₦airaland Forum

KunleOshob:
@Pilgrim.1
Who are the major benficiaries of the collections in your "church" today? You being part of the "church" do your apostles pastors share this proceeds with you or any of the other individuals that make up "your church" as was exemplified in Acts 4:32-35? Your honest answer to this would go a long way in assisting me to know how exactly to answer your questsion.

Please Kunle, be man enough to stop this game of ducking simple questions. If you can't address the question I offered you earlier, say so simply and honestly.

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

If you can address the above honestly and simply (no prevarications), then I'll address yours. If you can't do so, say so.

KunleOshob:
And some people think they can bribe their way into the kingdom of God whilst following the doctrines of men and ignoring God's commandments.

Are you too busy making some for yourself? 

[quote author=KunleOshob link=topic=215255.msg3920476#msg3920476 date=1243260882]
Are you for real?  [size=14pt]acts 4:32-35 clearly demonstrates the essense of giving in the church[/size] and my dear it did not expressly state to "help those who preach" which you tried to smuggle in. It says the money was distributed to those in need, so for those who preach to be qualified to receive out of it they must be in need. And if you want to try and use this passage to justify giving in church then i would more than use it to justify that the proceeds must be given to those in need[mostly charity] which is very contrary to what our churches practise today.[/quote]You sound like you're confusing issues further for yourself. Kunle, English should not be your problem - if it is, no wahala. By the highlighted words, you have only buttressed my point, and destroyed your own arguments. Thank you very dearly!

Let me outline it for you:

1[list][quote author=KunleOshob link=topic=215255.msg3919843#msg3919843 date=1243254619]This reminds me of my assertion that most scriptures on giving in the new testament are actually talking about giving to the poor but it is our preachers that twist it to mean giving to the church, . . .[/quote][/list]

2[list][quote author=KunleOshob link=topic=215255.msg3920142#msg3920142 date=1243257479]
. . . but today the emphasis as been changed[by men] we are made to beleieve that christian giving is all about giving to "support God's work" i.e church and scriptures used to teach giving to the poor are actually twisted to mean giving to the church like you tried to do with 2 corinthians 9: . . .[/quote][/list]

3[list][quote author=KunleOshob link=topic=215255.msg3920291#msg3920291 date=1243259104]
Whilst there are passages that teach and support giving to preachers and giving to the poor i find from studying the bibile that 90% of the teachings on giving are actually directed towards giving to the poor and that is why i stated that the emphasis should be the poor and not the "church" and if we concentrate our giving to the church then we must be sure that the church is actually using the money to help the needy as exemplfied in Acts 4:32-35. But today the emphasis of chrisitan giving as been reversed by this same people that are supposed to teach us the truths of the scriptures. Obviously the reason for this does  not take rocket science to decifer.[/quote][/list]


[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=215255.msg3920366#msg3920366 date=1243259853]
Even Acts 4:32-35 that you quoted [size=14pt]is only underscoring the very fact of giving in church[/size] - just check it out at verse 35 - where did the "laid them down at the apostles' feet" occur - [size=14pt]outside the church, or rather in Church?[/size] Unless you have some way of demonstrating that the apostles were outside the Church, I don't see what Acts 4:32-35 does for your argument.[/quote]. .  And now, 4[list][quote author=KunleOshob link=topic=215255.msg3920476#msg3920476 date=1243260882]
Are you for real?  [size=16pt]acts 4:32-35 clearly demonstrates the essense of giving in the church[/size] and my dear it did not expressly state to "help those who preach" which you tried to smuggle in.[/quote][/list]

I just can't laugh enough, Kunle. 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? Do you have a special talent for confusing yourself until you come round to agree with what you have argued against?    This one is classic with you!!

KunleOshob:
I have already answered your question or you want me to fall into your trap of techninalities[abi you be lawyer] won't fall for that except you address the issue of the context of the church in new testament times and the reality of what a church is today.

I didn't expect you would answer that question - always the same game you play, but no worries. The issue was not about the technicalities of what the church is defined to be - you're deviating and losing focus unnecessarily. The question is simple -

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

If you have no answer, simply say so. Thank you again.

KunleOshob:
You are trying to play with words with me abi won't work as we both know that the definittion of the word church in the bible and the present day realities are two totally different things. Especially when it comes to use of church funds

Please answer the question - if you cannot, say so and save all the drama. Thank you.

KunleOshob:
Whilst there are passages that teach and support giving to preachers and giving to the poor i find from studying the bibile that 90% of the teachings on giving are actually directed towards giving to the poor and that is why i stated that the emphasis should be the poor and not the "church" and if we concentrate our giving to the church then we must be sure that the church is actually using the money to help the needy as exemplfied in Acts 4:32-35. But today the emphasis of chrisitan giving as been reversed by this same people that are supposed to teach us the truths of the scriptures. Obviously the reason for this does not take rocket science to decifer.

I get you, and there's nothing you have added to make much difference from the same problem you've had all along. Please calm down and understand the basic issue here: whether to preachers or the poor, both can occur through giving in church - and that's what the epistles demonstrate.

Even Acts 4:32-35 that you quoted is only underscoring the very fact of giving in church - just check it out at verse 35 - where did the "laid them down at the apostles' feet" occur - outside the church, or rather in Church? Unless you have some way of demonstrating that the apostles were outside the Church, I don't see what Acts 4:32-35 does for your argument.

When you carefully read the verses you are contending with (or rather proffering), then the point will come forth to you: giving in Church is a ministry that channels help both to the poor, those who preach, and even others outside the Church.

solosimple:
@Pilgrim. 1
I'm not hear because of u. Hope u don't mind if I just ignore u at this point as your words have no more relevance to me.
Bye!

Lol, you have some ego! You assume that anyone is here because of who. . . you? Puleeease!

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

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

When you answer that simple question, then I'll show you why your accusation was uncalled for.

KunleOshob:
@Pilgrim.1
For the record i am not against christians giving to the church neither am i saying that the bible does not encourage it, my point you are missing is what the empahasis of christian giving is based on the bible. The truth is that if you examine the new testamnet very well, most teachings on giving were menat for the needy even church collections were meant for the needy and that is the emphasis, but today the emphasis as been changed[by men] we are made to beleieve that christian giving is all about giving to "support God's work" i.e church and scriptures used to teach giving to the poor are actually twisted to mean giving to the church like you tried to do with 2 corinthians 9: I do support giving to the church and i actually do but my submission is that more emphasis should be given to the poor/needy as exemplified in the bible. I am also dismayed that men that prophess them selves to be "men of God" have actually insituitionalized twisted scripture into their church doctrines all in the bid to make money for themselves whilst stealing from the poor and using the word of God to justify this greed and wickedness. These teachings i believe were God's way of creating a poverty alleviation programme and men have highjacked it for their own selfish desires, this i believe is evil  being manisfested and it should be condenmed without any reservations.

I have to give you a mixed review, because once again you haven't been clear. First, your strain of argument has always been to focus on "our preachers" - just anything you're not comfortable with has to be blamed on other people. Why do you have that attitude?

However, even when we examine the NT, we find indeed that both sides are emphatic. The only thing here is that people tend to look at only one side of the issue and then begin to operate their mentality from ONLY that one side. This is why you often have said that "our preachers" have 'twisted' Scripture to mean giving in church, and that sounds as if giving in Church is a heinous sin by any means.

Communication is important; and several times your cark has been about "giving in Church". Indeed, our giving in church as Christians include so many things - including caring for poor saints. Perhaps we often assume that "the poor" are presumably ONLY people who are on the streets, and yet we often miss the point that they are believers in Church as well as those outside the Church. What is wrong with GIVING IN CHURCH if it includes caring for the poor as a proper 'ministry' of the Church? We shouldn't be strung up on just one thing and keep harping on it as if that is Scripture has nothing to say on other aspects that some people are not comfortable with?

Give in Church, as well as reach out to others outside the Church. The poor are both inside and outside the Church, and we should encourage giving rather than using this same thing to often slur people. This was why I asked you to reconsider your persuasions and aim to be clear and consistent.

Thanks again for laying out your views.

@solosimple,

solosimple:
Oh I now understand where you are coming from.

Good. Now can we get back to discussing the topic?

solosimple:
I think this thread is about thanksgiving and offering. Why are you trying to narrow it down to giving just because you want to tell us to give in church.

I didn't do any such thing. My first reply to yours expressed the fact that both ideas are not the same exact thing, but they are CONNECTED - referencing why that is so, by quoting 2 Corinthians 9:11-12. How does that "narrow it down to giving". . or even telling you to give in church?

solosimple:
Well, I have a place I fellowship and I give offering every Sunday(for a relevant need). I understand that there are need for church administration and we need to give in support of that. My point, however, is that we must be wise to define what we are giving for, else we would been falling prey to the deception of those who twist the scriptures to raise money for themselves.

I think this is missing the point. I don't remember questioning where you fellowship, nor even how you give. And how does this underscore what you read in my replies?

solosimple:
Solosimple,
Finally, u've manifested your true person.

I can't laugh. . . you seem to relish unnecessary complaints.

solosimple:
You not said anything meaningful or sensible.

I hear - and you still can't be man enough to find where I tried to "force" you to give in church?

KunleOshob:
[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=113108.msg3908563#msg3908563 date=1243012199]'Sowing in the kingdom from the perspective of christ was
        giving to the poor and the needy and NOT giving to the church.'

That was your statement, to which I initially referenced as half truth. In the first place, when "sowing" is connected with "giving", it is in 2 Corinthians 9 we find the concept used in that manner. If you carefully read again that chapter, you will find that "sowing" is pointing to giving in CHURCH, contrary to your denying it is so. Can we quote you some verses now to show it? Here -

[list][li]verse 6:
   -  But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly;
   -  and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully[/li]
.
.
[li]Verse 10:
    -  Now 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[/li][/list]

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".

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]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.

solosimple:
Shedding light indeed! Anyone who has problem with obeying the scriptures loves darkness more. Are u in that category? And besides what exactly got to you in the statement?What? You better don't. Did you say complain? over what, man we are not in contention. You just have to be sincere with yourself.
Problem? Worry? U don't sound like a Xtian here. Once again, God is my justifier. More worries for you I guess!

Solosimple,

I hope everything is okay with you? It seems you have problems and have deviated from addressing the discussion to taking things personally. Which one gets you going - your complaints, or the topic?

solosimple:
No need, A sincere approach would be rather appreciated.

I didn't expect you would, perhaps because you know you can't.

KunleOshob:
This reminds me of my assertion that most scriptures on giving in the new testament are actually talking about giving to the poor but it is our preachers that twist it to mean giving to the church, most of the passages recently posted on this page re-inforce that assertion but i am sure my darling pilgrim.1 would not see it that way.

@KunleOshob,

Good afternoon (wherever you are). I hope you enjoyed your weekend. If so, glory to God.

Actually, this issue about giving (whatever we term it: tithe, contribution, collection, etc) should not be taken as a personal fiasco. It does not have to hinge on whatever pilgrim.1 says or what KunleOshob feels - let's learn to see how we can balance issues for our mutual benefit and for others who are genuinely seeking what this is all about.

You keep making this argument that "it is our preachers that twist it to mean giving to the church" - as if there's not a single line in the N[/b]ew [b]T[/b]estament about giving to the church! Even these passages lately quoted are about giving to the church, are they not? In any event, if indeed the NT does teach about giving in Church, why be endlessly worried about it and get stuck on accusing preachers today? The one thing it may imply is that you hate are seriously dismayed at any expression of giving in church. Second, you will notice that I did not anywhere argue against giving to the poor; but rather than be polarised at only one side of the issue, my point has always been to maintain a balance by looking at [b]both sides of the issue.

If you are unrepentantly convinced that it is our preachers who twisted the NT to teach giving in church, there's no need for you to ever give anything in Church - as well, no need to ever read those parts of the NT that teach it. I hope this will help you carefully consider your persuasions and aim both for clarity and consistency.

Shalom.

@solosimple,

solosimple:
Hey, easy man, are u here for some kind of arguments or to shed light on the issue at hand. You words appear as that of a man looking for fault in others.

I'm sorry, but you're gravely mistaken. If you felt my point was to find fault with yours, that's your personal take on things, and it's no bother.  If you calmly read through my replies, you'll find that I was doing precisely what you missed: shedding light on the subject - miss that, miss everything. If you find fault with that, you're very welcome to point out where and why that is so.

solosimple:
How did I point accusing fingers at u, and how are mine not seeing beyond my own ideas?

Not at me; but when Christians discuss, it does not cost anything to refrain from being coy at others. What exactly did you mean by the statement: "Is it not funny that men are so used to deception"? If you can't handle simple issues, you really didn't need to substitute such statements - perhaps you need to go one step further and identify those whom you were referring to in your statement.

solosimple:
Well, For your info. I have know personnel idea in this issue, I stick to what the word says and nothing more,

Same here.

solosimple:
perhaps you have problem with that, but that's too bad for 'cos I don't know what u expect.

Sorry, I don't have a problem with anyone reasoning from Scripture - do you have any problems with what I pointed out from Scripture? Stick to this issue, not complaining away from it.

solosimple:
So, do u have problem with the fact that I do not justify myself but I trust in God who justifies those who believe.

Do you really have a problem with that verse? Abi why has it gotten you so worried that you're now referring to it for about 3 replies now?

solosimple:
Hey, I got the point u made and I agree with u where u where right, but there's no way you can force me to say that People must give offering as they come to give thanks to God in Xtian gathering.

Hey, listen up: go read again and find out where I tried to "force" you or anyone to bring money or anything to give thanks to God - I'd be glad to see it. Until then, be blessed.

solosimple:
God is the Justifier of those who truly believe.

I asked if you were quoting the previous to justify yourself, not whether someone else than God is the justifier. There's no need to be pointing fingers at others just because you can't see beyond your own ideas.

solosimple:
@Pilgrim
2Cor 9:11-12
From my understanding, the above scripture is still talking about being generous to others, and that would mean to those who are in need.

I don't remember saying that it has nothing to do with being generous - my point was that the two things are not the same, but they are connected: and even you had acknowledged the connection between them, as quoted below -

solosimple:
That is only connected to to thanksgiving in the sense that people who thank God at your good works. Example of that is in 3Jn 1-8 about Gaius. However that has no link with people bringing money to church for thanksgiving.

There - 'that is only connected', whatever the sense you give it. This is different from you divorcing them previously.

However, if you go back and read it again, the point is simple enough to be seen:

               For the administration of this service
                ~ (a) not only supplieth the want of the saints,
                ~ (b) but is abundant also by many thanksgivings unto God

By "this service", the apostle clearly meant the collection for the saints (see verse 1 - 'as touching the ministering to the saints'). Two things stand out there in the connection by the words:

      ~ "not only"
      ~ "but. . .also"

It is that collection that causes the thanksgiving - in the same sense you had intoned earlier ("Give thanks always(to God)."

solosimple:
@Kunle
Is it not funny that men are so used to deception that they don't like people who stand for the truth.

Precisely, and it's more than funny. Seriously, one wonders if people who talk like this have taken the time to see their own deception and whether they like others who tell the truth they often do not like to hear.

solosimple:
I now see the word of The Lord Jesus in open display: MEN LOVE DARKNESS MORE THAN THE LIGHT
O ma se o!

True, as long as you're not quoting that to justify yourself - read Luke 16:15.

solosimple:
Thanksgiving and giving of offering are too different things that ought not to be married together.

Although they are not the same, they could actually be connected - 2 Corinthians 9:11-12.

solosimple:
Give thanks always(to God). Also, it's not wrong to give offering in Xtian gathering but it should follow a particular relevant need and must be done with order. See example in 1Cor 16:1-3.
Note that the need in 1Cor 16 that was cited is to help the poor. So, be sure you know what you are giving for before you start giving.

Actually, 1 Corinthians 16 is not only about the poor - in verse 6 of that same chapter, Paul was actually saying to his recipients (the church) that they are to sponsor his trips (compare with 2 Cor. 1:16).

JJYOU:
oga kunle, is there any church doing anything right where you live or in your eyes at all?they all seems to be crooks always doing illegal things

I wonder. When someone is used to always accusing others, it's probably because they know nothing else than that. Enjoy o jare.

[quote author=$osisi link=topic=275028.msg3908975#msg3908975 date=1243016931]

Pigs are biologically similar to humans, and their meat is said to taste similar to human flesh

OSANOBUA!!!!!!!!!!!!
How did they know?
I don begin fear this remii and his writers[/quote]Lol, I thot I was the only one who saw that; but I kept a zipped lip since I don't know how human flesh tastes. To be fair, no be Remii write the article - that particularly piece has been recycled too many times on the web.

davidylan:
The author is confused . . . it is guinea pigs.

Lol, @davidylan, the author probably was going by the topic of the thread: "everything piggy"; so anything that sounds like "pig" is one and the same thing to him.

Perhaps a simple look at them would have done him a certain amount of good:

    [img]http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:or2UpT1EMvU4qM:http://students.umf.maine.edu/~nelsonek/guinea_pig.jpg[/img]    >sorry, can't post a 'pig' (for obvious "reasons"<

We all learn everyday, abi?

_________________

@$osisi, my sister, how body? I no know say dem don highjack the thread come here. But it's all good. I trust you're enjoying the day. Many blessings.

chukwudi44:
For christ's sake what is your point of argument ,Since obviously you agree with the fact that it is not compulsory to give.Likewise there is nothing wrong in freely giving your money afterall the money is yours and you determine what you do with it.

If you are reading a discussion mid-way through, relax and digest the issue before jumping off the cliff. Half-truths are a dangerous part of the confusion to use tithing to attack people, and that is an issue that must be addressed as equally as we all frown on any shade of falsehood.

chukwudi44:
All Kunle has been trying to say all this why is that there is no commandent in christianity which makes it mandatory for christians to donate 10% of their incomes to the church or their Pastors.

And your point is. . .? Where have I been discussing a "mandatory" tithe?

You really don't seem to have a clue about this, chukwudi44. We've retired this mantra about "mandatory" arguments long ago; so where have I made it "mandatory" again? In the latest reply I posted (I doubt you even read it), the issue is not whether or not tithes are mandatory to anybody, but using half-truths to confuse people. A case in point: it's either you don't believe that the Bible teaches giving in Church, or you're confused about it and can't see that a denial is being made by the statement: "it is our mordern day preachers that twist it to mean giving to the church".

chukwudi44:
Several criminals masquerading as men of God has used the writings of prothet Malachi to fleece their members of their hard earned Money telling them that they would be cursed unless the contribute 10% of their incomes to the church.This heretic practise has been going on for long and it therefore beholves of every responsible christian to educate their ignorant and uninformed colleagues about this delvilish teaching.That is what Kunle has chosen to do.

Is that excuse enough to condemn GIVING IN CHURCH? Are you even reading at all?

chukwudi44:
In doing so he did not ask you to stop giving money to your church ,rather such gestures should be borne out of your genuine desire to donate not due to fear of any curse.

You obviously are not reading and merely reacting. Look again to see his quote:
          @origina9ja
          Please note that most teachings on christian giving in the new testament
          was about giving to the poor and needy, it is our mordern day preachers
          that twist it to mean giving to the church.
This is why I point out the fallacy of that statement - because it turns out quite too often that anti-tithers are circling the same fallacies over and over again and even confusing themselves. If it is against the teaching of the New Testament to give in church, there's no need for you chukwudi44 to patronise or compromise here. Unless you just didn't read through carefully before assuming what you did. If it is pastors today who twisted Scripture to teach giving in Church, then YOU have no business giving in church - for doing so would mean you join the band of those affirming the very things they condemn in others.

My point? Be consistent and stop using the same fallacies you affirm to condemn others when you are practising the very same things yourself (Rom. 14:22 - Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth).

chukwudi44:
Your arguments don't make sense since obvously you are not in supprt of compulsory giving except you are hiding something from us

You actually make no sense at all seeing you hardly read through before jumping off the cliff.

Remii:
Is Pork Forbidden to Muslims Only?

The Jews and Christians are also forbidden from eating pork. Here is a quote from the Old Testament to that effect: "And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase." Deuteronomy 14:8

Christians are not forbidden from eating pork - and the Qur'an does not forbid Muslims from eating pork in exceptional cases (Qur’an, 2:172-173, YusufAli tr.). The case of Deuteronomy should be understood in its context as a covenant given unto the Jews - and in that same Deuteronomy (chapter 5:1-3), it is obvious that God did not give the Jewish covenant of the Mosaic Law to Christians or any other nation than the Jews: (see the context of the covenant given to Israel - )

         Psalm 147:19-20 -
         19 He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel.
         20 He hath not dealt so with any nation:
         and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD.

Even the Qur'an does not confuse the Jewish covenant as if it was 'Christian' - Q. 2:63 for example.

olabowale:
What is disliked. doubtful is makru or mandub but not mashbooh.

Maybe, maybe not - not a big deal, but it appears you’ve mixed them up.

► Mandub is more commonly used for recommended, (not doubtful)

► Makru, used for what is ‘hated/detested/disliked’ (not doubtful)

Find the various fiqh terms in the example of this Muslim Internet Directory.

Whatever the case, you’re certainly not quite right to say that ‘doubtful’ is not mashbooh - or many Muslims who use it in that sense would be grossly wrong as well. Other examples:

Mashbooh:
1. Malaysia Halal Foods - a list of the three terms (halal, haram, mashbooh)

2. SomaliTalk.com
‘Some of these ingredients are Halal (lawful),
some are Mash-Booh (suspected),
and some are Haram (unlawful).’

3. SoundVision (Islamic):
Makrouh - something that is not liked. Also defined as offensive.
Mashbooh - questionable or doubtful.


4. From various other sources:
● makruh (Arabic مكروه, also transliterated makrouh, makrūh etc.)
is a disliked or offensive act (literally "hated", not doubtful.

● what is makruh?
Answering the question in point, Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi,
former President of the Islamic Society of North America,
states:
"The word Makruh literally means something "disliked" or "undesirable."
According to Shari`ah it is any action that one is told not to do without
making it absolutely prohibited. (source: IslamOnline.Net)

● Some of the Destestable (Makruh) Conducts In Islam.


You can see from the above that your statement that “doubtful is makru or mandub but not mashbooh” is not quite correct.

KunleOshob:
I see you have decided to be very dis-honest in your dialogue, as i have repeated several times it is okay if the giving is being done from the free will of the tither and he is not being manipulated into doing it. I don't critisize any form of christian giving it is the manipulative and unscriptural way that tithing is preached that i condenm in all it's ramifications. If you don't comprehend the english i have written here maybe you should get someone to explain it to you cause i am almost certain that you would still try and confuse issues on this topic again, then again maybe you are trying to confuse other readers by trying to give them an impression that i am not consistent

Kunle my dear, being accusative is the language of losers - and that's what you often demonstrate. You have been haranguing others to show you "from Scripture" that tithing is for the Christian - but YOU who say it is "perfectly okay" cannot show what you affirm. What then is the difference between you and those whom you have been pejoratively accusing? You condemn in other people the very thing you assert is "perfectly okay", and yet when called to show your own from Scripture as you demand of others, you keep turning in circles.

KunleOshob:
Have you ever heard of the Lord God almighty?

My question was simple: if you have no answer, please say so - it won't be a new thing from you.

KunleOshob:
Please state one single bible passage were Jesus himself taught that we should give to the church. Mind you i am not saying we shouldn't give to the church.

You're a very funny personality. You can't argue against giving in Church, but you have a problem with it initially and only now saying you're not against it. Please learn to be consistent and reasonable. Let's remind you of your original statement:

       'Sowing in the kingdom from the perspective of christ was
        giving to the poor and the needy and NOT giving to the church.'

That was your statement, to which I initially referenced as half truth. In the first place, when "sowing" is connected with "giving", it is in 2 Corinthians 9 we find the concept used in that manner. If you carefully read again that chapter, you will find that "sowing" is pointing to giving in CHURCH, contrary to your denying it is so. Can we quote you some verses now to show it? Here -

[list][li]verse 6:
   -  But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly;
   -  and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully[/li]
.
.
[li]Verse 10:
    -  Now 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[/li][/list]

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".

On the other hand, in the Gospels where Christ spoke about "sowing" (including Matthew 25 which you quoted from), it does not appear that He used that word in the way you have used it. Go and read it again (verses 35-40) and you will not find Him speaking there about "sowing"; rather, it is the earlier verses of that chapter that speak of "sowing", and that is in relation to stewards (verses 14-30, parable of the talents).

I know you have problem with this issue of sowing, that is why you measured out half truths to deny that "sowing" is a matter also of giving to the Church. Here's an earlier assertion of yours where this half-truth and prevarication stands out:

KunleOshob:
@origina9ja
Please note that most teachings on christian giving in the new testament was about giving to the poor and needy, it is our mordern day preachers that twist it to mean giving to the church.

. . . in other words, you don't find giving to the Church taught anywhere in the New Testament (not even 2 Corinthians 9)? If giving in church is definitely taught in the NT, why are you accusing others as if it was never taught in the NT in the first place? Why use your half-truths to attack others, Kunle?

[size=18pt]![/size] Please beware before you proceed - what appears below may not suit the cultural taste of some readers: so proceed at your own risk.


_________________________________________

As promised earlier: ##’see below’ - eating of blood:

I was referring to delicacies prepared with blood, because some people might find this rather a shock - I didn’t mean it so. I’ve actually seen such foods in several countries that (in my muslimah days), and here are examples -

► Blood as food (Wikipedia)
‘some cultures consume blood as food, often in combination with meat’ -

~ blood sausage (popular in Sweden as Blodpudding)
(commonly known as black pudding or blood pudding)

~ Curry Mee (Malaysian soup with pig blood)
~ Blutwurt (black pudding in Germany)

Hungary has a popular breakfast dish made from blood from pigs slaughtered in the morning; this is fried with onions and served right away. Black pudding made from blood of other animals (cattle, sheep, goat, etc) can be found here.

This website (ShariahProgram) also provides some Muslim insight about other haram and halal animals.


I just thought to help address the question of this thread, and hope the foregoing helped a bit.

Qn: 'Do Muslims Really  Hate Everything Piggy?'
Ans: Not 'really'.

Well, in so many belief systems (religious and non-religious), animals play important roles: sometimes as symbols of certain fundamental tenets (pros and cons), or as reminders of historical antecedents to any particular group. For instance, it is said that the Egyptians hate donkeys because they connected them with the god Typhon; however, in the USA, the donkey is the symbol of the Democratic Party.

In the present case, though, it is understandable why the pig is disfavoured in Islam - it represents (to them) what is unclean and forbidden. But before we come to pointers, let’s understand that in Islam there are basically three ways of looking at such things:

        ~  halal (lawful, permitted, or not forbidden)

        ~  haram (unlawful, prohibited, or forbidden)

        ~  mushbooh
            (doubtful, uncertain, or suspicious -
            practicing Muslims avoid consuming such things)

Following from the above, Muslims regard pig/swine/pork and its by-products as ‘haram’ (expressly forbidden). ‘Expressly forbidden’, because that is what the Qur’an teaches; but such several verses articulate that there are other things (food, meats) which are also haram. As Remii said earlier, even though pork is ‘haram’, Muslims could still eat them under certain limiting conditions. Now let’s see an example of this:

         ‘O ye who believe! Eat of the good things that We have provided for you,
          and be grateful to Allah, if it is Him ye worship || He hath only forbidden
          you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that on which any
          other name hath been invoked besides that of Allah. But if one is forced
          by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,-
          then is he guiltless. For Allah is Oft-forgiving Most Merciful’
          ~ [Qur’an, 2:172-173, YusufAli tr.]

From the above, it is clear that what is ‘haram’ (forbidden) include -

        * carrion (dead and rotting body of an animal; unfit for human food)
        * eating of blood (such as blood sausage and blood soup - see below##)
        * flesh of swine (ie., pig/swine/pork and its by-products)
        * and whatever is prepared where names of other deities were invoked.

However, those verses cited above go on to state that if one eats such things (and here it is mainly pork and pig products) when such a Muslim was ‘forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits’, then they are guiltless - meaning that Muslims indeed could eat pork in such situations.

Remii:
I think we should explain this, for fear of misunderstanding.

You did well, and your answers are appreciated. I'll add some more soon.

Remii:
You eat pork only for survival, that is if it is the only FOOD available, may be war or famine situation, stuck in the sea, desert etc and no other thing to eat. It is allowed only to take just what you need to stay alive.

You're quite informed.

Remii:
For those who would like to eat sausage, bacon, hot dog and the rest, in the Middle East all these are available made from turkey, chicken, beef, and they taste nice. We should find away to source for these in our area also. This could even be economic venture for Muslim, May Allah guide us aright.

Em, hang on a minute: I'm not sure that bacon is one of those things that could be made from either turkey, chicken or 'beef' (that is, if we understand 'bacon' as 'meat from the back and sides of a pig').

Anyhow, well done.

bawomolo:
[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=274918.msg3904438#msg3904438 date=1242945865]And what has that got to do with the fear in atheistic religions?

nothing at all, just a question i would like answered.[/quote]Okay. My answer to your initial question is yes - I would still be a Christian if hell was never mentioned. For me, knowing Christ is not about a certain fear, but rather about His grace that has proven true in my life.

As bindex opined though, he believes all religions including atheistic religions are borne out of fear - which was why my initial response to him.

bawomolo:
What atheistic religions are u talking about though?

Oh, but you should know that there are so many, many atheistic and atheist religions in the world. Atheist writers have written confirming this, and I mentioned a few examples in another thread:

[list] * Are there Any Atheistic Religions? Can an Atheist Be Part of Any Religion?

*Some quote:

Finally, there are Atheistic religions (Greek: without god). These have no creator god as such (although there may be spirits and other exotic entities). Buddhism is an example (the Buddha is a human who has reached enlightenment), Jainism (with its Tirthankas, or teachers), Confucianism, Taoism (these last two are more philosophies than god-driven religions).

[/list]

shotster50:
Personally I think its time the church did a rethink on the doctrine currently being used. The message of love , for oneself, for your fellow humans is steadly growing thinner. People are only being hearing what the want to hear in church. This is creating an atmosphere of superstitions among christians. Isnt that what christianity is meant to abolish in the first place

Your point is carried. However, such unfortunate development shouldn't take us by surprise since they were predicted to occur. You remember things like 'the love of many will wax cold', etc. Conversely, such times as these should challenge believers to understand why they believe in Christ in the first place (Eph. 1:18 - 'that ye may know what is the hope of his calling').

bindex:
Atheistic religions . Sure I agree that all religions are borne out of the fear of people including atheistic religions like communism.

Lol, I don't know if communism is a religion - that would be a first on me.

bindex:
Most atheist do not have a religion.

No, most atheists like to think so; and not everyone who doesn't have a 'religion' could be called an atheist.

bawomolo:
Would you be a Christian if there was no hell to fear?

And what has that got to do with the fear in atheistic religions?

bindex:
Religion thrives on fear. Without fear there will be NO religion.

'NO religion' - including atheistic religions, yes? In other words, even atheistic religions were borne out of fear, no?

bindex:
all religions were created out of the fear of the many and the cleverness of a few.

Okay, your say. Now, atheists with atheistic religions can quit worrying from their own fears.

@SirJohn,

SirJohn:
@pilgrim1, kindly answer the questions I raised on this thread.

I'm quite honoured, thank you.

SirJohn:
Malachi 3:10-12 probably is one of the most popular bible passages today. This is no surprise at all as it is constantly brandished by pastors and several other church leaders for whatever purpose they hope to achieve.
I do not intend to start another endless debate on whether or not tithing is for the new testament Christian; I just have few questions for the proponents of tithing:

I thought the thread said "A Question", but now it's a "few questions"? Lol, just teasing ya.

SirJohn:
Malachi 3:10-12
10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.
11 And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field, saith the LORD of hosts.
12 And all nations shall call you blessed: for ye shall be a delightsome land, saith the LORD of hosts.

If this passage plus the claims of some clergymen are anything to go by, there should hardly be any hungry tither in the world;

Your inference is wrong. Verses on tithes in the Bible are not as hard-and-fast as you implied or assumed.

               ____________________________________


Now, your questions:

SirJohn:
so here are my questions:

1. Can you say that true tithe payers always have this ‘open heaven’ experience?

I don't know.

SirJohn:
2. What can possibly be the explanation for poor tithe payers struggling to make a living?

I don't know.

SirJohn:
3. ‘And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes’ pastors have used this passage to mean that true tithe payers are always
     exempted from seasons of lack, misfortune and unwanted loss, is this true?

I don't know.
I could only speak for myself - that promise has proven true every single time in my life.

SirJohn:
4. What blessing is exclusive for the tithe payer which non-tithe payers like me and kunleOshob cannot enjoy?

Precisely what the Word teaches there, and which has been proven in the lives of those who have experienced it.

I've complied by being brief and straight to the point. Before you assume anything not implied in my answers, it would be great if you invite me to offer explanations for what you're not clear about.

Regards.