₦airaland Forum

huxley2:
Of course, I am familiar with the term "new atheists", which incidentally I disagree with. But the media like to give a name to everything, so we are stuck this this rather unfortunate misnomer.

The point was that you accused the "new atheists" of quoting and taking things out of context, and I asked you for some examples. And I would like to see some because, I am not aware of such. Note that I did not say that they did or did not. Only that I really LOVE facts and evidence rather than empty assertions.

I'm surprised at your 'innocence' at face value that you're not aware of such, and yet you've heard of 'new atheism'. Will provide you some in due course.

huxley2:
Would be nice to see some examples rather than make empty assertions. Who have the "new" atheists being quoting out of context?

Lol, when I read such enquiries especially from you, it makes me wonder if you're only teasing and pretending to not know, just so it could be taken for granted by the uninformed that such things never occur. Let me ask: have you never heard the term "new atheism"? That's just a starting point, and depending on your response, I'd know if you're just teasing or serious.

huxley2:
Can you show me any branch of science over which there has not been controversy and massive disagreements? Does that make their disputants position a "cherished belief system"? Oh dear, I am disappointed each time we get to this level of cuddling.

@huxley2,

You need not be disappointed. Perhaps you're only being reactionary, which again is unnecessary. I've often stated that the disagreements that people imagine are only peculiar to religious folks are also very present in other fields of enquiry - and your statement above (especially the highlighted) only buttresses my point. I earlier in this thread said: "it's also interesting that such occurences are not unique to religious institutions", and in another thread which you opened I've also made the point, such as in this one where I opined that - [list][quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=277404.msg3939244#msg3939244 date=1243515250]It's not only in Christianity you find this situation - so many other worldviews and fields of enquiry have people saying different things within the same 'coterie' (for want of a better expression).[/quote][/list]
You could skim through several of my posts in the past where I've repeatedly made the same observation, so I don't think your reaction was necessary.

eghosaobas:
i have read through,you have not be able to butress your point enough to convince me

Lol, no wahala sir. I have not seen you or anyone pointing out where their own points are quite as convincing.

Then I don't consider your initial question was necessary.

Your query was this:
[list]

huxley2:
Are you serious about Dawkins and Gould disagreeing over evolution? Really? What was the bone of contention?

[/list]

. . .whereas, my point was about their disagreeing on intricacies:[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=277773.msg3946187#msg3946187 date=1243616284]Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen J. Gould - their quarrel was quite serious, both were atheists and both did not agree with each other on the intricacies of their cherished beliefs.[/quote]It's interesting that the initial report has some theists polarised towards evolution; and yet, that is not a comforting thought to atheists. The point in my reply was that even atheists who are inclined towards evolution are not all agreed on the intricacies of their cherished belief. I thought you'd already have known that, for it was not only those two (Richard Dawkins and late Stephen J. Gould) that were at odds, but a handful of atheist evolutionary biologists. I hope this clears things up for you.

huxley2:
[size=14pt]Any intellectually honest person must admit that he does not know why the universe exists. Secular scientists, of course, readily admit their ignorance on this point. Believers like Collins do not.[/size]

There's nothing 'intellectually honest' in "admitting" to ignorance while at the same time arguing to negate meaning about existence.

huxley2:
[size=14pt]Somewhere during the course of his scientific career, Collins acquired the revolting habit of quoting eminent scientists out of context to give an entirely false impression of their religious beliefs.[/size]

Atheists (particularly the 'new atheists') have done this same thing, so what's intellectually honest in Sam Harris' complaints?

huxley2:
Hello Pilgrim.

Are you serious about Dawkins and Gould disagreeing over evolution? Really? What was the bone of contention?

Hi again huxley2,

I wonder if you seem to be of the opinion that they were both in perfect agreement?

No wahala. What's different from what I've discussed in other threads? Maybe when you read through, there might be some issues you'd like to highlight - then we can discuss more. Abi?

eghosaobas:
pilgrim,you again,na were you dey self?

Bros, how far? I don return for a while now to 'base' (I dey do some kain project - Juniper) at the mo. . . until after summer. Wetin dey? Shé make we meet up. . . abi you get anoda 'arrangement'?

huxley2:
What will the beknighted merchants of ignorance not try and sell to their credulous and gullible sheep?

>snip<

It's a notable contest, but I don't see how either is going to come out the winner.

You know, huxley2, reports like this are sure to catch your fancy - as much as it arrests the interests of many others, both religious and non-religious. However, it's also interesting that such occurences are not unique to religious institutions. On the same subject of evolution, it's not secret that two evolutionists were in very bitter feud up until the demise of one of them. Their names? Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen J. Gould - their quarrel was quite serious, both were atheists and both did not agree with each other on the intricacies of their cherished beliefs.

People interpret issues differently because they see them differently - and that is not only among and between religious people, but also among atheists. Who 'emerges' the 'winner' is also only a matter of how the public interprets the outcome.

amnestylaw:
My brother, shine your eyes, jesus, even if he existed may have neither been black, white, tan, gray or pink because he "was  from heaven" and those in heaven are not supposed to be humans.

Your last line: "those in heaven are not supposed to be humans" - how do you know?

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=277497.msg3945466#msg3945466 date=1243607673](for those of you who'll claim to have experienced god,i have news for you - i saw/experienced aliens fly into my room last night. Prove me wrong.)[/quote]And how does this have anything to do with atheistic beliefs?

marvis joy:
pilgrim,you better find something elase to do if you dont have anything to do.Jesus never lay emphasis on Tithe in both scripture you quoted,so stop decieving people here.

You anti-tithers are a sorry lot! You have become so boring that the best you can do is make some silly, lazy noise and duck behind your PCs. If you can't read, simply say so. if on the other hand you have anything intelligent to say, please say on and end this boring drama.

davidylan:
I think the latter was correct. Many of these folks dont really understand science at all, they simply use it as a cloak for their unbelief.

Well, wetin we go do? I'll wait to see how he progresses. . . which was why I said "perhaps", lol. I agree with you, though. . many people who appeal to such statements may not really demonstrate a good grasp of what they're hoping to convey.



@amnestylaw,
By the way, when you said sometime earlier that, "science does not have answers to all our problems", I wonder if you could cite a few of such problems. Could you outline or highlight some examples that you had in mind? Thank you in advance.

segyemaro:
Hmmm pilgrim hope you know what you are saying.

I guess so. . . do you have something to share?

amnestylaw:
Though it is easy to find scientists who believe, none of them can scientifically demonstrate their faith. Beleif is usually a cultural or personal matter separate from occupation and no one, not even a scientist is immune from the irrational seductions of religion.

Please indulge me again. I think you're operating on an unhealthy premise. First, you recognize that science does not answer all the questions of our real world, no? If that is correct, on what basis would you justify using "science" to prove the validity or otherwise of the supernatural or the spiritual? As has been observed, people making statements the way you do only lead others to the opinion that you don't have a good grasp of "science". Perhaps what you're tending towards is not science per se, but a very queer form of empiricism which has been the harbinger of such idealism as you espouse.

amnestylaw:
Clearly, secular humanism is not equivalent to atheism—it is far more than that. Similarly, secular humanism finds itself at odds with religious humanism, since its outlook is clearly nonreligious. It goes beyond any negative skeptical inquiry insofar as it seeks to provide a positive and affirmative alternative to customary moral and religious practices.

Could I take the above quote as yours? If so, then here's my observation:

Although secular humanism is a type of humanism, how is it that you initially assumed that anyone who tends to other types of humanisms (such as the religious/spiritual humanism)  cannot be a "humanist"? I think the problem is that you seemed to have narrowed the term yto apply only to your 'party' while thinking nothing of other "celebrants", if you get my meaning? The only difference here is that you've qualified your own with an adjective ("secular" - in just the same way that other humanist organizations have qualified theirs (spiritual humanism, religious humanism, scientific humanism, etc. etc, etc).

What is even more interesting is that you don't seem to have cared enough to consider other humanists on their own merits. This, I take for granted from your use of the term 'religious/religion'. Not all "religions" are theistic (having a belief in a Creator-God) - and certainly, even the Church of Scientific Humanism which describes itself as "a rational religion" does not claim to be steeped in a worship of any deity (as far as I know); but that does not deter them from being honest enough to admit to being a religion.

JeSoul:
sister Pilgrim that reply na helele! If I were Amnesty I go throw in that wet (from wiping off the sweat) towel

Your return to NL did not go unnoticed certainly your scripture-boxing on the tithing threads has made your presence felt lol . . . and again if no one has said it, let me be the one to testify that you have been missed I hope all is well with you and yours.

Finally, a big. . . . [size=16pt]WOW!![/size]
Where have you been? Perhaps I didn't look hard enough, but I certainly missed you plenty-plenty as I did many others. Yes, everything's well with me. . . and I trust better for you! Many blessings.

@huxley2,

huxley2:
Pilgrim, how do you know tithing is NOT a salvidic issue? Any reference will be welcome.

Another way of asking that question: how would one know that tithing is a salvific issue?

Addressed directly to me, my answer is simple: one has to understand what salvation entails before drawing any inferences. That said, I don't see tithing (or any other type of giving) as 'salvific' - in the sense of granting salvation to the seeker - for the basic understanding we as Christians have is that salvation begins with being born-again. It is not tithes or any other type of our giving that results in being born again; rather, the new birth is received by faith in Christ Himself (John 1:12-13). Another reference is the well-known Acts 8:20 - "But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money." Salvation is a free gift to man - it cannot be purchased with any type of our giving, offerings or tithes.

huxley2:
And can you show how other issue which you think are salvidic are expressly mandated in the scriptures?

Depends again on your context of what is 'salvific' (did you rather mean 'salvi[b]f[/b]ic', not salvi[b]d[/b]ic?). As regards our 'giving' (in the sense of 'offerings'), I'm one of those who takes the view that it is not "mandated". Believers are called to participate in this ministry of giving - for various purposes; and not all believers can afford to regularly give in such ways (the poor especially). If our 'offerings' were a matter of "mandated", then every believer is "bound" to obey it. . which would then mistakenly imply that those poor who believe could not be "saved" since they cannot afford to give. However, we believe that Christians can and should give according to what they have, and not according to what they do not have (2 Cor. 8:12).

huxley2:
When one gives to the church, what makes one a tithe and another not?

'Giving' is expressed in various ways - including such things as alms (Luke 11:41), contribution (Rom. 15:26), etc. However, what many people do not understand is that tithing in essence is simply a setting apart of a portion of one's income for a certain determined purpose. I've tried to make this as plain as could be from two primary texts in the NT:
~ 1 Cor. 9:13-14

~ 1 Cor. 16:2.

Anything that someone deliberately, determinedly and definitely "sets apart" (it does not have to be a rigid "10%" expresses this concept in its simplicity. Many Christians feel that is not the case, as the only thing they know about the word 'tithe' is a fixed "10%" and nothing other than that. My query has been simple enough: if even anti-tithing authors have argued that "tithe" in Scripture varies in percentages - (from 0.002% to as far as 23%) - what then is the quarrel? Why have those same anti-tithers argued different percentages from the Bible and also called those different figures "tithes"? Even scholarly Jews are not as rigid, and those who are experts in the Jewish Law argue that it is anything between 10-20% and not a rigid "10% only".

Tithing is simply setting apart a self-determined portion/percentage from one's income to support the ministry of one's local church. It does not stop the Christian from also giving alms (Luke 11:41 and Acts 10:2) or helping out in several other ways.

I hope these are helpful?

@No2Atheism

Abeg no vex o. . I was meaning to drop a line for your about that 'small assignment', remember? I no forget you at all - quite some interesting articles from the authors. I go drop you some of my observations when time reach. Stay blessed bro.

amnestylaw:
Beleif is usually a cultural or personal matter separate from occupation and no one, not even a scientist is immune from the irrational seductions of religion.

Good point. . . very good point. Which is why your own belief system is not scientific at all. You just assume things far too much than you can contain. Humanism is NOT science.

@amnestylaw,

amnestylaw:
Fellow Nairalanders, this is a response to PILGRIM.1 and many others who think they know Humanism or who know they know nothing about Humanism.

Thank you for your response. Let us assume that your initial concerns were about "reason", I fear you have demonstrated quite the opposite in your reply and have not been reasonable at all. First, I tried to come to a basic  premise and then offered a simple enough question:

        'what then do you think attracts many humanists to religious/spiritual humanism?'

You didn't seem to reason out an answer that considers other humanists, but just yakata in open denial that humanists cannot be religious:[list]

amnestylaw:
My good friends including (PILGRIM.1) should note that one who believes in any gods, devils or supernatural beings cannot be Humanists.

[/list]
Perhaps I anticipated you well enough, which was why I went so far to project that your brand of humanism tends towards the ideas of the Scandinavian 'Human-Etisk Forbund'. You just assume that if some humanists have not joined your coterie, they cannot be humanists at all. Who's asking what is wrong with reason if you take that attitude towards other humanists?

Anyhow, let me address your misgivings and wrap this up for you. Perhaps you need to be more reasonable and broad in your research about this issue before drawing a closed-assumption once for all.

amnestylaw:
Even though many people, the world over, follow a Humanist philosophy, they may not have heard about Humanism.

That is strange indeed. I hardly know of many humanists who are self-identified as such and have never heard such a term as humanism. Those who self-identify as humanists know they are humanists and use that term to explicate their own worldview.

amnestylaw:
Some who have heard about it, have a not so clear understanding of what Humanism realy is. I think that is one of the reasons why many religious persons claim to be Humanists today.

Okay, but I doubt that is an answer to the reason why many humanists are drawn to religious humanism. I don't claim to know as much, but the little I've come to understand is that these latter humanists basically have the premise that the supernatural cannot be discounted out of hand, even though they do not lean towards the ideas of theistic (especially Christian) meanings of their spiritual concepts.

amnestylaw:
My friends, if you care to know, Humanism is a fairly new name for a very old philosophy which has as its basic princples-- skepticism of supernatural claims and an emphasis on living a fulfilling and ethical life  without religion.

I don't think so. You're only hoping that humanism is a "new" tag for 'old atheism' so that the supernatural could neatly be denied. Many humanists do not follow that idea, and again is one of the several reason why I left you those links to see for yourself. May I quickly mention that I'm not a humanist and by no means well qualified to present a once-for-all meaning of all brands of humanism. But I think it's fair to allow other humanists to have their say even though they do not tend to Christian theism nor to the hard-lined atheism that you assumed in your post.

amnestylaw:
Humanism is the study of what it means to be a good human being. It is a way of living, thinking and acting that allows every individual to actualize his or her highest aspirations and successfully achieve a happy and fulfilling life.

Uhm, that's the same ideal in so many atheist and theistic religions, my dear gentleman. The issues you identified ('a good human being. . .a way of living. . . thinking and acting. . . actualizing one's highest aspirations. . . successfully achieving a happy life') - all these are elements found well-established in many worldviews and religions. How does humanism (at least, your brand of humanism) suddenly assume any different as if they are absent in other religions?

amnestylaw:
Humanists,  therefore, beieve that we can live good lives without religious or superstitious beliefs, that we can only have one life and we should make the best of it, creating meaning and purpose for ourselves and making sense of the world using  reason, experience and shared human values.

Nothing different, bro. 'Using reason, experience and shared human values' are core concepts very well established in many worldviews and belief systems.

amnestylaw:
True Humanists are AGNOSTICS (A=without, GNOSTIC=knowledge) because they think we cannot know for sure the answers to some of the big questions about life, including whether god exists or not.

Sorry, it seems you've veered off yet again and dragooning agnostics into your coterie. That helps you in a convenient way to evade critical thinking, and this very point (critical thinking) is one of the reasons we should not glibly take what you assume without question. Humanists (the many humanists I'm familiar with) do not claim agnosticism out of hand - infact, they go one step further to affirm 'knowledge' of some big questions about life. It is one thing to say that you 'do not know' (agnostic) and quite another to affirm that there cannot be something (denial). One who claims to be an agnostic and tries to deny the supernatural is not a true agnostic, because you have drawn that idea to lead to a hardline atheism, as in your next line:

amnestylaw:
Because there is no evidence for the existence of god, for an afterlife, Humanists live their lives as ATHEISTS (A= without, THEIST = god), find other reasons for living good lives.

Interesting. . . you predicatbly come to the question of "without god" from the denial of the supernatural. Of course, there are humanists who are atheistic; but not all humanists are atheistic - these latter group do not make categorical negative conclusions about the supernatural, and I think they are the ones who properly could be said to lean towards agnosticism.

amnestylaw:
Fellow, Nairalanders, Humanism is open to all unbelievers and non-religious people---atheists,rationalists,secularists,marxists, and materialists.

Hmmm. . . why is your "humanism" not also open to those humanists who are attracted to some religious worldview? No, I have not said that such humanists so drawn are to be regarded as theists; but why do you narrow your own brand of humanism so tightly as to squeeze out those other humanists?

amnestylaw:
Therefore, if you are unchurched, unmosqued, unshrined, that is, if you reject or are critical of supernatural beliefs, then Humanism is for you.

Nope: humanism is also embraced by many humanists who do not reject the supernatural. I may have some considerations for you to provide a naturalistic explanation for some supernatural phenomena, if you're too driven by this narrow ideology.

amnestylaw:
My good friends including (PILGRIM.1) should note that one who believes in any gods, devils or supernatural beings cannot be Humanists.

And what do you call those humanists that have such beliefs?

amnestylaw:
Those who believe in heaven, hell, an afterlife, another world, revelation, miracles and all forms of spiritual encounters cannot be Humanists.

It would be interesting then to see you privide a new term for those humanists that have some inclination towards some form of spirituality - could you amke a recommendation?

amnestylaw:
One must reject religions and all its deities in favour of the advancement of humanity to find true Humanism

Then you're not even clear about atheism, I'm afraid. Dear sir, there are also atheistic religions - they were well-established before the rise of your own brand of humanism; and what's more - atheist authors acknowledge these atheistic religions in their own merit as such, and you therefore cannot make such sweeping rejection against these other atheists. If you do, you may unwittingly have rejected millions of atheists as well just because their worldviews are clearly identified as "religions". Can you make that bargain? If not, your humanism is another class-religion that is self-contradictory - and the best way to clean-up is to either allow others to be self-identified, or refrain from thinking all atheists may by default be humanists.

amnestylaw:
The Happy Human symbol was chosen in a competition organized by IHEU member organization the British Humanist Association in 1965. It was designed by Dennis Barrington. Since then, it (or one of many variations) has been widely adopted by Humanist organizations, including IHEU.

The British Humanist Association holds the trademark in the UK for both the original (upright) happy human and the newer (bendy) version. Hanne Stinson, executive director of the BHA writes: "The upright logo is now used in the UK and internationally as a Humanist emblem (something we are happy to see) -- we are content for any Humanist organisation to use this emblem, and would not prevent anyone from using it in that way."

The symbol is not an all-embracing icon of all shades of humanism - and your brand of humanism is not the only well-recognized. If Hanne Stinson is happy to allow ANY humanist organization to use the emblem, would the same thing be said about those humanists who identify with a religious inclination?

amnestylaw:
IHEU member organization Norwegian Humanist Association paid for the symbol to be professionally re-designed in 2005 and the latest versions are shown below.

I knew about the Scandinavian 'Human-Etisk Forbund' before seeking to address your concerns. Dear amnestylaw, you still have not shed reasonable light on why your brand of humanism topples other types and shades of well-recognized humanist organizations. Care to do this in your next reply? Cheers.

topeokunol:
pilgrim,you are just confusing everybody here,there is no place in the bible were Jesus or his disciples preached on tithe. The place you quoted above was an illustration by Jesus to those unbelievers that are wicked and tend to give 10% to God,so he never emphasize on it,so if you dont have anything to say,keep quite and stop confusing us.

@topeokunol,

Hello. I have things to say and have had my say on tithes. If you have problems with what you read, that's your personal problem. But I assume you have no clue what you're saying, which is why you're sounding confused. But let me leave you with an easier-to-digest version on Matthew 23:23:
'What sorrow awaits you teachers of religious law and you Pharisees.
             Hypocrites! For you are careful to tithe even the tiniest income from
             your herb gardens, but you ignore the more important aspects of the
             law—justice, mercy, and faith.
           [size=14pt]You should tithe, yes,[/size]
             but do not neglect the more important things.'
             [~~ NLT Version]

Did you say there is no place where Jesus ever preached on tithe? Read above and sort out your problem.

amnestylaw:
The point here is that ain't reason rather than blidfolded fear and science rather than religion better for us in Nigeria?

I appreciate your point, even though that point is missing its own premise already - but that's just my view. On the one hand, perhaps you assume that 'religion' is synonymous with people who are averse to reason. If that's the case, I know that the Christian faith does not reject reason (see Isaiah 1:8 - "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD". There are also so many other religions that embrace reason; so it may not be quite justified to make the inference you have drawn.

Now, you may agree with me that it helps to know people for who they are before engaging a dialogue with them, yes? Yes. And in this regard, I assume you're a humanist, from what you have stated sometime recently:[list]

amnestylaw:
As a Humanist who knows that science does not have answers to all our problems, I see science, reason and critical thinking as what we need rather than a god or devil we cannot see, verify or feel. Man should be blamed for all the problems of this world and not god or devil because there are no enough evidence to prove they exist.

[/list].
That being the case, how is humanism (another belief system or worldview) 'better than' religion? At least, your brand of humanism (there are several different brands) does not prove itself better than other belief systems; and we can note that certain Humanists are actually religious, although quite a handful of them do not involve theistic convictions. This brings us to the question of definitions and meaning, and it is here that we wonder which brand of humanism you have in mind among the several lot out there, including:

            ● Scientific Humanism (from the Church of Scientific Humanism)
            quote:   'Scientific Humanism is a rational religion'

            ● The Humanist Foundation (from the Church of Humanism)
            quote:   'Founded in 1973, the Church of Humanism, located in New York City,
            is the only Humanist religious organization that affirms God as a fusion of
            naturalism and realism'

            ● Spiritual Humanism (from the Spiritual Humanist Church)
            quote:   '. . . everyone is free to draw upon whatever religious tradition
            and behaviors are most appropriate for their own unique situation and background.'

Certainly, there is also the secular humanism which is averse to religious inclinations of any kind. There are also several expressions of this aspect, and it seems that your own idea inclines to the ideals of one of the largest in Scandinavia: the Norwegian Humanist Association (aka 'Human-Etisk Forbund').

Back now to your original concerns: reason, science, etc as opposed to religion. If that is the case, what then do you think attracts many humanists to religious/spiritual humanism?

amnestylaw:
Studies show that most Nigerians believe in God. Is this belief justified? Some people say "NO". Judge for yourself and contribute your answers to thetopic: DOES GOD EXIST?

There are several threads already on the subject of 'does God exist'.

amnestylaw:
THOMAS JEFFERSON oce said: "Question with boldness even the existence of a god;because if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than that of blindfolded fear".
Does anyone see senses in the above quote?

And your point is. . .?

@Kunle,

I hope you don't mind my mentioning your name this time around?

KunleOshob:
@Pilgrim.1
Please state one single lie i have lied in my writings against the preaching of tithes without your usual resort to quote me out of context.

Did I specifically mention your name in this matter? If you're referring to this statement in my reply:
         "using lies and indescent language to promote one's disdain for tithe",
then I take it you felt it addressed your style. If that is the case, please let me know, and then I'll oblige you several of your own quotes.

KunleOshob:
On the issue of calling pastors fraudulent, we have been able to firmly establish that the type of tithing preached by pastors[compulsary 10% of one's income that must be paid to the church] has absolutely no sound christian scriptural basis.

Is that enough for you to constantly call them 'criminals'? If your own teaching is shown to be of absolutely no sound Christian Scriptural basis, does that mean that we have to call you a "criminal" as well? The point here is not your theology, but rather your attitude. If you're okay with constantly branding others as "criminals" simply because you do not agree with their teaching, then why should it worry you that others might address your problem [even without calling you such names]  where they do not agree with you?

KunleOshob:
We have also been able to establish that the bible is twisted to justify this scam for the material benefit of those preaching it.

Does this include all pastors who teach tithes? Is that what you have 'established'? As long as you're not able to see issues calmly until you brand others with such names, perhaps that's why your own arguments have now turned against you.

KunleOshob:
What then do you call fraud? is it not when people or organizations are deceived into parting with their money?

Nope, that's not your problem. Your attitude has been unhealthy, and this has been observed so many times by several others. If you can use such language on pastors (pastors in general) who preach tithes to their congregations, and then assume that all those pastors by default are "fraudulent" and "criminal", then one must suspect with good reason that you're tending to use fraudulent language to push your own agenda.

KunleOshob:
One thing is certain any pastor that preaches tithing as stated above is deceiving people to part with their money hence he is engaging in a fraudulent act and i have no qualms about calling a fraudster a fraudster even he claims to be a man of God or God sent him to collect the money on his behalf.

One thing is also certain: anyone who assumes he is beyond correction because he believes he's always 'in order' to condemn people without first seeking to understand them is also a fraud.

KunleOshob:
i also resort to such strong language becos evil must be condenmed in all it's raminfications and i call a spade a spade[no point in dressing it up] using the strong language and condenming it outrightly i am expreesing to people just how grievious this evil is.

Unfortunately, I cannot say ditto to you - as it's not my style to condemn anyone in "such strong language". We can correct misunderstandings by presenting truth in love - that's the way it should work with us as Christians (Ephesians 4:15). But to go out and then brand people names when even your own understanding is often warped does not make you any better than those whom you condemn in such strong language. If you can't see this, what would you benefit yourself before hoping to benefit others?

KunleOshob:
People especially nigerians tolerate a lot of rubbish and just accept what comes to them and that is why they are taken advantage of.

Well, that may be true in some cases; but what if the Nigerians who have been responding to your 'strong language' can be said to no longer tolerate your own rubbish? I've made mistakes before. . . but people have cautioned me. . . I would only injure myself if I remain obstinate in condemning people simply because I believe I'm "in order". Is it too much for you to change your attitude for the better while you seek to share your opinions?

Pastor AIO:
A fraud is a fraud. You can say it nicely, or you can say any which way. Fraud remains fraud.

True, and a lie is a lie is a lie is a lie - no matter how slyly one puts it, using lies and indescent language to promote one's disdain for tithe is a lie. I'm saying that nicely, too.

Pastor AIO:
Calling a pastor fraudulent or criminal is not necessarily hateful.

Edit: Maybe, maybe not - and calling attention to the lies used against pastors all in the name of 'correction' is not necessarily hateful.

Pastor AIO:
It is either true or untrue. If it is untrue then it should be demonstrated to the person that said it that what he has said is untrue.

It has been demonstrated too many times; and if several people keep pointing to that same attitude, what happens if the person in question does not seem to listen?

Pastor AIO:
Love does not mean being indulgent of wrong-doing. In fact that would be quite contrary to love.

One can show love by listening and discussing the subject, not by constantly referring to pastors with unhealthy language. There's no justifying such attitude as 'love' when it has become something characteristic in such posts.

Pastor AIO:
Correction can seem harsh and unloving and it is only in the long term that the love that motivated it manifests.

Agreed. I would rather say that correction goes both ways - to the one who tries to correct another, and others who are the focus of his correction. If one assumes that he is always 'in order' to accuse and be spiteful at pastors, there is no long term love in such an attitude.

mactao:
If there's a controversy in Christianity, it's either someone doesn't understand something or someone isn't a true Christian. Even Christ said that not everyone that claims to be a Christian is one.

True, but that could not be applied across board. There are indeed many Christians who do not understand so many things in the faith, and quite a handful of matured believers have certain controversies on some subjects. It's not only in Christianity you find this situation - so many other worldviews and fields of enquiry have people saying different things within the same 'coterie' (for want of a better expression).

When someone says that it is NOT a Christian teaching or doctrine, we would like to know then how he agrees that it is perfectly okay for Christians to do that very thing. If Scripture has been manipulated and twisted, we also would like to know if he has done that same thing (manipulating and twisting) for his own "perfectly okay" recommendation of the same thing he condemns.
_____________________________

huxley2:
There appears to be a lot of controversy amongst Christians about the subject of tithing. But why is it scuh a hot issue? Is it because;

1) It has got salvidic potential and anyone does not tithe is jeopardising their salvation?

Salvation is not based on any type of giving - call it whatever one may: tithes, contributions, donations, alms, offerings, firstfruit, seed-sowing, etc. Giving is connected with temporal as well spiritual blessings; but tithing in itself was not taught as a salvific matter as if it brings anyone to hell for failing to do so.

huxley2:
2) It is the mainstay of the income of most churches?

No; there are other types of giving which provide funding for churches.

huxley2:
3) As a doctrinal issue, the bible is equivocal about it?

It all depends in what context you use 'equivocal' - it definitely has several meanings, but it is not an uncertain subject.


By the way, what caught your interest on the subject?

Pastor AIO:
From what I understand about Kunle's crusade (for want of a better term), his bone of contention is with the practice of extortion in the name of tithes.  Of course I cannot speak for the guy, but that is just my understanding of what he is saying.

Granted, and we all understand him. Even he has himself recognized in another thread that extortion comes through several means, not only through tithes - so why has he not condemned all those other forms of giving as well? If he has a personal grievance against tithes, it does not matter whatever else he says about other people: for him, everyone who teaches about tithes must by default be a "criminal" - and yet, when closely questioned, he has to admit that it is okay for Christians to tithe. How many people have asked him what exactly is his problem? Why contantly exhibit such vitriol against pastors?

Pastor AIO:
Okay this thread is not about whether or not one should tithe but rather about how one who has decided to tithe should go about it.

Precisely. Kai! If to say I see you, I for just buy you a box of chocolates!  That is exactly what people have several times asked him to concentrate on - it is not enough to keep condemning tithes and saying nothing about HOW others should be encouraged to do so when he makes it "perfectly okay". Is tithing evil? Is it wrong - to give or teach about it in order to encourage Christians to do so? If no, why not talk postively about it? Why take up a position of denouncing believers who desire to do so?

Pastor AIO:
I would imagine that the answer to the poster's inquiry would depend on whether his company was plc-ed or whether he owned it with a partner or whether he was a sole trader.  

I wonder . . . if he paid a percentage of the company's profits as tithe (hence robbing the shareholders or any other partners) and the company went into the red, could he go to church and ask the church to pay him 10% of his losses.

This point makes very good sense. That was why I tried to very early point out that he should regard his company's funds as capital investment, and not his income. Even from the Word, God does not expect people to tithe or even "give" from what they do not have (see 2 Cor. 8:12). Thank you again for making sense here.

KunleOshob:
I would appreciate it if my name is left out of this topic as i am not the topic of this discussion. That apart my writings are not against tithers but against the criminally inspired so -called men of God who manipulate and twist scripture in deceiving them to tithe. As i have always said it is pity for those who tithe ignorantly becos they are not only constantly being robbed, they are also being raped and made to feel good about it.

First, I must apologise in specifically mentioning your name in my reply, if that made you feel bad. So many people have appealed, discussed, pointed out, reasoned and called out that accusations and slurring others should not be the point, but that we should rather discuss the subject. My mentioning your name was in response to Pastor AIO's post/observation (he mentioned you as well, though).

Tithers are not being "raped", and it is unfortunate that this is where your efforts to discourage tithing has taken you to. You assume that any and all pastors/teachers who mention tithe must by default be a "criminally inspired so -called man of God", and no matter how many times other discussants have asked you to carefully consider what you're doing to yourself, your ego would not make you see reason. Since even you havve said that it is "perfectly okay" for Christians to tithe, who's deceiving who? If you feel good about feeling bad when your inconsistencies are now turning against you, perhaps you need to calm down and see reason.