to 25% of the RCC in nigeria .Do you know that in states like Anambra,Enugu and Imo the RCC controls almost 70% of their poulation and almost 50% of all Igbos.
the RCCG has more branches in lagos than the RCC but not more members.

See what I mean? It has now become a matter of who has the largest church in Nnewi, Aba, and Owerri. . . the tithe you're supposed to focus on has been quickly forgotten! Ol' boy, Church matter no be political control of geopolitical zones! Some of the "criminals" wey you wan condemn dey inside your own church - I just no wan go there, that is why I refrained from posting links for all to see what is happening. Peace, brother. . . this tithe issue should not be dragged on to the kind of shakara wey you dey hala for here, you hear?

chukwudi44:
The fastest growing pentecostal church in he world is the assemblies of God church which has almost 60 million members

We hear - is the Assemblies of God also the "criminals" you want to spend your 'last breath' fighting?

Pastor AIO:
The RcCG is the biggest church in nigeria and I believe they say it is the fastest growing church in the world. I don't think it is far fetched to claim that their practices are representative of how christianity is practiced in nigeria.

I don't know, Pastor AIO. Honestly, I simply don't know if that statistics is unarguable. The RCCG often measures their growth by 'parishes', and it's not easy to make an estimate in their membership. However, we should not forget that the RCCG is not "representative" of how Christianity is practised in Nigeria, for at least a few reasons:

    * In terms of size, there are other churches that play very significant roles in
    the demography of the religious landsacpe in Nigeria. For instance, I know for
    a fact that there are over 23 million people who attend the Anglican Church
    in Nigeria alone; however, going by official confirmation, it is said that it has
    a membership (by confirmed baptized adherents) of over 18 million -
    in Nigeria alone.  The same could be said for the Catholic Church in Nigeria
    which has official confirmation of over 17 million baptized members.


    * second, the other churches which teach tithes in their congregations
     do not make it a matter of madatory or forceful demand - even within
      the same country - NIGERIA. Let me quote you just a few sources for
     you to check out for yourself:

[list]

Worship in the Catholic church for example, consisted of straight forward mass on Sunday, early morning mass on a daily basis where there is a Reverend Father available in the parish to conduct these masses. . . . The reverend fathers in these churches believe in spreading the churches far into the nooks and crannies of Nigeria rather than concentrating and strictly targeting city-dwellers with a lot of money to offer. They encourage tithe-payments but they do not strictly insist on knowing the salaries of their members with a view to ensuring that the correct percentage is paid monthly by their followers. Tithe payment is largely left to the conscience of the members of the congregation.
Source: http://www.nigerdeltacongress.com/particles/prosperity_churches.htm

[/list]

[list]

The Rt. Reverend C.E. Ideh is the Bishop of the Anglican Church Communion, Warri Diocese. In this encounter with Sunday Vanguard, he speaks on challenges of ministering the gospel in the volatile Niger-Delta region,. . .  >snip<

Q: There is this controversy over tithe. Where do you stand on it?

Some people feel that payment of tithe is an old law and you can give the way you want in the church and not that you will be forced to be paying a particular percentage. What is your view on tithing? They are entitled to their own opinion. Actually, as far as the Anglican Church is concerned, so many years ago, we knew nothing about tithing. We were only used to what we called church dues, a fixed amount, depending on the congregation, which you pay annually. But, with time, we began to see that tithing is scriptural. When Jesus, talking about tithe, said one should not leave what is more important to do, He was not ruling out tithe, He was just prioritising, saying in order of priority, you should do this first, not that you should not pay your tithe. In this matter, I will say seeing is believing. I, as an individual, so many years back, in the eighties, I was introduced to tithing when I was in the higher institution, and, since then, specifically 1983, about 26 years now, I have been doing that and, by experience, if you tithe, you never lack. God has proven it. Not because I am a bishop now. Right from when I was a student. In fact, a student told me then," look, is it that you practise telepathy with your father? He asked because after I started tithing, my father would always come at the point I had nothing to see me, to give me either garri or money. And I strongly believe it is because of the tithing. The Lord said, "prove me if I will not open the windows of heaven and shower you with blessings that room will not be able to keep it." So when you tithe and faithfully you keep it, I tell you, you will never beg, borrow or steal. There will always be meal on your table. Nobody will convince me against tithing when I have tasted it and know it is good.

Source: http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9986

[/list]

Another comment from AllExperts.com' about the position of Anglican Communion on tithe (this is not in Nigeria) -
[list]

Are Anglicans required to tithe, i.e. giving back 10% of income to the Church? What is the Anglican Church's teaching on tithing?

Very few denominations "require" tithing.
. . .
. . .
Many biblically-minded ministers would now preach tithing, but the general "expected" level of giving is five per cent of disposable income (i.e. after tax and housing costs).

[/list]

Now, from all these, you can understand why I consistently challenge the anti-tithing arguments to make a "standard" case for every Church that preaches tithes. It is evident that even within Nigeria and among many large churches, the subject of tithing is NOT made a matter of "required" or "mandatory" - and most anti-tithers who insist that it is so, have been playing unhealthy games of passing false assertions in order to plaster condemnation across board on ALL pastors and churches that dare to even mention tithes. When we see that the examples above state that -

      ● 'Tithe payment is largely left to the conscience of the members'

      ● 'Very few denominations "require" tithing'. . . but that - -

      ●  'general "expected" level of giving is five per cent of disposable income'

. . . do the above sound like anything the anti-tithers have always argued endlessly on Nairaland?
   

Pastor AIO:
My question to you, Pilgrim1, is: Would you say that these teachings of RCCG are rooted in Christian doctrine or are they merely manipulating doctrine to extort funds from the gullible?

I believe my answers above could suffice.

Pastor AIO:
I'd like your opinion on this statement too:

Pastor Adeboye, sharing the revelation during the meeting, which he hosted, stated that it was revealed to him that the global economic meltdown would subsist for seven years.
“Despite the gloomy economic state worldwide, those who are righteous, faithful in giving their tithes and offering will prosper,” he said.

As long as he has not said that "ONLY" those who tithe would prosper, I don't see why I should unnecessarily pick issues with him. Indeed, other ministers outside Nigeria say just about the same thing, and I personally know man tithers who have found that statement proven true in their lives.

I know that many people have said angry things against Pastor Adeboye; and just this morning while composing this reply, there's this 'kind' gentleman who constantly distracted me offline with unprintable names just because he has issues with this RCCG website. To him, if I did not join his 'campaign' to condemn Adeboye, I would "sit in the hottest seat in HELL" (his exact words). No, I would not join him is his ministry of condemnation; and I promptly logged out to come and finish this reply.

My point has been that even where people say unsubstantiated things on BOTH sides of the debate, that is not reason enough to condemn tithes and tithers and pastors and churches that preach tithes - withing and outside Nigeria. As I've shown above, there are many large Churches in Nigeria that preach tithe but do not make it a matter of what is "REQUIRED", or preach that someone is 'going to HELL' for tithing. Thirdly, I could supply you with MANY quotes within and outside Nigeria where tithing by many Churches is not a fixed/rigid "10% only or else" - the example above says they expect just "five percent" - yet they did not INSIST on it by "force".

There's more to say; but I hope this would help you see why I constantly challenge the irresponsibly repeated false assertions that anti-tithers often banter on this Forum which cannot stand up when challenged.

Shalom.

However, I'll examine your quote and then offer my opinions:

Pastor AIO:
Please check this out:

Offering: Any time you are coming to the house of God you must have it at the back of your mind not to come empty handed Deut 16:15. The offering you give is the seed sown which will bring harvest at the unexpected time. Some people when they are given an offering envelop they just put it on the chair such one can never harvest anything from God, so be a good giver.


Tithe: You need to sow your tithe.

I think they meant verse 16, not verse 15. Yet, if we going on to verse 17, we find again that the same principle in the OT is what is preached in the NT:

             Deut. 16:17 -  'Every man shall give as he is able,
             according to the blessing of the LORD thy God which he hath given thee'

             2 Cor. 8:12  -  'For if there be first a willing mind,
             it is accepted according to that a man hath,
             and not according to that he hath not.'

Now, my opinion: offering, tithe and 'sowing'.  I don't think the few lines quoted above could be used to draw any final conclusions to condemn the RCCG. For one, those few lines are not expatiated enough on those terms to draw a condemnation of 'extortion'; and we know that the apostles in the NT drew from the OT to exhort NT giving. The second highlighted part of the quote is a cogent statement, I believe, that is unnecessary to argue against. If one does not 'sow' (in context of giving), how does he/she reap? The NT argues that a man only reaps what he has sown; and the measure in which someone sows is the measure in which they shall reap, NO? The end of that quote exhorts to "be a good giver", and that could also be a healthy reminder that tessellates with 2 Cor. 9:7.

What about sowing one's tithe? That may also well be cogent - in just the same way that 'sowing' is a term that is used in connection to our giving in the NT (2 Cor. 9:6, 9-10).

Many thought that when they give their tithe it is the pastor that will spend it therefore they determine not to give it. Your responsibility stops where you obey God by paying the tithe, leave the rest to God to determine and judge. Everybody that steals God’s money god knows how to deal with him or her.

I would say 'apt'. So far, so good.

Kingdom Investment: The purpose of which people buy share and stocks is to have high returns on investment but kingdom investment has the highest return which no company or corporation can pay. Apart from the high yield returns which is always in multiples, you are also guaranteed a mansion in heaven

This is a no-no!! Absolutely ZERO! Kingdom investment yields high returns, but it does not guarantee ANYBODY any mansion anywhere in heaven.

I knew about this long before now; and nothing changes from my position. In another thread by huxley2, I made clear that "Salvation is not based on any type of giving - call it whatever one may: tithes, contributions, donations, alms, offerings, firstfruit, seed-sowing, etc." When he consequently invited me to explicate further, I gave an outline for my persausion that such is not the case.

What then is the point? Simple enough: if people are misunderstanding the subject of tithing and tying it to unfounded assertions, we can correct misunderstandings by sharing our persuasions in a godly manner; not by outrightly condemning 'tithes' or 'tithers' or ALL 'pastors' who preach tithes anywhere in the world. In experience I know that many, many other tithe-preachers do not tie tithing or any other type of giving to such salvific "guarantees"; but those who do so is not reason enough to plaster guilt across board and condemn everyone else who preaches tithes. It would be as bad a mistake for tithers to condemn every anti-tither on the unfounded assertions of a few or many.

Our pastor are God’s representatives who feed us spiritually we too need to feed them physically if we want to prosper.

I don't have a quarrel about this - would that not be saying the same thing as in 1 Corinthians 9:11? Is this verse also preaching 'extortion'? The thing is that pilgrim.1 is not given to arguments just because somneone said something that many people don't like. My style is to first check what they are saying, drop any biases and then see if what others are saying are in line with God's Word. This principle, I believe, is many times given in Scripture -

         'Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?'
          ~~ John 7:51

          'He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him'
          ~~ Prov. 18:13

These and several other verses offer me a balance in carefully examining what people are saying so that I don't risk condemning people for my own bias.

Needy: You can also sow into the lives of the needy e.g. widow fatherless or motherless children. The Bible says Ps 4:1 “Blessed is that considereth the poor. The Lord will deliver him in the time of trouble”. The blessing that God has blessed us with is not meant to be enjoyed by us alone but for others to be blessed through it. Giving to the needy is a strong key to open door of blessing from God. All those who gave in the Bible did not regret of their giving. May be you nave all what it takes to prosper but it has not really manifested why not check your giving habit. Do you give offering? Do you pay your tithe? Do you support the work of God? Do you bless your pastor and the needy? Why not start now it is never too late and God will give you the appropriate keys to financial prosperity.

Not much of a problem to me.

@Pastor AIO,

Thank you for your concerns. As I've repeatedly stated, my arguments are not borne out of narrow experiences where one uses only one case to plaster a conclusion across board. In which case, my opinions would not be inclined to make the RCCG the standard case for ALL tithe preachers around the world. Please bear in mind that I've also repeatedly demonstrated that people err on both sides of the debate; and as such, would it be quite "in order" to blast ALL anti-tithers with the same slurs as they hastily do to their tithing brethren? Have anti-tithers not said worse things than tithers several times, most of which I've identified already in several threads?

This was why I said earlier:

'our experiences on this subject are varied - which is the more reason
why anti-tithers cannot condemn everyone who is inclined to tithing'

I wonder if by quoting that line earlier you were of the opinion that EVERYONE who is inclined to tithing must by default be condemned by anti-tithers? I hope not; but if otherwise, why so?

That said, let's address your concerns about the RCCG's case:

Pastor AIO:
It has been your constant claim that your experience of the preaching of tithes is different from what most of the 'anti-tithers' are talking about.

That's true, and my claim stands as such. I've also made pointers to why that is so.

Pastor AIO:
While I find it difficult to imagine that you haven't really encountered the preaching of tithes as a means of extortion (endemic enough to warrant a crusade against) I guess it is not impossible.

Lol, have I asserted such a thing anywhere? Rather, is it not true that I've repeatedly stated that extortion is preached through diverse means and not just through the tithes? If that is correct, I wonder why anti-tithers are not condemning those other means by declaring them "unbiblical, fraud, scam, criminal, cut-off-from-grace, going to HELL", etc, etc, etc. I'm sure that if you've closely followed the discussion about tithes on this forum, you'd find that even anti-tithers have recognized indeed that other means are used to the same effect of extortion - but they are just too driven by their narrow sentiments against tithes that they MUST see tithes as the ONLY means of such a sad occurence.

My point has consistently been simple enough: although people extort money from believers through any of the several means about Biblical giving, that is not reason enough to condemn the subject of tithes out of hand. I've also posted an example to the point that I'm very well aware of such abuses, and in other places I've shown that they should not be ignored. But should such occurences be reason enough to condemn ALL and ANY pastors who preach tithes anywhere in the world? Is that reason enough to condemn 'tithing' in itself? Is that reason enough to keep harping against 'tithes' and 'tithers' and going so far as to preach that tithers are "going to HELL"? If anti-tithers actually don't have any problems with tithes, then WHY have they not been encouraging Christians to actually tithe? Why do such anti-tithers have problems with "giving in church"? Why do they often object and argue endlessly against Christians giving in churches? No; instead, the slurs and condemnation across board occupies them so much that when real problems are being discussed, anti-tithers abandon their own arguments and then resort to ad hominems to hide their inconsistencies.

Pastor AIO:
Perhaps if I acquainted you with a few of these teachings you could give me your opinion as to whether that chuch is preaching the gospel or merely practicing extortion.

You're welcome to offer any particular case. May I remind you yet again that one particular case is not sufficient reason to plaster condemnation across board over ALL and ANY pastor who preaches tithes. To insist that it should be the case, is to offer a queer prejudice that is quite self-defeating. In just the same case, I could quote you an anti-tither who condemns all tithers to HELL and use that as "standard" anti-tithing arguemnts - would that be fair on just that one case?

I would not even go so far as to argue whether the RCCG is "preaching the gospel", for evidently they are doing so. . . unless you have a way to show that the Gospel is never preached in that church, and the many who have come to believe in Christ there are heading straight to HELL. I trust that is not what you meant; and then I wonder why you would have to question whether or not they are "preaching the Gospel".

@ogajim,

ogajim:
It is hard not to look at those advocating 10% ( coincidentally same % folks used to have to pay to get naija govt. contracts, maybe more now) as pharisees since they obviously don't have anything to back up that requirement from the Bible other than some recycled junk that's nothing but the same old beaten path.

I hardly find intelligence in your drivel up there, I'm afraid. First, even though I favour tithing, have I made any type of giving a "requirement"? Or by "force"? Or even by "mandate"? The recycled junk of often making this subject a matter of such onomatomania is reason why you folks will never grow beyond your self-righteousness. Not to mention indeed that so many anti-tithers who are averse to "any percentage" are evidently making their own giving a "requirement" - did you know that at all? Yet, that would not make me slur you the way you guys readily castigate tithers with all sorts of vituperations.

ogajim:
Our experiences in this area is varied I am sure and I can't even go into some of the stuff I've heard in "churches" the last couple of months, those who aren't "submissive" are said to be "stealing from God" or "blocking God's blessing for them", " not sowing properly", etc.

True, our experiences on this subject are varied - which is the more reason why anti-tithers cannot condemn everyone who is inclined to tithing. I could as well state the same observation about anti-tithing churches the last couple of months which constantly make the false assertion that those who are tithing are going to hell or cutting themselves off from the grace of Christ - all for what? For simply giving a certain percentage of their income as tithes?

ogajim:
Just as I don't have to be a democratic to prove I am black, I don't need to submit to an old law to prove I am a good Christian.

Which again is another retired and infantile argument. A 'good Christian' - because you choose not to tithe, and tithers by default are not 'good Christians', innit? How many times have I remarked that tithers today in Church are not tithing for the sake of becoming Jews? If Paul was evidently quoting from the "old Law" for Christian giving, was he trying to make Christians become 'black' or become Jews? Hehe. . . it's amazing the sort of far-fetched arguments you anti-tithing folks can dream up for your ideas.

ogajim:
I don't need any "spiritual father" other than Jesus Christ, spiritual growth is something one should continue to seek but we need to be weary of wolves in sheep's clothing, no one is going to make me feel guilty about what i do or don't do without providing superior arguement to butress their point, when I didn't know any better, I went along with it but now I do.

Considering your several arguments, I very well doubt that you know any better as yet. True, we all need to be aware of 'wolves in sheep's clothing', but does that in itself constitute reason enough to then stop tithing or to use the subject of tithe to demonize every pastor who teaches it in their congregations? Even during the days of the Mosaic Law, were there not people who abused the offerings of God's people? And did such abuses constitute reason enough for God's people to entirely stop giving their tithes and offerings? I don't mean this in any sly way, but your argument here typically reminds me of folks who make queer larger-than-life claims in order to excuse good sense (Proverbs 22:13 and 26:13-16).

ogajim:
Matthew 23:8-12 , is a good reference for those with "temporal fathers, daddy" or whatever. It is the duty of anyone that knows better not to keep it to themselves so we don't fall short in God's eyes, so educate those in "bondage" of old "curses" we must.

I don't know how many pastors around the world have made themselves guilty of your complaint in Matthew 23:8-12 - just by preaching tithes. What's the connection, really? Does that Scripture put you or anyone in 'bondage' or a 'curse'? If we're going to honestly educate ourselves and our brethren, we'd do a better job at it by sharing intelligently from God's Word - not by using false assertions to castigate everyone who preaches tithes, and then justifying that attitude in a pseudo-spiritual and self-righteous conceit.

It's not only in Nigeria we find unbalanced teaching, as not everyone has got it right in the USA. I do know of a few local churches in Nigeria that don't see it as a sin if someone does not 'pay' tithes (although I don't know if there's any one of them that is categorically pentecostal). And yes, the Nigerian scenario cannot be used as the only situation worldwide concerning tithes.