₦airaland Forum

NOWORRIES:
the seed is the WORD
NOT MONEY ACCORDING TO JESUS O

Lol, have you ever heard the word 'context'? The word 'seed' does not have only one meaning in context even in Jesus' teachings. In addition to the one you mentioned (from Luke 8:11), Jesus also said that 'the good seed are the children of the kingdom' (Matt. 13:38). However, this same word 'seed' is also used to refer to our Christian giving -

       'he that ministereth seed to the sower both minister bread for your food,
        and multiply your seed sown, and increase the fruits of your righteousness'
       (2 Cor. 9:10)

Does the 'seed' in 2 Cor. 9:10 refer to the 'WORD' or to something else?

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=278488.msg3958525#msg3958525 date=1243861227]If indeed there are atheistic religions, could ya tell me what 'god' /supernatural being they promote?[/quote]Why don't you read up on the examples already identified as atheistic religions? What's with the "if indeed there are. . "?? Should we now assume that the atheist authors who identified and named those religions as such were gravely mistaken? If so, how so?

webb jamie:
Most of these pastors mistake Piousness and sanctimony for Holiness,music is a harmonious arrangement of notes n sounds therefore wat makes a song sacred or holy is it's lyrics.Judging from dis THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GOSPEL MUSIC ONLY GOSPEL LYRICS.D LYRICS AND ONLY D LYRICS MATTER

There are certain music that are self-identified according to their genre without lyrics. It is not only lyrics that matter, but the music as well.



[quote author=Aloy.Emeka link=topic=277687.msg3956823#msg3956823 date=1243836764]The likelihood is very high especially if you dance makossa or afro juju.[/quote]Why. . ? You're kidding, right?

dalaman:
The supernatural claim is still a very valid and legitimate claim I believe. If intelligent life is later discovered in some part of our universe then that will be it all religions will die a natural death.

What do you mean by intelligent life, and why would their discovery be the end of all religions?

huxley2:
What do you think? Do you think it has the essential characters of religions?


I say philosophical atheism to distinguish from other forms of atheism like natural atheism, simple-minded atheism and "religious" atheism.


I for example would describe myself as a philosophical atheist (or better still a metaphical naturalist), my one year old daughter as a natural atheist, and the run-of-the-mill citizen who holds that there is no god but has not really given that much thought as a simple-minded atheist (or maybe, natural atheist).

Same point, really: I didn't make 'philosophical atheism' into an 'atheistic religion', which was why I wondered about your interpolation of the former. However, I'm quite aware that there are different shades of atheism; which again would be clear that I didn't group all atheism as 'religion'.

segyemaro:
pilgrim,you sound masculine and a greedy pastort that depends on tithes to live,if its so ,you ought to repent.

Lol, segy. . . the ad-hominems are unnecessary. I've not asked for your own tithe, nor will I do so at anytime; I hope we can discuss without this back-and-forth. Regards.

No2Atheism:
@pilgrim1 it looks like @segyemaro wants to do a sex change for you

Hahaha. .ha! Bros, wetin I no go see for nairaland again?!? If dem not get anything talk again, dem wan see wetin na only me dey hide for cloth!

Pastor AIO:
Well I'll keep my fingers crossed but it is a roll of the dice really.

Hehe. . I like dat one! Hope it doesn't land a double-6!!

KunleOshob:
Quoting scripture out of context is your hallmark on nairaland. Even your last post on the interpretation of matthew 23:23 is a very glaring attempt to quote scriptue out of context.

You keep repeating the same assertion without saying anything more to the point. When you do, say on; if you don't (because you can't), I bet you will repeat yourself with that boredom. If you want to throw that verse away, then your Christianity knows nothing about "judgment, mercy, and faith" - things which are also part of the Law. Just as segyemaro pointed out, you can't be making selective reading here; so go ahead and throw those same virtues away if it helps you.

No2Atheism:
LMAO another person wants to marry you off to a pastor

I tire o, bros. Lol, e be like say dem wan live my life for me!

topeokunol:
pilgrim,na you know wetin you want die for tithe matter for. i thank God no one can add or subtract from the bible,i am sure you would have since written your own so as to have a proper sentence for any non-tither.

I have 'proper sentence' for ignorant anti-tithers such as you often display. Often times I've appealed that people discuss without the sly drama, but when you have exhausted yourselves then you begin to whinge as above.

jagunlabi:
Okay,i admit my ignorance,pilgrim.So point me to a name of such an author,will you please.A name of an atheist religion from you will also be in order.

@jagunlabi,
Okay, I apologise - didn't mean my reply to come quite in the manner you took it. My answers to your query:

    'point me to a name of such an author':   Michael Martin.

    'A name of an atheist religion':  (huxley2 has named a few)

I hope that helps? Cheers.

---

bindex:
I have seen pilgrim.1 write a lot about atheist religions even though she has never mentioned any one of them.

Huxley2 has seen me name quite a few and has again mentioned them in his reply. Regards.

---

huxley2:
While it is true that there are atheistic relgions (such as Taoism, Zen, some forms of Budhisms), these atheistic religions tend to be far less harmful to society as a whole. The real cultural battle is between irrationalism, of which ALL religions ar a part, and rationalism. Philosophical atheism is founded on rationalism and abhors all forms of irrationalisms and superstition which is the bread and butter of theistic religions.

Are we to then infer that "philosophical atheism" is also a "religion"? I pointed out and limited my comments to "religions" and mentioned "atheist religions", so I wonder what the issue really is here about 'philosophical atheism'.

KunleOshob:
Pilgrim knows every thing you have written here, the only problem is that she is more comfortable with quoting the bible out of context than stating things in their proper context. evidently as far as this tithing issue is concerned she as a vested interest which she is yet to reveal on nairaland otherwise she would not be going to several lengths to dis-tort scripture with the aim of justify a practise which as been established to have very weak scriptural basis.

KunleOshbob, please show me where I've quoted Scripture out of context to segyemaro.

topeokunol:
i appreciates your both analysis, and its exactly what my pastor said,thats why we dont pay tithe in our church.we dont even collect offering during mid-week service offerings only on sundays only,so why are you fighting for the support of tithing pilgrim?is either you are a pastors wife or you are benefiting from it one way or the other. so its illegal to collect tithe.

@topeokunol,

Let me remind you again: if you're going to discuss, please do so; if not, please save your accusations - because it won't benefit you anything if you push your luck to be bleached up. However, in simple terms I'd address your misgivings:

   ~ your church practice is not law for other Christians;

   ~ your pastor makes tithing 'illegal' but has other ways of collecting your money

   ~ you obviously have said nothing intelligent before making it illegal

   ~ pilgrim.1 is not a pastor's wife who seeks your tithes

   ~ and yes, I've benefitted and continue to benefit from giving my tithes.

In all my discussions with people on tithing, I don't start out accusing people of being this, that or the other - the discussion should not become personalized as if I'm stealing money from your empty pockets. Why not rather discuss this subject and refrain from seeking to make it a matter of 'pilgrim.1'? I share what I know both from the Word and by experience, and you could do the same of even better. The points I've made stand as they are, and it's funny that you guys just talk anyhow and yet are unable to intelligently counter what you read in my posts.

Thank you, segyemaro. I'm quite familiar with your line of thinking, and such have been addressed in other threads extensively. Perhaps it may be good to once again point out a few of the weakness in them.

segyemaro:
Thanks for your very kind comments, I appreciate them. In reference to Matt 23:23 and Luke 11:42 concerning tithes. Remember that Jesus was born and lived under the Old Law (The Jewish Law). The New Law did not come into effect until after His death and resurrections on the day of Pentecost when the church was established. (Acts 1 and 2). We must always look at who is being talked too when we study the Bible so that we can apply what is said to the correct period of time.

There are many things which the Lord Jesus Christ addressed to the Jews but which are very well carried over into and applied in principle in the NT Church.

For example, it is evident that He was addressing the Jews when He spoke about loving God and loving neighbour in Matthew 22:34-40. A Jew had asked him a question about the Law, and His response was from the Law - and this same commandment in the Law has been carried over into Christianity without a question at all:

      . . . Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
      Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,
     and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.
     And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
     On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
     [compare Matthew 22:37 with Deut. 6:5]

It's clear He was addressing the Jews, but that comamndment from the Law has been carried over into Christianity without anybody questioning it.

A second example is about marriage: in the Gospels and the epistles, we find that marriage and divorce are also based on what the Law states:

     'Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,)
     how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
     For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband
     so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law
     of her husband.' (Rom. 7:1-2)

Of course, Christians are not under the Law; but would that mean that Christians can throw Romans 7:1-2 behind them and therefore do as they please? The same point is made even stronger in 1 Corinthians 7:3 - "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord."

Notice: "bound by the Law" - and yet, no Christian shouts that such a verse is not possible!

When we read the NT, even when we assume that certain things are addressed to only the Jews, we should seek to understand the principle of God's Word to us instead of trying to be legalists. The Bible says in Romans 15:4 that whatever was written in the OT were for the benefit of Christians:

     'For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning,
      that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.'

God is not asking us to be clones of the Jews; but He uses the OT scriptures to speak to NT believers. There are numerous examples in the NT where scriptures which were directly addressing the Jews are also expressed towards Christians.

segyemaro:
In Luke 11:37-44, Jesus is talking to the Pharisee's and He (Jesus) said in verse 42, "But woe to you Pharisees! For you tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass by justice and the love of God. These things you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone." Here Jesus is rebuking the Pharisee's for not following God in all things that they had been commanded to do. The commandment to tithe was under the Old Law and Jesus was telling the Pharisee's that they had tithed, but that they had failed to do others things that was also required by God. This was not a commandment for us to tithe, it was only making reference to what the Pharisee's had been commanded to do, Jesus was using this as an illustration of someone doing part of what was right but not doing all things.

That may well be; but I don't think He was speaking in that verse as an "illustration" to do all or part of what God required. His point was clear: "do both" without preferring one over the other. It may be argued [especially by anti-tithers] that Jesus was not "commanding" Christians to tithe in that verse; but they never for one instance consider that He was not condemning the practice of tithing at all. The simple reason why many Christians have come to believe in tithing today is because they know that in principle the tithe transcends the Law - in just the same way that "judgment and the love of God" transcend the Law.

KunleOshob:
It is the criminals that twist the word of God to de-fraud others in the name of tithes [like you] that need to repent. I am quite certain that God would reward me of exposing the wolves in sheeps clothing[matthew7:15] that the bible warned us about who would just come to take advantage of believers and extort money from them.

A man who justifies himself needs to remind himself of Job 9:20.

jagunlabi:
Can you point the names of their god and their scriptural texts my way?I'd like to know.Christians have the bible,the moslems the koran,what do atheists have?
The only similarity atheists share with theists is the "group mentality" based around rigid ideologies of some sort.And members of both groups simply identify with these ideologies,deriving their identities from them.I am a christian,i am a moslem,i am an atheist.And they will defend these group identities to the death.

You obviously have no clue and need to be informed. Atheists authors have themselves recognized these atheist religions, so just what are you talking about? Just first find out what those atheist religions are, or discredit the atheist authors who affirm those religions as such, before asking for the 'gods' of those atheistic religions. This excuse of 'group mentality' does not hide the fact that there are atheist religions identified by atheist authors as such.

Pastor AIO:
Is there anywhere in the bible where injecting Heroin is condemn? NO? Oh good, I can go ahead and ruin my life.

Lol, I sincerely hope you won't come to ruin.

alphamode:
After five yrs of personal research and ponderin through my observations i came 2 d conclusion that all religions are purely 4 deception,

Lol, that is a sad loss to atheists - for you probably forgot that there are atheist religions as well: are they also purely for deception too?

KunleOshob:
Despite all these your very cheap attempts to dis-credit my position, i am sure others can see through yourpranks and whether you like it accept it or not, any one who twists the word of God for material benefit is not only greedy but is also fraudulent as stated in Jeremiah 8:8-10 and as we all know fraud is criminal. So if i describe them as criminals i am perfectly in order.

Your position is self-confessed for what it is: cheap. And it is evident that those who have been fawning over your schlocky double-speak are unable to defend you now - they can't. Arrogance such as you display will neither help you nor your adulators.

segyemaro:
pilgrim,you are taking this issue too personal,you have not be able to prove your point.

You're wrong. I've discussed my point, not taking things personal. People can share their views without using this subject to be persistently accusing or branding others with all sorts of names.

@segyemaro,

Thank you for taking the time to share your views in a very calm manner - I deeply appreciate it. However, I agree with some of the things you shared, but not quite a great many - and here's the reason:

segyemaro:
Where does the 10% of Tithing come in?

pilgrim we will look at the requirement of tithing under the Old Law and giving as we have means under the New Law.

Lol, I looked at what you posted from the Law; but even so, is it only in the Law you find tithes? The thing is that many people start out from the Law, then argue away endlessly from the Law, and see nothing else apart from the Law. Dear sir, tithing did not originate from the Law, and one cannot be treating it as if it was only in the Law that we find it discussed.

This is why everything else you said simply misses the whole issue (at least, in my observation). That said, I'm not going to fault you deliberately, but would respect your own views as that is what appeals to you.

The few other things that I should comment on are:

segyemaro:
The command to tithe was a command given to the Children of Israel (the Jewish people) of the Old Testament. This was part of the Old Law and we are no longer under the Old Law. From the above verses we can see that they were required to tithe (give 10 percent) of everything they had. They gave 10 percent of their money, their crops that they grew, their animal, their land, everything they had.

I don't know if they gave 10% of 'everything' they had or of their land; nor do I know if it was required of them to give 10% of their 'money'. I do know for certain, however, that Jews today give just between 10% and 20% of their income (that is, financially) because they understand the essence of the Law.

Second, when you said "we" are "no longer" under the Law, my answer is that you were never under the Law in the first place. The Law was given to the Jews, not to Gentiles - so, claiming that "we" are no longer under the Law is mixing things up, for we were not Jews in the first instance.

However, even though we're Gentiles, the Law still instructs us on many things - not in a legalistic manner, but rather in its principles. For all that, those of us who choose to tithe are doing so, not because we feel we're Jews under the Law, but rather because we understand its principles in precisely the way that many things from the Law also address practical Christian living. This is why we agree with anti-tithers who argue that Biblical tithes were not a "strict 10%", and for that reason we know that one could tithe just as they have determined in their own hearts.

segyemaro:
We are given a command to give as we purpose in our heart on the first day of the week (Sunday), but no other time are we commanded to give to the church.

No other time, you said? Well, that is if you're looking at only 1 Corinthians 16:1-2; but we understand that there are other occasions when giving is encouraged in the NT. What about 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 - did you consider that as well? Giving doesn't have to be a 'Sunday' matter; we could give at other times and occasions/purposes as well.

segyemaro:
Look at 2nd Corinthians 9, verse 7 “Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.”

Here God is telling us to set aside an amount that we have purposed in our heart to give, we are not given under compulsion, but we are giving because we want to give to further the work of the church and to meet the needs to the local church. This does not mean that we have to give to the point that we cannot meet our financial responsibilities, but I fully believe that if we put God first then we can meet all of our responsibilities. God expect us to give ourselves to His service as well as our money. Some people think that just by giving their money that they have fulfilled all that God ask, but in 2nd Corinthians 8:1-5 we read that the people of Corinth gave of themselves first and we must do the same.

That's great, thank you. Perhaps I can safely say that a good number of people who tithe or give in other ways (as they are able) have done that same thing. I don't know all of them, and certainly can' speak for all; but I can understand from experience that those who commit themselves to tithing cheerfully are people who have given themselves to God and to the ministers who labour among them. Notice it is a double commitment in 2 Corinthians 8:5 (NASB) --

               'and this, not as we had expected,
               but they first gave themselves to the Lord
               and to us by the will of God'

Perhaps when we commit ourselves to God and to those who truly labour in ministry, we shall understand in practical terms the meaning of that verse.

God bless you.

@realpastor,

realpastor:
pilgrim,tithing is under the old law,so Jesus never adviced anyone to give tithe.we are under the new law.

Okay, that's your view - we've been through the same complaint and shown that is merely an excuse which misses the essence. First, it is wrong to say that Jesus never 'advised' anyone to give tithes - for He actually did (Matthew 23:23).

Second, there is not a single text in the entire Bible that specifically condemns tithing - not one. Men may make all sorts of excuses to find a verse that does so, but they've not been able to do so. Those who try to hang it on Hebrews 7:18 are not able to tell you why they think the Bible teaches that tithes are 'weak and unprofitable', for the Bible does not teach such a thing anywhere.

Third, the argument that tithe is 'under the old Law' does not mean that every mention of tithes was under the Law. If that is how you argue, then please abandon every other thing that is under the old Law as well, such as -
~ loving God and neighbour
~ Christian marriage
~ women's role in the Church
. . . and so many things that Christians practise which are also under the old Law. You cannot pick and select in this matter - condemn tithing simply because of "old Law", then do the same thing with the many Christian things that are directly derived from 'under the old Law'. Can you do that? If not, why not?

segyemaro:
pilgrim,i am still waiting for your respond to this.

@segyemaro, I did - read it here. Enjoy your Sunday, and more blessings the week ahead.

chukwudi44:
Pilgim For christ's sake stop being mischievous,the word tithe means a tenth.

I'm not being mischievous - if anyone has been mischievous, it's anti-tithers who have said the very same thing that I've noted several times and yet none of you have gone over to say the same thing about those authors.

chukwudi44:
In some bible translationss what you have is a a tenth and not tithe.

The original words are not spelt the same, nor do they mean the same in every case.

chukwudi44:
Any thing other than 10% cannot be called tithes.

That is simply because you really have not studied your Bible and are just in the habit of making empty noise. It's really funny that the anti-tithers whom many of you have been quoting on this forum are denying your own assertion here.

chukwudi44:
In the book of Malachi He made mention of "Tithes and offerings".Tithes and offerings are not and can never be the same.

Lol, bobo cool down. Where did I ever make them the same? You seem to have run out of steam and are just desperate to punch the air.

Enigma:
The result is that anyone supposedly living by the "tithe" rule today will need to make sure, legalistically, that what they are giving/paying is a tenth.

That's not true, for God never called anyone to be a legalist. To make this issue a matter of "legalistically" doing this, that or the other is to miss the essential message of Scripture.

Enigma:
Do not be confused by false claims that some people believe that the tithe was more than ten percent.

I'd be surprised. This would mean that a whole lot of anti-tithers have been making very false claims in that case - for they are the very ones who have asserted endlessly that Biblical tithes was more than 10%; and in other cases, the percentage varies. They know this for a fact, they've preached it many times, and they keep making the same assertion regardless. If there's anyone making "false claims" in this matter, then anti-tithers need to beware.

No2Atheism:
KAG is gradually starting to see the light and starting to scrutinise official party lines.

I think KAG makes the same sense that several people have tried to express in this thread. I especially liked this caution:

KAG:
Further, always be wary of discoveries that try to bypass or influence the peer-review process by not only publishing its wonky paper after sensationalising its discovery in the press, but also finally realeasing it in a subpar journal.

Diva1:
You are right, I guess the moderator could remove this topic.

There's nothing wrong in bearing out your observation. We know people who use 'god' in arguments do so just for aspersion; and honestly no one has to take extra pains to be deliberately sly as such.

Oxone:
well personally i believe in paying tithes but my problem is i prefer giving it to beggars than paying in church. is this wrong peeps

Tithing is not a matter of "paying" as if a believer "owes" it like taxes. Many people have the idea that giving tithes to 'beggars' is preferable to giving in Church, but this ought not be so. There's a difference between giving "alms" to people (perhaps beggars) and bringing one's tithes and offerings to church. Giving in church should not be confused for giving alms to beggars. All the same, enjoy your Sunday.

segyemaro:
Pilgrim,d poster requested on how to pay his tithe,you explained to him on how to go about it,wen kunle acknowledge ur position,you together with others want to crucify him and you people are already abadoning the issue from the poster,you want to fight kunle. Pls dont compound more headache to the poster pls.

@segyemaro,

If you look carefully, my post was not about fighting Kunle for acknowledging my position; so please don't cheapen the discussion here by suggesting what it is not. If anything at all, here's why several people have stood against his attitude:
[list][quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=276476.msg3938751#msg3938751 date=1243511059]It is unfair for him to always and persistently accuse everyone who teaches about tithe in the manner he has been doing and using that as counter-arguments against the subject of tithe in itself. Discussions are less messy when people like him can stick to the subject and stop pointing accusing fingers at others unnecessarily.[/quote][/list]
No one has tried to 'crucify' him for acknowledging anybody's position; but even before this thread, several people have cautioned him about his attitude. Did you fail to see that before trying to make out what it is not?

chukwudi44:
Stop playing pranks tithes mentioned in the old testament was strictly 10% ,nothing less and nothing more .9.9999% is not and can never be called tithes.If in doubt you can check the dictionary definition of tithes.

The term Tithe has no place in christian doctrine.

@chukwudi44,

Let me say this to you personally: if you want to discuss, please do. If you have nothing intelligent to say, don't assume 'pranks' into other people's posts just to placate your vast ignorance. I've studied the texts carefully before posting my replies: they stand as they are, and I can take you to the cleaners to bleach your otiose remarks if you care.

So many times I've pointed out that the Biblical tithes is not a rigid "10% only" - and anti-tithers know this for a fact! Many anti-tithers have written volumes about this and affirm that tithe is not a "strict 10%", but varies:

       ~ Russell Kelly argues that it amounted to 40%
       (how in the world he came to that is beyond reason)

       ~ the same Russell Kelly argues tithes from Numbers 31 -
       in that chapter the percentage there is a mere 0.002%

       ~ John MacArthur bellows that when someone says
       the Jews gave 10%, that is NOT correct

       ~ Jewish scholars who are in the best position to understand
       their own Jewish Law have taught that it is anything between
       10-20%

       ~ when analysing the tithe in Judaism, Jewish scholars vary the amount,
       from the first portion (terumah) to what remained, and then how the rest
       was appropriated.

You obviously are too thick to just come blow open your arrogance with such silly remarks since you have no clue what you want to argue. If you anti-tithers have nothing sensible to say, hold your otiose remarks so you don't draw out replies like this from me.

huxley2:
I asked for a branch or area of science for which there has not been disagreements and sometimes unfriendly disputes. And I am still waiting.

In fact, science thrive with these disputes, for without this disputes science would not advance. I do not know of any good scientist who would not change their position were they to be given uncontrovertible evidence that refutes their position.

Religion, on the other hand does not operate like this. Religion and science are methodologically different is their approach;

Religions is founded on methodological revelation and faith, while science is founded on reason, objectivity, verifiability, repeatability and methodological naturalism.

Take for instance the bloody dispute over the nature of Jesus in the 4th century, ie the Arian Controversy. Was it settle by objective means? What is the evidence that swayed the victors of that particular debate?

This is a joke and inconsequential. It's either you are playing hard at understanding simnple issues or simply choose to not understand - which would be magical. To make things simpler for you, my point was this: there's hardly any field of enquiry where diagreements do not occur. That was the plain point I made; and then asking me to provide you with one where it does not occur is simply funny.

huxley2:
How can we show objectively that Christian doctrine is true and others are by implication false?

Ah, I see you didn't even care to read. Please show me where you read in my responses the very thing you assumed by the highlight? It just seems you're stretching your query beyond what you read in my replies.