₦airaland Forum

OLAADEGBU:
If you are to be remembered for anything in this forum it will be your passionate efforts to discourage faithful Christians from giving to God in the form of tithes and offerings. This says so much about your so called desire for Christian giving to the poor.

Gbam.

KunleOshob:
It is actually evident from the scriptures that christian giving is more about giving to the needy than even giving to the poor,

. . . And what's the difference between the needy and the poor??

JJYOU:
judas loved his poor too

Lol, @JJYOU. . . you have a marvellous way of putting it straight!
'This he said, not that he cared for the poor;
but because he was a thief, and had the bag,
and bare what was put therein. ' - John 12:6.
It is not everybody who keeps singing about the poor is actually caring for the poor.

Pastor AIO:
How do we know whether or not KunleOshob goes out into the streets to help the poor? We know nothing of him but what he writes on nairaland so it would be unfair to use examples from his life (which we are obviously making up cos we know nothing of his life) as counter arguments. We should just respond to what he writes with words of our own. Discussions are less messy when people stick strictly to what they know and only that.

KunleOshob knows nothing about the personal lives of everyone who tithes. How does he know if tithers are not helping the poor? How does he know that? 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.

[list]

KunleOshob:
It is the criminals who preach tithe that are adding to the bible and twisting it.

One of those criminals who preaches tithe:

[quote author=KunleOshob link=topic=113108.msg3184349#msg3184349 date=1228471788]
However if the tithes is being paid from a willing heart(not under compulsion) then it is pefectly ok.[/quote][/list]

---

[list][quote author=KunleOshob link=topic=113108.msg3937665#msg3937665 date=1243501941]
Did you read any were in your bible that tithe is money or income?[/quote]Where did you read your own "income" for tithes? see:

[quote author=KunleOshob link=topic=203250.msg3205886#msg3205886 date=1228922529]
. . . if how ever a chrsitian knows the truth about tithes and he is tithing or giving whatever percentage of his income to the church out of his own desire to contribute to the church, it is perfectly okay.[/quote][/list]

---

KunleOshob:
As a christian i feel highly embarrassed that the name of christ and God almighty whom we worship is being used to perpetuate crimes and evil against other men.

You're not embarassed, but rather just making excuses for your continuous accusations against others. You demand from otyhers the very same thing you practise and yet cannot show from Scripture.

KunleOshob:
Even the bible makes it clear the preachers twist the word of God to de-fraud people becos of their greed[jeremiah 8:8-10] so i am very much in order to warn people so they don't fall prey to the antics of these criminals

Others who are exposing your problem are very much in order to do so, by the same Jeremiah 8:8-10.

Badriyyah:
Go to the streets and help the poor, help your community.

Image123:
The new improved anti tithe motto, like they ever really help the poor.

Well said, Image123. Helping the poor does not denigrate giving in Church. Anti-tithers' favourite 'poetic hymn' of 'go to the street and help the poor' never translates into reality - they only sing it, but hardly do what they say.

KunleOshob:
PS: I hope you know being a christian means being christ like.

Kunle, being Christ-like has nothing to do with the kind of pseudo-spirituality you banter around. Those who love you the most will tell you this, like it or not. It costs nothing and hurts you nothing to be humble, even when you make mistakes - I've been there before and out, and find it easier to consider good advice from fellow Christians now. If several people are bearing the same concerns about your attitude, you ought to know that something is seriously wrong there.

KunleOshob:
I call it a scam because the way the bible actually defines and executes it is totally different from the way it is being preached today.

This is usually your excuse - and it has become cowardly and cheap. The question was simple:
            "sowing" is actually a scam? "First fruit" is also a scam?
You named those things and identified them as scams - the Bible does not call them scams. When you drive yourself to such warped mentality, don't come back covering up with such otiose excuses. All you needed to say is a simple 'No, they are not scams'. Please refrain from circulating mountains of excuses on this subject.

KunleOshob:
obviously you knowthe best way to tell a lie is to present the truth and manipulate it to confuse others.

That's precisely what you've been doing - just as you called those things scams when the Bible does not do so.

segyemaro:
Pilgrim,i hope yov ve read ur bible carefuly.

I've read my Bible enough to avoid making ignorant statements that are continously goal-shifting as in your initial statements.

segyemaro:
The following passages you quoted from Luke and matt 23:23, Jesus was not talking or encouraging anyone to give tithe. He was only challanging the hypocrites that give tenth of their spices and negleted justice, mercy, faithfulness and love of God.

So, now you actually have to admit that Jesus "spoke" about tithe, abi? You should have maintained that He never spoke about it, as in your initial assumption. It is one thing to know that He spoke about it, quite another thing to try and understand what He meant. But denying that He spoke about it is simply a non-starter.

segyemaro:
From these two chapters you quoted they are saying thesame thing.

I know, and they were quoted to show you that:

            ~ it (tithe) is NOT "outside" your Bible;

            ~ Jesus spoke about it

            ~ you cannot assert that it is "not Biblical"

If you learn to carefully weigh your assumptions and reason issues out carefully, you would not have been repeating the same fallacies several times.

segyemaro:
What God expects from us is the Love of God, and Jesus never encouraged tithing in those chapters,so stop decieving people.

I wasn't deceiving anybody - and your statement here is false and very misleading. Jesus spoke, not only about the love of God, but also about tithe in an affirming manner, when He said: "these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone" (KJV); or, as the NLT renders that verse: "You should tithe, yes, but do not neglect the more important things." How come only in your misplaced theology you're asserting what you really have no clue about and making out that He "never encouraged tithing"?

By the way, segyemaro, you're a very funny personality. Are you not the same fellow sometime ago on this same issue that narrated how one of your pastor friends was "directed" by the Holy Spirit to give his tithes to an akara woman? If tithe was "not biblical" as you're making out, can you tell us how the Holy Spirit could be directing your pastor friend to give tithe to someone?

segyemaro:
Even the old testament that encourages tithing said in Deu 14:22-end,that the tithe belongs to you and your family, that you should eat your tithe with your family were the Lord will show you and you must not forget the widows,the orphans&the poor around you. So you do yourself a favour and read your bible carefuly.

hahahaha. . , hha! I no fit laugh!   You who have read your own Bible assume that is the only thing in the Bible about tithes, no be so? I thought you were arguing as if it was "outside" your Bible? Then why are you quoting Deuteronomy 14? You too funny, dear sir. Go through your Bible, and you will find that the tithes was not only for the poor, but for those who were called of God to minister to His people (Numbers 18 for starters). Malachi 3 does not ask you to eat the tithe with your family, does it? You don forget that one as well?

Do wetin dey your mind, it won't hurt you or anyone else. But to be so selective and keep shifting your goal post does not help either you or your adulators. Shalom.

KunleOshob:
Examples of such yokes include tithes, thanksgiving offering, seed sowing, first fruit,prayer offerings, and all sorts of other scams thses so called men of God come up with to fleece the congregation.

So, in your theology, "sowing" is actually a scam? "First fruit" is also a scam? Something is just disturbing you.

[quote author=$osisi link=topic=215255.msg3926652#msg3926652 date=1243351400]I wonder why people insist on making Christianity complicated when our Lord and savior says his yoke is easy.
na wa
My sister no matter what you say,there'll be another thread like it tomorrow.
someone would soon ask if it's Biblical to drink fanta since Christ never drank fanta.[/quote]GBAM! You just make me scatter laff dis afternoon!

________

Kai, make I edit:
Yours is classic and summarises efry-tin for us. Since Christ did not "spoke" about Fanta, it is surely "not biblical", abi? Okay, please show me where Jesus "spoke" about fanta-ing! Because, if you no show me today, I cannot practise wetin dey outside Bible, no be so?


How body? Abeg enjoy plenty o jare.

chidichris:
is tithe about the bible or about Jesus?
.
most topics here are designed to condem the churches and the men of God so whose interests are we here to protect?

This is what has been observed by several careful readers; and you already took time to highlight this point. One wonders if some other discussants are careful enough to grasp what they are saying before making vacant statements.

ajokeakin:
pilgrim,i think you are the one confusing everyone here. if you have your proof that Jesus Christ spoke on tithe,pls makle it known because i also wants to know because i am yet to see were Jesus spoke on Tithe. i am yet to see were Jesus spoke on tithe,if you can prove it,then go ahead.

You guys should read your Bible before making such ignorant statements in public. It is one thing to ask about whether or not Jesus spoke on tithe; quite another to understand what He meant by it. So ajokeakin, please be well informed before making such vacant statements: I didn't expect you would start out accusing me of confusing anybody if you have never read in the Bible where Jesus indeed spoke on tithe. See:

          Matthew 23:23, Luke 11:42. Did Jesus speak on tithes or not?

_________________________________

segyemaro:
Kunle,we are saying thesame thing. I asked pilgrim to tell me were Jesus and His disciples taught christains on tithing,and to also back it up with relevant scriptures.

@segyemaro,
You're shifting your goal post ever so often -

        ~ first, it was tithe is "not biblical";

        ~ second, it was about "where Jesus spoke on tithe"

        ~ also, you cannot practise what is "outside the Bible";

        ~ and now, it has become where Jesus and His disciples taught Christians on tithing.

So, if one shows you that tithe is in your Bible, and that Jesus actually spoke on tithe, and shows you that tithe is not outside your Bible, what would you do? You throw words carelessly around and end up with nothing - which was why I initially said you should understand what you're saying before drawing conclusions.

KunleOshob:
This is dis-honesty at it's highest level, cos i am quite certain that i have made myself clear enough on this topic yet you still go ahead to quote me out of context all in the bid to score extremely very cheap points that would actually make you look very silly. this is not about winning arguments but about communicating and discussing the truths and by so doing we share knowledge a gain from each other. we don't have to resort to such cheap shots just becos you are hell bent on mis-representing others.

Why don't you simply make your point instead of being so vexed? How has that improved your life? Complaining accusingly is not an intelligent way to convey your point.

KunleOshob:
@Pilgrim.1
finally you are begining to make some sense on this topic.

I hear - perhaps you're finally beginning to understand my point.

_________________________

sleekdot:
Is it compulsory to pay my tithe to my church?
i get confused a lot on this issue

You don't have to be confused about this subject. Nothing is "compulsory" about Christian giving - whether tithes, offerings, alms, contribution, donations, etc. (at least, that's how I've always viewed it). Perhaps the 'confusion' may be due in part to people assuming that giving is a rigid religious "duty" in the sense that it must be binding . . . or else! No, for such an attitude is contrary to what God would desire for you. People give for various reasons; and if you're giving to promote God's work in your church, do so cheerfully and with determination.

Krayola:
@ Pilgrim 1, I apologize if i misunderstood ur post, to be honest i only skimmed i. I just woke up and have class in about half an hour, am rushing to get out the door, so maybe I was trying to do too much at once. I'll read it again more carefully later today. Gotta go for now though. ciao.

No wahala. Do have a cheerful day and enjoy your classes.

@huxley2,

huxley2:
Am great.  Thanks for asking.   You done with all ya exams now?

There are in stages, and a few other engagements inbetween.

huxley2:
I erred here with my use of the word "theology".  I should have put that in quotes to indicate that I did not mean it in the normal sense of the word.  I was looking for a word that combines the sense of dogmatist and some sort of personal commitment of an idea couched around the kind of sophistry of religious theology.  I could not find it, so I wrote just theology without putting them in quotes.   Put I hope you get my point.  

I get you; but perhaps the simple idea would have been best conveyed by 'dogmatism', since it is applicable to many people who themselves are outside religion. We've discussed this before, remember?

huxley2:
This is quite a hot and vexing issue  - the question is - given a certain truth about the nature of reality how should one live or derive a worldview based on that truth.  Consider the following;

1) For instance, supposing it is shown categorically using the tools of science that women and genetically "inferior" to men with respect to mathematical abilities.  Should we define public policy based on such results?

Lol, science is not about a worldview - any worldview. But taking your analogy for granted (for the mere sake of an analogy), public policies are about the dynamics of politics, a different matter from what you'd tried to envisage.

huxley2:
Are you kidding me?  Does not the Abrahamic religions make claim about the origin of the world, humanity and other life?  C'mon, you cannot be serious.   What was all this business of six-day creation all about if this was not a claim about our origins?

Go back and see the point I made - your query was about such claims being "factual claim" or one that is "capable of being verified by science", not so? And I quipped by asking that you to consider your own question before drawing inferences (if left unedited). This all boils down to interpretations, which may be varied; and in other fields of enquiry, people derive diverse and opposing interpretations as well. At least, we all know that those who try to use evolution (Darwinian) for assert claims about the origin of the world soon find out that their dogmatic statements are not applauded widely by their colleagues.  

huxley2:
What does "holding a gist" mean?  That is a strange turn of phrase.

I meant it in the sense of consistency.

huxley2:
"Capable of being verified scientifically"  means just that.  It means it cann be taken into the lab and subjected to testing, probing, measuring, x-raying,  mathematical analysis, etc, etc, etc and shown to be true or false.

How does your own worldview do that with respect to the origin of the world?

huxley2:
The fact that something is capable of being verified scienctifically does not mean that it should or must be verified.

Perhaps, you meant rather 'Falsifiability', not verification - in context of your previous statement.

huxley2:
There may be other concerns that override our search for the truth about the entity in question - issues like cost, ethics, etc, etc.

Ah, please. Such things as 'ethics, cost, etc' are side distractions to the main concern you broached for discussions - how they are 'testable' in the science lab is just teasing the discussion.

huxley2:
It is easy to see what a factual claim is.  A factual claim is a claim whose outcome are typically of a quantitative nature or objective nature.  For instance - Noah stay in the ark 50 days,  a bat is a bird,  diamond is composed of nitrogen atoms.

C'mon, huxley2, I know what a "factual claim" is - the point in my response was your contextual meaning. That was all.

huxley2:
I doubt if there are any naturalists who claim that their worldvew has all the answers.  I don't know of any and I am sure I will NEVER meet any.  I would hope that anyone who describes themselves as naturalist informs their worldview from the sciences. Consequently, they are subject to the success and shortcomings of science.  But more to the point, I would hope that their philosophy puts human interests first if there is a conflict between "truth" and human interest.

Okay, your doubts are appreciated.

Krayola:
@ Pilgrim1,  Please let us not get caught up on technicalities. I don't want to spend valuable time debating semantics.

Please,please, please, guys,  I don't want you to get the impression that I am anti-religion. My beef is not with religion, or the faithful,  it is with the manipulation of minds by the custodians of the Christian faith, especially in Nigeria. I was raised Christian, my whole family is. Due to my familiarity with the bible, I use it as a primary source for advice, though i use other "holy" texts" as well. I recognize that the origins of religion are sincere, and that they have much value in any real quest for meaning. I believe in a higher power, I just refuse to reduce it to something that can be defined. My purpose here isn't to ridicule the faithful (that would be counter-productive and a waste of my time), but to hopefully get them thinking about things so that they start to investigate deeper instead of believing what they hear on the pulpit from people whose careers depend on their (faithful) misinformation.

Christianity can be practiced without denying reason. A loving God will not make it mandatory to suppress a God given faculty in order to fully appreciate him. That sounds, to me, like a man-made idea. The bible has to be read with literal and historical sensitivities,  To read a book written so long ago, by people we don't know (we know the books were not written by the people the bible claims did) without appreciating that expression of ideas was done differently back then isn't honest.



"the Christian faith is no authoritarian, uncritical, unreflective set of answers to the human predicament. Genuine faith does not suppress any questions; it may give people more questions than they had before. Thus the anxiety of simple piety is misplaced. The sort of thinking that Christian faith sets in motion does not replace God but acts as a critical ingredient that helps distinguish faith from mere illusion or pious evasion" Daniel. Migliore (a born again Christian),  from "Faith Seeking Understanding",

There are lots of devout Christians that believe in the same Bible, but not in the same context,  like I said my beef isnt with the faithful,  I love them which is why i'm putting this much effort into this. Its not about winning a debate,  its about hopefully getting people to challenge these crooks that deceive them.

@Krayola,

You seem to have essentially missed the gist in my observations. Don't get caught up with the mentality of beclouding meaning with language - that was all. That does not say the discussion now assumes 'technicalities' and/or semantics. It's not about winning a debate, we all know; nor were my observations about that. However, if one is seeking for meaning in our world, we need to be clear what essentially we're saying and not use language which do not help achieve that quest.

KunleOshob:
I think the question you should asking here is : How does the bible define tithes and how was it practised then? Also does the mode, definition and practise of tithing today have any sound biblical basis in christianity? Was it taught to christians by Jesus or the Apostles?

After all said and done, you agreed that tithing is "perfectly okay" for Christians, on condition that they know what they are doing. That "perfectly okay" did not assume any of the matters above.

Hallo huxley2,

I'm doing very well, thanks. And you?

huxley2:
Not quite sure what distinction you are making here. Science is the institution or endeavour whose primary purpose is to search for answers about the nature of reality. The scientific institution is peopled by individuals from all walks of life but as long as they follow the dictums of science ( the scientific method, etc, etc), they are doing science and they can be called scientists. ALL GOOD scientist recognise that ALL scientific positions are provisional

The distinction is simple enough: science is an endeavour while scientists are its practitioners. The endeavour cannot of itself do anything other than what its practitioners do with it.

huxley2:
and anyone who derives a dogmatic position about what he accepts from science and is unwilling to accept a new and better position is SURELY not doing science, but theology.

I'm not sure that is the case; for some 'scientists' who have demonstrated that they are unwilling to consider new findings (for whatever reasons) are not doing theology. I think you're mixing up ideas here. The example you gave about Fred Hoyle attests to the fact that while he was disinclined to consider other models and theories on his enquiry, he nonetheless was not doing theology (we remember he was an atheist, but later leaned toward the Panspermia of agnotic deism). He simply did not start out as a theologian arguing against other models, and his obstinacy cannot be described as 'theology'.

huxley2:
Further it is possible to step outside of science and derive metaphysical or philosophical "doctrines" from the results of science or from a corruption of the results of science. However this is NOT science.

Glad you know that - and it's not peculiar to scientists with a religious/theistic worldview.

huxley2:
The mistake that most religions have made, especially the Judeo-Christian, is that they have not confined themselves to the esoteric metaphysical worlds of the supernatural, but have tended to make pontification that could be verified using the scientific process.

Religions of themselves have not and do not make such "mistakes" - any religious person could make pontifications, and please always keep in mind that religion covers even atheistic religions as well. That aside, we know that there are dogmatic atheists without a religious leaning who nevertheless do the very same thing that you just described above.

huxley2:
This is ultimately their undoing. Judeo-Christianity has made claims such as the following which are capable of being verified by science:

1) The origin and structure of the universe

2) The origin of life (and human life) and the diversity of life

3) Myriads of factual claims such as describing a bat as a bird, whale as a fish, rabbit as chewing the cud, etc, etc.

I don't think you're actually holding a gist here, my apologies. I may understand that you meant the opposite of your statement above, because you're saying that these things are "capable of being verified" and are regarded as "factual claims". I don't know. However, if that's what you actually meant without editing, then what then is the problem if one makes a statement that is a "factual claim" or one that is "capable of being verified by science"?  All the same, the one issue that I see here is that you're again making the very same mistake I hinted at earlier to Krayola - one should not just make reactive assumptions in the idea that one worldview is superior to another, because it seems that's what you're pointing to in your premise.

huxley2:
These are primarily scienctific claims and they could be investigated using the scientific method. Now, the question is - what would you do if science finds that the religious narratives of these claims are at variance with the "true" state of reality?

First, you would have to understand your own question before making a sweeping assumption. Scroll back: if, as you said, the claims under investigation are regarded by you to be "factual claims", what then is the substance of a "variance" from what is "factual"? This is why I often take a cautious approach when using language that may becloud one's reasoning.

However, a second consideration would be to examine the veracity of one's approach: on what grounds would a an atheistic naturalist assume that his own worldview has all the answers about the "true"  state of reality?

Image123:
May 25 Proverbs 25v28

28. He that hath no rule over his own spirit is like a city that is broken down, and without walls.

How we need to constantly keep this in mind. Refreshing, thank you. . and many blessings to your day.

Em, guys. . . (Bobbyaf, Krayola, ladies and gentlemen of this thread),

Let me throw in this bit. I think that so many times people use expressions that do not address a particular enquiry, which often lead to the mistaken idea that one is superior over the other. This is the case often times when people are employing the fallacy of ad hominem arguments to make deductions or inferences which are far removed from reality.

   - - - - - - - - - -

@Krayola, perhaps you need to reconsider the strain of your arguments. You are operating from what seems to be a very mixed up ideology. For instance, consider these premises in your quotes:
[list]

Krayola:
Science searches for answers, they don't claim to have them all. And when they make assumptions, they recognize them as such.

[/list]
No, 'science' doesn't have the ability to do so - you most probably meant that 'scientists' search for answers (afterall, what did you mean by "they"?). And yes indeed, we have on record so many 'scientists' who claim to have "answers" about the reality of the world we live in, even though those claims are as dogmatic as religious statements.
Also, this:
[list]

Krayola:
Religion claims to have all the answers. ALL.

[/list]
This is where you got it all wrong and merely repeating the same recycled and unjustified dogmatic statement you've heard from naive minds. "Religion" does not claim to have "all" the answers - there are many religions in the world, and most of them (including Christianity) do not claim to have ALL the answers. At least, I know that the Bible does not claim that any man fully understands 'all' matters of spirituality and the reality of our world. Even in atheistic religions, their informed adherents do not make any such claims as you assumed - people just make this unjustified assertion without having carefully investigated the veracity or substance of that idea.

Worldviews should not be confused for science; and the mistake you're making is to use one worldview (atheism) to argue against another worldview (theism) - and that is not science that you're dealing with. To pit "science" against "religion" in the manner that you're doing is NOT science, but rather atheistic philosophy; more so, because by the statement: "Science searches for answers, they don't claim to have them all", you're assuming that there are no qualified theists who pratice science. Now, who are the "they" in your assumption - atheists? Even honest atheists would not make the mistake that you're making. So, please carefully consider the premise of your arguments.

However, I should go one step further to commend your penultimate remark:
[list]

Krayola:
We have such a sincere thirst for the divine in Nigeria that it breaks my heart to see how people's desire for meaning is used to enslave their minds and hold them hostage by so called "Men of God" and their medieval theology

[/list]
It's alright to have a sincere thirst for "the divine", but just what do you mean by that term? Where do you begin to explicate that concept when your strain of argument just does not lead one to believe that statement was genuine? At any rate, one should not be reactive when seeking answers, because often is the case that the gist is lost in the arguments when language is used to becloud meaning.

  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

@Bobbyaf,
While I may appreciate much of your arguments, I'd rather have to give just about the same review as I observed in Krayola's. No, I'm not adjudging you or anyone else; but if we're all sincerely seeking answers about reality and meaning, we need to tread softly and appreciate issues on their own merit.

That said, if one is looking at the universe as a system, the obvious question before us is: how do we begin our study? I think that as students of leading enquiries, we should shy away from unjustified statements which are neither scientific nor theistic. An example in yours:
[list]

Bobbyaf:
The only time the universe expands is when the Creator makes it expands, and in this case our galaxy was the last addition to what was already there before.

[/list]
Lol, anyone could just ask the simplest question here - "how do you know?" - and that just about pops your assumptions. Look at it in simple outline:

              ~  'the only time'

              ~  'is when the Creator makes it expands'

              ~  'our galaxy was the last addition'

              ~  'to what was already there before'

Uhm, I don't know any science that could at present tell you "what was already there before" - not to any degree of certainty. And I don't know any religion that would make such a dogmatic statement as that "the only time" such things happen is when the Creator makes it so! Anyone could presume to say these things and feel comfortable about their assumptions; but for the sake of a tidy job in this discourse, neither of these premises is justified as either science or theology!

These are just the basics to consider before drawing any inferences. And I hope these observations would help us carefully weigh whatever we say. Regards.

sleekdot:
should I pay may tithe from my salary or from the company's profit, or both

[list][li]Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give,
not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things
at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work.
~~ [2 Corinthians 9:7-8][/li][/list]
Your income is enough - that's what you earn personally. Consider your company's funds as capital investment ['the initial capital and the long-term expenditures made to establish and maintain a business or investment property'] - it is from there that you maintain your company, pay your staff, increase your productivity, etc. Let whatever you give (it does not have to be a rigid "10%" flow cheerfully - whether you consider giving from your personal income or from the company you established. May God increase and multiply the productivity of your company.

segyemaro:
You ve not answered my question on whether Jesus spoke on tithe and were his disciples encouraged tithe paying?

I asked you a simple question for starters:
"Do I take that to mean you have never read in the Bible
where Jesus spoke about tithes?"
Did you answer that question? If you have never read where in the Bible He spoke about tithes, is it any wonder that you said it is "not Biblical"?

segyemaro:
why i said i dont want any reference from mal 3:8 is that,that is were you would want to refer to,and it has nothing to do with me.

You're very funny. I've not even quoted any verse and you're already scared? You really have nothing to say, so save your panic.

segyemaro:
I think its time for us to have our arguement.

I'm not out to start an argument with you nor anyone else. Often times you guys shout for argument and can't stand to finish it. If you're up to task, let's rather discuss, thank you.

segyemaro:
Can you tell me where Jesus spoke on tithe or what the new testament says on tithe.

Do I take that to mean you have never read in the Bible where Jesus spoke about tithes? Please just let me know.

segyemaro:
Pls dont bother to make reference to mal:3-8,cos it has no meaning as far as i am concern.

You're already throwing in the towel before we even begin.

segyemaro:
I will not practise anything outside d bible.

Sorry - you're the first person to say that tithe is "not biblical" - if we show you that it's in your Bible, will you still be able to maintain that you can't practise anything outside the Bible? Tithes is INSIDE your Bible - go open it and study first before asking for an argument.

segyemaro:
Its good to give but i dont subscribe to tithe cos its not biblical.

Please you guys should understand what you're saying before clicking on the 'reply' botton. You don't subscribe to tithe because it's not taught in your Bible, or because you can't find it in your Bible? What do you mean by "not biblical"?

JJYOU:
anyone that stands against their wronng interpretation is either a pastor or heretic

My bros, I tire o!

seyenko:
Certainly pilgrim runs a church, he is so blind sided to the truth, he is more of a pharisee and a saducee than a christain. He is one of the people who put people in bondage. What a shame

@seyenko,
If you had nothing intelligent to say, did you have to resort to such false accusations? Why is it that anti-tithers typically cannot peacefully discuss this subject until they have resorted to such restlessness of heart? I do not run a church, nor am I any of the other things you alleged. It's quite a shame that you'd have to demonstrate such attitude in public to show you're a better 'Christian' - well done.

solosimple:
I expect both of them to drop the issue 'cos it seems they have different intentions.
When discussion like this turns into argument and misuse of words against one another, the wise thing to do is to drop the issue.

You don't make such sweeping generalizations.

JJYOU:
go over naura land and search for tithes, offerings, pastors and church and see kunle at work

segyemaro:
Pilgrim and kunle, both of you saying same thing here.

Thank you, segyemaro. Indeed, that was the plain point I already made to him earlier:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=215255.msg3920657#msg3920657 date=1243262376]If you have come back now to say that Acts 4:32-35 was about giving in Church, what have you done to your own argument? Rather than disagree, are you not agreeing with me?[/quote]

KunleOshob:
@Pilgrim.1
We both know that "the church" being referred to in the bible is totally and completely different from what is meant and defined as church today so stop trying to be smart. In reality you are merely displaying a hint of dis-honesty by playing with this word and to borrow your terminology you are say quarter truth[not even up to half]

Kunle, rest the case - you've only come round to affirm the same thing you denied, and there's nothing you offer as excuse that can atone for your initial denial.

Scroll back and see it for yourself:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=113108.msg3908563#msg3908563 date=1243012199]
Look again at your statement: your idea that "sowing" was "NOT giving to the church" makes one wonder if you had so soon forgotten 2 Corinthians 9 - at least, the apostle was addressing giving in Church in that chapter when he spoke about "sowing".[/quote][quote author=KunleOshob link=topic=113108.msg3920040#msg3920040 date=1243256420]
Once again i am being forced to expose your lies and deceptions as exemplified in the highlighted above. For the benefit of all i would post the said passage below then everyone would be free to decide who the beneficiary of the "sowing" aposlte paul spoke about was.

2 Corinthians 9:1-14:
The Collection for Christians in Jerusalem[/quote][quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=113108.msg3920084#msg3920084 date=1243256786]
Kunle,

Please show what your problem actually is in my reply. Just singing about "lies and deceptions" is infantile, it says nothing and cheapens your arguments. I was hoping you have problems in 2 Corinthians 9 on sowing - and yet you had to quote the same passage as if it was NOT saying the very same thing you read in my reply. Are you seriously missing it now that you can't actually discuss? Please let me know. [/quote][quote author=KunleOshob link=topic=113108.msg3920196#msg3920196 date=1243258070]
In your reply you lied that 2 corinthians 9 was talking about giving to the church and that is why i had to re-post it in full so every body can see it was talking about giving to christians in jerusalem who were in need at that time. It is also a typical example of how pastors twist the bible to make it say what it is not saying[/quote][quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=113108.msg3920243#msg3920243 date=1243258600]
Thank you.
Now when you're calm, carefully read and then be assured that I did not lie, nor would I return the 'compliment' of such an accusation. You need to be careful the type of spirit you often exhibit and not be an 'accuser'.

Here is your problem: [size=14pt]Kunle, who are the "Christians in Jerusalem" - are they in any sense the 'church', or they are not the CHURCH?[/size]

When you answer that simple question, then I'll show you why your accusation was uncalled for.[/quote][quote author=KunleOshob link=topic=113108.msg3920859#msg3920859 date=1243263953]
[size=14pt]The christians in jerusalem were part of the biblical church[/size][/quote][quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=113108.msg3920920#msg3920920 date=1243264442]End of story, thank you. Now you can rest your heart and stop accusing people childishly as you did earlier:[/quote]Synthesis:

     Kunle:   
     'In your reply you lied that 2 corinthians 9 was talking about giving to the church'

     pilgrim.1:
     Kunle, who are the "Christians in Jerusalem" -
     are they in any sense the 'church', or they are not the CHURCH?

     Kunle:
     'The christians in jerusalem were part of the biblical church'

If you can now come to agree that what I pointed out from 2 Corinthians 9 is precisely about giving in church, where does that leave your accusation earlier when you come back to say the same thing as I did?

[quote author=KunleOshob link=topic=113108.msg3920859#msg3920859 date=1243263953]
[size=16pt]The christians in jerusalem were part of the biblical church[/size][/quote]End of story, thank you. Now you can rest your heart and stop accusing people childishly as you did earlier:

KunleOshob:
In your reply you lied that 2 corinthians 9 was talking about giving to the church and that is why i had to re-post it in full so every body can see it was talking about giving to christians in jerusalem who were in need at that time. It is also a typical example of how pastors twist the bible to make it say what it is not saying

KunleOshob:
@Pilgrim.1
As usual you continue to demonstrate not only your poor understanding of the scriptures you also choose to be deliberately selective whilst attempting to quote me out of context, but let me remind you that there are others on this forum most of whom are quite intelligent who understand the issues being raised here.

Kunle, please be man enough to discuss and hold your own tuff - this constant appeal to applause from others is the language of losers, and you keep pulling off that hat-trick.

KunleOshob:
With that in mind i repeat my assertion that the giving in Acts 4 was ultimately meant for the needy and not the preachers[instituition], it further butresses what i have always said that christian giving is more about giving to the needy.

Sorry, did you not try to play your own game by quoting me out of context? Just because i roundly ignored that game you pulled there does not mean I didn't see it at first. When I discussed Acts 4:32-35, I made clear that it was "only underscoring the very fact of giving in church", I didn't narrow it down to your allegation that it was addressing giving to preachers. But you dribbled in the canard that I implied it for the latter where that was not the case, and which I subsequently ignored as inconsequential.

KunleOshob:
In the case of this passage the chrurch was just used as a conduit to collect and distribute the gifts to the needy the money was not meant for an "instituitionalized church" like we have today it was meant for poor believers who are part of what make up the church in those days.

Please maintain your focus - I have not been discussing any so-called "institutional church" with you. I notice you often resort to that glib as first-aid when you begin to argue away from the initial point in a discussion. The basic point was and has always been about GIVING IN CHURCH - and the references cited were pointing to that same thing which you had several times used in accusing others inconsistently. If Acts 4:32-35 was not about giving in Church, what does your latest excuse matter, when you have only returned to agree that it does so?

KunleOshob:
You as a christian [i assume you are one]

Losers often do this - question if others are 'Christians' when they are tired of reasoning.

KunleOshob:
You as a christian [i assume you are one] should be genuienly worried that the proceeds of collections amongst believers is not being used according to the biblical directives.

As a believer, I'm genuinely concerned about your constant dribbling in asserting one thing and then struggling to come round to agree with your initial denials.

KunleOshob:
You should stop trying to justify what is wrong just becos that is what your pastor taught you.

Take your advice - you should stop trying to justify your fallacies and pretend to be saying the same thing while confusing yourself.