₦airaland Forum

@anonimi,

anonimi:
Nne, I bin think say u be Christian oh! Did you actually use the words highlighted above or do you wish to edit them now?

Nope, I don't wish to edit them - and if you want to judge my Christian faith on that basis, please go ahead and please yourself. When I offered you guys a simple approach to discuss matters in a genial manner, that appeal seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Several times I pointed this out and (if memory serves me right) someone else pointed that matter out to not push your luck . . . I also warned that when you discuss issues with me, please treat softly, because a time would come that I would take no nonsense from anyone. This is not the first time that people have said funny things about me, so no caterwauls actually moves me.

I want to discuss amicably - but if discussants are not going to be careful to discuss, but rather keep making some funny sanctimonious glibs, I may have to be really tough so that we stop these belly-dancing drama and move on to some more substance in our inputs.

anonimi:
Which one do we take- the "I haven't been going back and forth" or the "how many times I have (skip)  keep going back and forth endlessly repeating myself"

Will you be kind enough to let us know what you are really trying to say abi na blindness dey worry us still

Dear anonimi, please understand a very simple matter here: I have not been going back and forth on this subject because I already have made inputs on the matter you raised yet again! If you had simply asked for referrals I could have obliged and wondered that you did not see it. For those who wish to stay with the traditional definition of tithes as ONLY 10%, I had no worries thereto, because I have said that tithes are not always a matter of 10%!! How many times do I have to say that?

If it was a matter of definition, I have also given a definition as well as the meaning of that term. After I did so, even KunleOshob missed it and afterwards I pointed it out to show him where I already made the difference! Even after that, a few others repeated the same questions and I had to go back and repeat what I already stated. Yet again, that same issue was brought up, and I yet again had to go back and repeat myself!

WHAT is it that is so hard to read a simple statement that has already been repeated several times?

If you didn't see it and had yet again raised it, I would yet again have repeated myself and given the link without worries - I could be that patient. But when you don't want to discuss and just act out of hand to be so dismissive, you are calling for a no-nonsense response from me. Even coming back to judge my Christian faith on that is just a wasted effort.

Yet again may I state it simply: if you want to discuss, please do so. If not, please try not to stir what you can't handle. At this point, these endless repetitions and glib reactions should be dropped so we can move on to other matters. If I made promises I have often come back to fulfill them; but if those who are asking me questions are too much in a hurry to be genial enough to engage a discussion, I have not bent their necks to my queries, nor sought to judge their Christianity on the attitudes they themselves have exhibited thereto.

I am open to dialogue. If that is too difficult to offer, no worries.

Cheers.

Dear KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
My dear pilgrim.1, to the best of my knowledge you have repeated several times that you don't tithe base on "LAW" that your tithing is based on the Priesthood of Melchizedek( which is not required of christians) To the best of my knowledge most pastors i know who preach tithes preach it based on the law (malachi 3:10) now we are all agreed that christians are not mandated to tithe under the law. We also know that most christians that tithes are doing it under this wrong notion. So what is the problem with telling people the truth about tithes backed by scripture mind you i have not said i would ask anybody to stop tithing i just want people to know the truth, if after they know the truth they deceide to continue, all well and good.

Dear, here's the problem with what many people don't understand - but first, I would like to appreciate your calm and reasoned response there.

Now, let me point out why this subject in itself has drawn my unrelenting interest. Many people do a lot of things for the wrong reasons and on the wrong basis - and this happens on either side of the divide. A few of them to bring this round:

● many people tithe for the wrong reasons and on wrong basis

● many people condemn tithes, tithers and tithing on wrong bases

● many pastors teach tithes in the Church on clearly wrong notions

● many non-tithing pastors disavow tithes on untenable basis

● many people even preach Christ on wrong motives and bases

● many people have tried to know just what the Word teaches on these matters
and just what to do in the freedom of the new covenant and by the leading of
the Holy Spirit.

I believe that the penultimate one is where we all have been striving to attain, and we acknowledge that it is no small feat. It is my conviction that on either side, many of us have been wrong, and then as we take the time to identify just what may be wrong we shall also be drawn to see just what may be correctly Biblical. It does not mean that we shall all be agreed on everything, but the areas of uncertainties should not (IMHO) be used as battering rams against one another.

So what now?

► Do I believe that the wrong notions should be exposed? Absolutely.

► Do I believe that some of these wrong notions are still being taught? Absolutely.

► Do I believe that Christians should be mandated to tithe? Absoluetly NOT.
Why not? Because the ministry of tithing and giving is not a matter of compulsion,
mandate or forceful demand - and I believe we are all agreed on that.

► Do I believe that tithers as Christians are mightily blessed? Absolutely.

► Do I believe that non-tithers who give other ways are blessed? Absolutely.

► Do I believe that non-tithers are cursed? Absolutely NOT.

► Do I believe that tithers are cursed? Absolutely NOT.

► Do I believe that the NT teaches that Christians could tithe? Absolutely.

► Do I believe that all tithers are going down the road to Hell? Absolutely NOT.

► Do I believe that every teacher of tithe is correct? Absolutely NOT.

► Do I believe that every opposer to tithes is wrong? Absolutely NOT.

► Do I believe that we can strike a balance between these extremes? Absolutely.

► Do I believe that this balance is a weak cop-out of my position? Absolutely NOT.

► Do I believe that many, many pastors have abused tithes? Absolutely.

► Do I believe that some of these pastors have used tithes to
place a heavy and grievious burden on Christians? Absolutely.

► Do I believe that we should just let these heavy burdens continue? Absolutely NOT.

► Do I believe that these abuses should be condemned? ABSOLUTELY!

► Does that mean that tithes are the basis of these abuses? Absolutely NOT.

► Do I believe that pilgrim.1 is the most accurate on these matters? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

► Do I believe that there is hope for us all to see the real meaning
of the ministry of tithes in the NT - whether it is not taught there
or it is actually taught there? Absolutely.


I could add another 65 points highlighting these simple matters, and I thought that if we took time to look at them in a balanced way, there's going to be great benefit for us all - even where pilgrim.1 is shown how wrong she may be on several counts! I'm most persuaded of the veracity of tithing for Christians; but over and above that, I truly am persuaded that whatever my passions are, they should not be used as standard for every Christian to follow. Again, it is not my persuasion that non-tithers should go about castigating anybody - they should simply speak the truth and leave the judgement in God's hands!

Would it help if we all calmed down and seek to discuss without disaffection one way or the other? I apologise that many people on the opposing side may sometimes see my repostes as firm, tough. . or even harsh and personal: such things were not intended out of hand. However, even among some of us who tithe, we still have areas where we strongly disagree and we have learnt to contain it all (just like we all disagree on most other Christian doctrines). I would like to make friends and discuss amicably, whatever the outcome - but why are we so quick to be dismissive on other people's inputs just because we don't agree with their submissions?

May God help us all to be quite accommodating to one another in the love of Him whom we trust to serve in dignity, love and respect.

Many blessings and hugs.

KunleOshob:
I am really intersted in spreading this truth about tithes to the millions of christians all over the world who are being held under the yoke of tithes through scriptural manipulation. I believe as christians we owe it to our christian brethen to tell them the truth and not not find vague & opaque scripture to justify it like some people are wont to do even after it is so glaring that the false doctrine as no place in christianity. How best do you think this truth can be spread amongst the christian community?

It would be a pleasure to serve in telling the truth to people without the pretences and unjustifiable sanctimony we have seen from some of those who hold a non-tithing conviction. There are those who tithe, not out of a feeling of strain under any yoke - but for non-tithers to be often legalists and use this same issue to castigate other people is not the same thing as "telling the truth" - that is wickedness. I am determined to call that same attitude and expose this religious garb that pretends the Christian ministry was made to use Scripture as a baton to castigate all ministers just because you don't agree with what they teach on the subject.

anonimi:
Many thanks for the above, which is also my situation since almost two years now. God not only continued to show His blessings on me in all areas but even more than when I was paying the pastors' oft-repeated tithe (a tenth [10%] specific requirement.
Thank God I am free and I am free indeed in the sacrificial blood of Jesus.

Anybody can make subjective statements in public. There is a simple test to all this shakara. Challenge yourself to consistently give just 11% (not a compulsion, just a challenge) besides other givings - and let's see whether you would not protest! We often boast of giving more than 10% - so why should this 1 out of 10 be so grievious to us and yet we are at liberty to testify that we still give in church?

What really is the difference if one gives 10% and castigates the pastor who receives it, and that same person gives above 10% to another pastor in another church? The difference is that while one pastor calls it the dreaded word ["tithe"], we run away from there and go to another pastor who uses another more relaxed term [vow, freewill offering, donations, pledges, project] to draw the same money from your pockets! Is that not amazing? This is the drama among many believers - 10% is a dread; but if another pastor uses another term to draw more than 10%, we call that "freedom". May God help us all.

This is why I have often said that "tithes" are not the real problem. Hypocrisy that fails to recognize our misplaced arguments and ill-defined allegations against other pastors has been the root of all the declensions about this subject. Many people may give tithes out of a misunderstanding of what it points to, and many pastors who don't know what it means have sadly used Malachi 3 to curse non-tithers. We should not be reactionary and join every single pastor who teaches on the subject together with others who abuse this ministry! Even in the OT, people have abused this ministry as well - so there is nothing new here.

Bless the day when we all see exactly where the problem is and then try to embrace a balance instead of extremum. Tithes are not the bane of Church life; go and find out what some pastors and ministers are using to do even greater damage to believers - and then it will become clear the losses we suffer by making ourselves victims of needless arguments.

Shalom.

@anonimi,

anonimi:
Now I see why you have been going back and forth all this while yet unable to define and differentiate between tithe (a tenth= 10%) on one hand (OT requirement) and other gifts such as offerings, vows, pledges, donation, project etc (unspecified proportion= any %) on the other (NT requirement).

To be honest with you, I haven't been going back and forth on anything. What amazes me is that no matter how many times I have clearly outlined the differences in these matters, blind bats like you will never see it! And that is why I keep going back and forth endlessly repeating myself on the same matter after clearly outlining them. If you don't agree, you can lay out your disagreements by clearly going to Scripture and discussing, not hyperventilating and trying to discredit someone else's inputs with your under-utility grade hootings. This is why I refrained from going back quoting references until you guys push yourselves to make me attend upon your repostes with a no-nonsense attitude. If you want to discuss the subject, please do. If otherwise, please invite what you can't handle and let me once again bleach your sanctimony.

It does not come as a surprise to me that you're playing this footsy on "proportions (%)" after you guys tried to discredit the "(%)" I initially pointed out. Tithes may be traditionally defined as 10%, but a closer look shows that it is not always 10% - and I simply showed the various inputs to that. If you refused to see it, no worries. Besides, after some of you dismissed that there is any "requirement" for Christians, what are you doing with the idea of "NT requirements" in your quote? Do you guys mind trying to be consistent at all?

anonimi:
Maybe you really need that 7Up you referred to recently before, during and after re-reading all the 59 pages of this thread and your replies to appreciate how this basic understanding would have served you very well.
Shalom.

Thank you - I started following the thread before starting out with two basic questions. Those who know about this can testify to that. If you just jumped in the middle, wouldn't it have been easier and better that you tried to follow the gists that have gone before your arrival?

Anyway, thanks for the reco. . I just hope that you offload yourself of this pretences and be more genial when next you seek to point out an issue.

Cheers.

@MALAMA,

I shouldn't take much of your time, as I have an early day tomorrow as well - and a busy one at that.

MALAMA:
Pilgrim,
the day is far spent and I'm really tired. Before I go to bed,a few words from me. The Levitical tithes is part of the Mosaic Law,which is more than the Decalogue i.e. 10 commandments because it comprised of 613 laws. My mistake calling it a 'law of tithes'. I meant the commandments on the different forms of tithes in the Law.This is an interesting development from you in defining terms as exactly as they were meant to be. It's just that you didn't show such exactness in the definition of 'tithes' .

Grace would serve us the fortune of seeing the true meaning of tithes with time.

MALAMA:
Of course Judaism did not originate from Abraham, I never hinted it at all. I also never hinted that Gentiles are under the Law. All I was trying to say was that if God thought Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek was worthy of emulation, He could have brought it to the knowledge of Moses for him to encourage the children of Israel to emulate.

And the reason why you don't find it so is simply as I have shared earlier.

MALAMA:
Are you saying that Galatians 3:17 talks on the tithe of Abraham before the Law came years after and that the Law cannot annul this covenant? If you are, in that case, you are making a humongous mistake. The covenant under discussion was the promise that God made to Abraham that his seed ( Jesus) would inherit the promise and the blessing.

What I pointed out with galatians was to help you see that what the Law did not originate in this instance, it could not annul.

MALAMA:
And it is through Jesus that we Gentiles and Jews i.e. spiritual offspring , who have faith in Jesus receive this promise. Inheritance of this promise is done through FAITH.
The Law claims that by it's observance people would be saved i.e. salvation is of the Law. From here, Paul contrasts the two i.e. faith and the Law, saying that the Law which came in 430 years after the promise of God cannot disannul God's promise to Abraham where salvation is by faith and unconditional, not by works of the law which was based on its obedience.

Well, please correct me on this one, but not a single time would you find the Bible teach that salvation was of the Law. Not a single time.

MALAMA:
The covenant of the promise is superior to the Law. God who had promised to Abraham would keep His promise and bring it to pass and has done so through Jesus. This verse did not even border on tithes. I encourage you to read the whole chapter so as to get the whole picture here.

I read the whole chapter, but my point was to show you that the Law could not annul what it did not originate. Tithes preceded the Law; then it was incorporated into the Law; and after the dispensation of the Law, it was never once condemned. For those who assume that it was annulled on the basis that we are no longer under the law, the question was: when were Gentiles under the Law to now claim that the Law had made tithes redundant?

MALAMA:
Non-tithers are not condemning tithers.

They are. An example given already.

MALAMA:
This is a free world so we all are entitled to our decisions. What we non-tithers are saying is that the bible is replete with examples to show us that we christians are not obligated to tithe. If anyone tithes, it is because they either do not understand that tithing is unscriptural for christians or that they have decided to make a personal decision to tithe . Such decisions should be as they are- PERSONAL DECISONS and not God's injunctions for us christians.

See, this is what I don't get from non-tithers arguing this way. First, nevermind the ignorance of some people on either side, the question is: who actually is speaking of tithes as obligatory? Second, who made tithes unscriptural? If people make the decision to tithe, then non-tithers who do not want to do so should not be legislating for those who tithe and dismissing what they don't understand - because quite often, what I have read on many account are assertions that simply have no answers in the Word.

MALAMA:
Ehen, before I forget, when will u come up with a demystification of the 'mysteries of the new covenant'? Till then, I've got to get my beauty sleep now. Borrowing the words of Elechi Amadi, 'may the day break' .

Lol, dear MALAMA, I hope to share on that and more soon - a very busy day for me tomorrow; so possibly weekend, when I shall also be looking at the real issues underlying the misplaced war of words over tithes in many quarters. I apologise for this rather slow approach I adopted recently - as several people before TV01 have been disinclined to doctrinal aspect of these matters, I decided to slow it down and see how long they could keep up on their recommendations.

Very sweet dreams. Cheers.

@huxley,

huxley:
Unlike the religions, atheism has nothing to say about how one should lead one's life.

If atheists have nothing to say about how anyone lives, they should as well stop trying to define it for others.

huxley:
So failure of atheist marriages cannot be put on the doors of atheism.

Sad. Where then do you put them?

huxley:
The same cannot be said of religions. All religions prescribe a certain code of behaviour. So if religionists fall short of the desired behaviour, it could be down to one or more of the following;

1) A failure or deficiency in the religionist
2) Unfairness and unrealistic nature of the code
3) Both of the above.

Lol, who was recommending "One Atheist's Creed"? Are you changing your mind already about that atheist's creed as well?

huxley:
Nearly all Christians say the pledge "What God has put together, let no man put asunder" when they tie the knot. Essentially, they dedicate their union to God, in the company of their families and friends. So given that these marriage were dedicated to God, why would God let them to fail?

God does not force people who make vows and decide to break them. On the other hand, that atheists who pretend to make no moral claim should be disturbed about how others live, is simply a laugh.

@Enigma,

Enigma:
Tithing was part of the Law; after all even the Matthew 23:23 that is often referred to in support of modern day "tithing" basically says so. Moreover, some of the passages quoted above says so explicitly - "commandment ,,, according to the Law" in Hebrew 7:5.

Glad you could weigh in on this point and affirm it so - there is no such thing as "the law of tithing".

Enigma:
The fact remains that "tithing" simply has no place in Christian doctrine; of course, those who choose to can tithe; no one condemns them; that which deserves of condemnation is wrong or false teaching or manipulation today to guilt-trip misguided people into "tithing" and servitude.

That many people say it has no place in Christian doctrine really shows that you haven't studied it that much. However, the condemnation (if we could call it that) should apply both ways - for we know that those who oppose tithes have been most viciously opposed to tithes, tithers, and tithing with the same impulse to manipulation to misguide tithers with a guilt-trip. If nothing is wrong with tithes, why is it that those opposed to it have been that vicious even against tithers?

@TV01,

TV01:
Hello Pilgrim.1,

Hope alls well.

You ended your last post thus;

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2983451#msg2983451 date=1224787066]When I see a moment inviting me to share, I'll do so.

Let me see, 12 posts ago - between the two of us - I asked if you'd be willing to answer some questions, you replied in the affirmative. Ten posts back, I posed a question. In the subsequent posts since then, you have asked various questions of your own, which I have answered and clarified as best I can where requested. However, for some reason you have singularly refused or been unable to answer my original question.

The sheer relentlessness with which you have pursued this course has itself intrigued me. I decided that on that basis alone I should try and see if I could at least understand your reasoning, hence my decision to see if you would answer some simple questions. Whilst I said "not purely" doctrine, I was by no means saying it shouldn't be resorted to, but I really wanted to get an idea of the dynamics of this from your view.

You now come out with the point above? Like I said, I don't want to be tedious. No offence Miss, but if I'm wasting my time, mine or yours, pray tell and I'll bother you no further.[/quote]I had promised to come back and share and if that was not enough, I'm sorry there's nothing more I could do beyond that. You're not the first person I made that promise to; and the other promises I made to others, I have taken my time to fulfill them. There are so many other questions which people are still asking - some of the simplest of questions I asked have only returned with slobbers, and I didn't bend anyone's neck to them. My approach is nothing personal - I just decided to follow the reco offered me to play down the "doctrinal" aspect of my discussions - it should have been easy enough for us to discuss this subject outside of doctrine as recommended. If not, what then do I offer yet?

You see, TV01, it's always been my style to discuss issues and focus on the substance rather than on distractions. yes, I play sometimes, tease others. . . but if I have to be repeating myself every single time, there comes a point where I would have to relax and let the same style from others wear itself out so we can then be more focused. If my answers are not good enough, no worries - it doesn't by that stretch give grounds for anyone to slobber the subject or disdain tithers.

Regards.

MALAMA:
In one of your posts to TV 01, you actually confused me. You were asking him where God did away with tithing ,yet you had posted to me earlier on a biblical reference on obedience of the Law not bound on christians since Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant. Are you trying to say that you don't know that the law of tithes is part of the Mosaic Law?

My dear, there was no "law of tithes" anywhere in the Bible - please go and check and correct me on that.

I have repeatedly stated that same thing, and yet no one has been able to show me any such law. They keep confusing the "commandment to take tithes" for the "Law"; for me they are not the same. Let me share just one verse that clears this (although I'm breaking a promise to playdown quoting references):

             ____Hebrews 7:5____________________________________________________

             And verily they that are of the sons of Levi, who receive the office of the priesthood,
             have a commandment to take tithes of the people according to the law,
             that is, of their brethren, though they come out of the loins of Abraham."
             __________________________________________________________________

There - it was "a commandment" - and we cannot make "a commandment" larger than itself to transform into the idea of "the law of tithes".

Now, what is the point in all this? Simple: because many people just lump everything together, that is why they assume that the question of tithes are redundant and done away with because Christians are no longer under "the Law". My question has always been twofold:

     (a) who ever said Gentiles were under the Law?
     (b) are we denying the fact that some Christian doctrines are derived directly from the Law?

Following these two points, I stated that I have never sought to justify my persuasions to tithe with recourse to the Law (because I was never a Jew or a Jewish proselyte - the Law was not given to me to fulfill in Judaism); and secondly, we should learn to see what actually belongs to Judaism instead of lumping everything together and then rejecting the whole Law completely.

MALAMA:
I remember that your stand on tithe is based on Melchizedek, but tithing as it is being noised about usually get its foothold on the Levitical priesthood.Even when Jews talk of tithes,they expound the requirements of the Law but give the Abrahamic tithe a cursory glance and when christians want to validate it they refer to Abraham and Jacob which have no bearing on the Levitical tithing. The tithe of Abraham as I had earlier said was not even used as a point of reference by God for the children of Isreal to tithe.

You're making a huge mistake here. Granted, I know that there are several people who still ignorantly tithe in reference to the levitical order and priesthood - and I have been saying that my persuasions to tithe are not based on the Levitical priesthood, but rather on the priesthood of Melchizedek. The difference is a huge one, because while I have tried to correct this impression so many times, some have missed it and then rhetorically asked if Melchizedek was my saviour! I never said that my tithing was based on Melchizedek himself; but rather on the PRIESTHOOD of Melchizedek! It is just that people skip the "priesthood" and jump to Melchizedek!

But why the priesthood of Melchizedek and not Melchizedek himself?

Because it is the priesthood I am focusing on, where the Bible testifies that the Lord Jesus Christ is our High Priest after the order of Melchizedek. That is the difference, and I thought it needed to be cleared again.

Secondly, that Moses did not make a recourse to Abraham was understandable - because the Law did not spring from Abraham! It would have been confusing indeed for us if the Levitical order and its rites were derived directly from Abraham; rather, what the Jewish nation itself enjoyed was what outlived Judaism! This is why it is not by coincidence that we find the plain statement that -

        ___Galatians 3:17_______________________________________________

        And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ,
        the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul,
        that it should make the promise of none effect.
        ______________________________________________________________

What did we see here? There was a covenant that God confirmed before the Law; and the Law that came four hundredand thirty years later cannot annul that covenant of promise! This is why we should be careful in making the inference that just because Moses never derived the tithes from Abraham, therefore it must have been a cursory case! Nothing could be further from the truth! The fact is that Judaism did not emerge from Abraham; and what Judaism did not originate, it cannot annul! Why are we missing that same point all along?

MALAMA:
Whether u base your tithe on Melchizedek, Abraham, Jacob or even Jesus, it is your personal thing and not one which is expected of us in the new covenant. Nobody is begrudging you if you tithe, at least I can vouch for myself, it is your personal thingy. What is important to us as christians is that tithing has no basis in this new covenant .

Your call. You may assume this is personal - and if it was merely a matter of personal persuasion, I don't see why non-tithers would have been condemning tithers so viciously! How does a "personal matter" become grounds for non-tithers to vehemently oppose a decision no one forces upon them?

Cheers.

@MALAMA,

Yes, I had a very fruitful day, thanks. Good to read from you again.

MALAMA:
Hallo Pilgrim,
hope u had a fruitful day . I'm sorry I will not share with you how I go about my giving.That is between God and I.Whether it is daily,weekly,fortnightly or even monthly, only God and I are entitled to that information. The proportion in which I give is also not for public consumption( I shouldn't have told you on how much I have given before, but u prompted me to). As a non-tither, God has blessed me 'repete'tiously in all forms and I'm happy to be used as a conduit by Him to bless others.

I'm quite glad to read your sensible reposte here. Often, it has been my persuasion that this information about tithing is a discreet transaction between the believer and God - some choose to tithe, others choose to not tithes; yet others care less anyhow they want to handle it. This is one of the things I've actually for before moving on to other issues, because it appears to me that some of us still need to clear a few basics before other issues could be highlighted. The problem with discussing this matter is not what we know doctrinally or by experience; but why some of us are too driven to use this subject on either side of the divide to slur one another is simply beyond me. . . that's why I kept intoning that tithes are not our problem, no matter how much it has been abused.

MALAMA:
In Lev 27:30-31, that was the way they redeemed their tithes. Those verses also tell us that God never used money as tithes and He placed an interest i.e. increased monetary value on those who wanted to redeem it;so if any man wanted to do so,he paid an interest on the value of his tithe.

I don't get you here. On the one hand you assert that God never used money as tithes; and on the other hand, you intone that the interest He placed was tantamount to "increased monetary value"? I don't know if that was a slip, or you had read it into the text; because I don't find any "money" mentioned there - not even by indirect inference.

Yet, I could grant you the matter of money in that chapter, because I have read and studied it myself. The point of all this is not to state an inconsistent position in mine; but rather to bring you round to your own assertion previously that money was never used in tithes. This is the reason why I have played down quoting any references and just follow you guys to discover for yourself that something might be seriously missing in your summations.

The point now is this: (a) are you now changing your view that money was never used in tithes; or, (b) you still hold on to that same assertion?

If you can clear this matter yourself, the rest is easy. Before we make any assertions, it helps to be sure what we are saying. Is it "Yes" - money was indeed used in tithing; or, "NO", it never was once used?

MALAMA:
Probably, you are confusing it with the way 'redeem your tithe' is used in church.

Not at all, and I find that idea a most troublesome one indeed.

MALAMA:
They are quite wrong here because redeeming one's tithe means buying it back which the passage has illustrated for us.

Okay - "buying it back" - involves money or not?

MALAMA:
Are you trying to tell me that Melchizedek was not both a priest and a king i.e. he had a dual office and that Abraham knew this? The reason why Abraham tithed to Melchizedek is the same reason why Eleazer could have inherited Abraham's property if he hadn't had a child, which is the same reason why we don't have any injunction in the bible telling us to celebrate the birth of Jesus, which is also the same reason why Jesus was using the example of pouring new wine into old or new wine skins. What I'm saying here is that the reasons for all of them are found in extra-biblical sources and it is for us to search them out if we want to understand why such things were so. The Jewish historians ertainly left out some important information.

I think that this has even mixed up a lot of things. It's always been my style to not mix issues up and rather to keep them in perspective. My point with Melchizedek which I highlighted earlier was to make the point that there were other kings of other places that Abraham was familiar with (Sichem, Canaan, Egypt) - and in none of those cases did he tithe to any one of them. These extra-biblical sources we often try to set our minds on are not all helpful, because too many people are busy suggesting issues which have no bearing at all on Biblical events.

This is why I kept challenging people who refer to Abraham's case as parallel to pagan rites and customs to please come forward and walk me through Scripture on that! Anyone can use extra-Biblical sources to even "prove" that Abraham never existed - can you handle that? It is for this reason that I set my discussions on the Biblical naratives themselves and find them sufficient in dealing with the lessons God wants us to learn there. To this end, I have shown why other kings with their pagan rites did not draw Abraham to tithe to them, even though pagans had their own rites and priests.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
@Pilgrim.1
It seems you are personalizing this tithe issue and you assume every critic of tithing is directed towards you or other people on nairaland,

Quite to the contrary, I'm not personalising anything here - regardless the way people have address me, I don't lose my focus.

KunleOshob:
my grieviances is directed at the pastors who use tithes to manipulate christians and not you so stop taking it personal.

There's another thread or another way we could bear out those grievances without transmigrating them to this subject. It is not as if that point has not been mentioned several times - but why are we so stuck on just that and yet never moving forward on what should be more beneficial to us here? No matter how anyone slices it, tithes are not the problem - and I don't see why people have to always peg their excuse for railing at other "pastors" on that same thing.

Cheers.

Hi @TV01,

TV01:
Please clarify what else one gives. Specifically what one gives as a "proportion of" or that is determined in percentage terms, whatever that percentage may be. Just so I understand your thrust, please be very specific. If I am in danger of misreading or totally overlooking something, please be sure to say.

I am not to make a law for anyone's tithes. It is clear that I've made a reference to this point so many times, as well as appreciated the various views held by so many. The one thing I noted was that we can't evade the fact that whatever anyone gives in monetary terms is undeniably in "proportion to" what they receive. The point is that people assert that such "proportion" should not be called "tithes" because it is not 10% of one's income - and when I asked them a few cases as to the various percentages and proportions called tithes in the Bible, so many nerves were frayed. I've become weary of repeating myself endlessly, and that's why I've been waiting for them to clear themselves from Scripture - seeing that in recent times I've played down the urge to quote referneces in my replies. If they have changed their minds, they should let us know so we can move on to more important matters.

TV01:
God has no need of our worship, and we have no need to worship? Is that your position?

I didn't make that inference, please. You have always made this issue of tithes and/or giving a matter of need and saw no aspect of worship thereto. My call was directly to ask you if you never saw any inference to worship in our our giving - and whatever you said came simply to the point that you didn't. No? That's why I asked you to go check again as well stated my position that I don't see "worship" arising from a "need"; nor could we "fold" one into another lest we tend towards idolatry, no?

For me, I don't mix them up - and blurring the lines does not help our discussions.

TV01:
Please explain or show an example in this dispensation of how we would worship God with anything physical.

If you haven't found it and still remain on that point, I shall come back and share a few things thereto. For now, I would just simply stick to the present approach to play down quoting referneces until we are all open again to invite an enabling atmosphere thereto. I'm not playing heady here; but rather than run the risk of not having listened, I'm taking the approach already offered -
                _________________________________________

                'I'd like to put some questions to you, in some ways
                away from a purely doctrinal basis, more towards
                the practicality of giving.'_________[quoting you]

TV01:
Pilgrim.1, it's not to difficult to say answer yes or no and then clarify if you wish. it's not overly onerous to simple state a position or share an insight. Once again, it's inference, leading questions, teasers, promises of future outlines and the like. Further your reading "idolatry" into my posting just comes across as diversionary. And why, oh why are you going on about condemning tithers to hell. You seem bent on keeping this discussin at the edges.

Thank you - since you guys are bent on making me repeat myself endlessly, I don't see any need to react to the same "diversionary" allegations. If you're going to discuss, please do so.

TV01:
I have stated clearly and laid myself open to scrutiny. "I don't see how one would worship God with something physical in this age" Kindly explain or show differently.

Will do - is that not enough for now? As if I have not mentioned these issues for now, and then coming back pretending not to notice and all the talk about "redundant" et al. . I just simply help you guys grow tired of these fausse patte attitudes in approaching this matter. When I share a point, rather than show from Scripture why, how and where you may disagree, you assume the dismissive posture with unnecessary undertones. In just due respects I'm according you guys the platform to show your disaffection until such a time as perhaps may invite my interest. I have often said and repeated myself on the same issues: if we want to discuss, let's do so and leave what nobody is saying aside. These are not helping the health of our discussions, but if otherwise then there's really no need for me to push anything here, is there?

TV01:
I am discussing on the basis that your desire is to share and edify, if not please say so and I will desist.

When I see a moment inviting me to share, I'll do so.

Regards.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
To the best of my knowledge no poster on this thread as condemned tithers to hell. If i remember correctly you were the first to make that statement on this thread and you gave an impression you were told that elsewhere outside this forum.

All you needed to do was visit the link directly after I pointed out that Yomisays didn't have a handle on what he was saying as reposted here by anonimi - if Yomisays' article on tithing was never posted on this thread, I would not even have gone to that site to highlight what he directly said he rested most of his thoughts on that subject thereto.

If anyone cared, they should have simply visited the link where it says clearly that Yomi got his ideas from that same link where the anatgonist was condemning tithers to Hell using Galations 5:4 - to put it as he said: to tithe was "to lose your salvation and start down the road to hell".

That was just one example - and my question was whether that was what the apostles taught! You see, it is easy to quote a verse of the Bible against other Christians simply because you don't agree with them. Check your heart, perhaps it's just about time you take care of your extremum.

KunleOshob:
That apart if i am to speak on behalf of those of us that are critical of tithing, it is not tithers that we are against neither are we against the act in itself.

I don't think you're being honest here. It's not difficult to see that antagonists have been most vehement against both tithes (the deed), tithing (the act) and tithers (the people) - and it was only when I called your attention to be careful about that attitude to this subject that you went tongue-in-cheek. At least, after spending many pages on that same issue, we no longer read you guys cough about God making tithes redundant or condemning it with the extremum that have appeared in arguments. Even when I don't agree with a premise, it doesn't mean I have to be so unbalanced in thought and passion to drive rough in what I state.

KunleOshob:
What we are against is the fraudulent manipulation of scripture by tithe preaching pastors to justify this greedy and selfish man made doctrine.

If that is actually the real problem, how then do you handle the fraudulent manipulation of non-tithers who condemn Christians to HELL using Scripture? This is the same hubris that makes me laugh - the finger you point at others shows the 3 pointing back in your direction that you guys be sure your house is in order before seeking to call others all sorts of names.

KunleOshob:
We have consistently held that pastors should be above board and they owe their congregation the truth on any subject cause of the trust reposed in them. If you would care to admit it, the popular version of tithing based on on a corrupted interpretation of Malachi 3:10 is not applicable to christians.

There we go again - this incurable fausse patte that one has to alway be entertained with from your arguments. If you are going to be honest with your own heart, would you say that I never mentioned anything about Malachi 3? Have we not said enough about that? What then is the problem that it has to always be the same excuse you pander in defence of all your arguments? If you must know, Kunle, you haven't seen a thief yet - because those who are making merchandise of Christians are not concerned about tithes. I have said this thing over and over again - but the only thing that seems to bother you is this incurable rabies of misapplying the wrong emphasis for your misgivings.

KunleOshob:
This scripture is being used to manipulate,intimidate,cajole,extort and oppress christians into doing what is not required of them based on curses and promises not applicable to them. THIS IS WHAT MOST OF US ARE AGAINST and not tithers.

Rest your heart - you have no worries there, and to be shouting everytime on that retired excuse is beginning to be worse than a bore already. How many tithers have you read in recent times on this thread saying that they tithe from Malachi 3? Of course, not many people have understood these matters - and even I have benefitted tremendously from all exchanges. But as we grow, it is befitting to drop these childish rants once addressed and move on to something more in substance to our subject. If you can't afford to do so, there's no law that says you can't remain on the same immaturity. Please yourself as best may.

Regards.

Dear TV01,

TV01:
Yes one can give food, time, counsel etc, but presmably your thrust has not been about tithing or giving a proportion of those? For the sake of simplicity, please let's keep it tight. Let's use money as a metaphor shall we .

Sorry, I can't do that. Money is quite a different matter altogether, and if I pally with you on that compromise just now, there's going to be a huge issue in the near future that we may not be able to reconcile. So, for our own sakes, I'll just like to keep things in their proper perspectives.

TV01:
Yes, a fragrant oil was once used to worship the Lord.

Was that due to a "need" as well?

TV01:
But I said earlier, I would fold worship into "need" as I don't see how in this dispensation we would worship the Lord with physical things. If you have a different perspective or insight, please share.

"Sacrifice of praise/worship.

It does not appear you have a consistent position - and I grant you anyways. "Folding" worship into a need does not address worship in true essence. That takes us so close to the idea of idolatry that we all disavow. Worship does not arise from a need, and it would be difficult to fold one into the other - not in this regard.

Cheers.

Dear KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
@all
I am glad to see that finally we christians are finally beginning to question Man made laws, rules, regulations and practises christians have been made to believe is scriptural and is the word of God for centuries.

Romans 16:17-18:
17I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. 18For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.

Man-made laws are the stuff we're all questioning - and that is why quoting verses here and there should help us wonder why some anatagonists to tithes have been dividing Christians with doctrines condemning them to HELL just because of tithing. Was that what the apostles taught?

You see, it's easy to try to quote verses against people - I did so at one time. I could revive that same attitude and quote verses showing the sort of mindset legalists pander about, but what would that benefit us either way? If you want to see anatagonists to tithes in their real colours, just be patient - I have plenty of quotes from the Bible that are most definitive of their spiritual condition. . . and then I will see where you will warm yourself.

Cheers.

@TV01,

TV01:
Hi Pilgrm.1,

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2981697#msg2981697 date=1224765999]Just curious, though: do you see giving only as a matter of "need"?

In a word; "Yes"

Why? Because I find no where in the NT narrative examples of

~ money moving amongst the body of Christ for any other reason.
~ exhortions, pleas, ordinances or commands given by the Lord/apostles - for money to move for any other reason.
~ examples shown for money to move for any other reason[/quote]While I respect your persuasions about this matter, perhaps you would have recognized that I was not particular about money - the question was about giving, however you may term that or what is included in that giving.

Second, perhaps you need to go back and review your submissions that you may not have seen any:
       ordinances
       commands
       exhortations
. . either by the Lord or the apostles. Perhaps if you took the time to check these matters carefully, you may actually find some surprising answers to that address them in the NT. Would that help?

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2981697#msg2981697 date=1224765999]Neither can I personally see any other reason - that I would consider mandated/ordained, although there may be situationally specifc - for money to move. But in all probability, even they would probably still speak to a specific physical need.[/quote]Okay, it seems this is a middle course and not really saying anything cogent. Probability doesn't seem a safe ground to occupy where we are seeking direct answers. I urge that you take a second look and see if indeed every inference to giving has always been prompted by a "need". Whatever happened to worship - nothing at all about that as well?

Warm regards.

mbulela:
Pilgrim.1, hank you very much for that resource - Porn again christian.
I truly appreciate i.
cheers.

Glad you benefited. Many blessings to you.

Forever, Thy Name be praised, O Father.

MC Usman:
O Liberal.

What political party is this?

Funny, funny, funny.

By contrast, atheistic murders stand as a stark reality that dwarfs those figures today without the help of God or religion - now answer that.

@TV01,

TV01:
I for one do not concur with you on this. I absolutely believe it is a matter of "just give", with the specific being "need". If you have a specific question to pose on this, I'll happily answer.

Granted, and I'll note your persausion above that it is "just give".

Just curious, though: do you see giving only as a matter of "need"?

TV01:
I await your response to my previous question.

Will do.

Cheers.

@KunleOshob,

How body today? Trust you're doing okay?

KunleOshob:
I don't think you are going to get answer to this question, i have been asking her my self for over a week and she keeps promising to respond and i wonder why, is it not the same Pilgrim.1 that would respond by writing and quoting pages of scripture(even if unrelated) to even more difficult questions.

Well, you should, at least, allow me answer for myself and let my recipient judge forthemselves whether I have answered or not. Glad that you notice I've played down filling pages with quotations even on very difficult questions, and in addition I have not sought to bend any body's neck to answe the simple questions I offered and have remained unanswered up to this moment. So, although my approach is no longer to keep repeating myself endlessly on what I have already stated again and again till I lost count, it does not mean I'm disinclined to proffer answers to fresh enquiries.

KunleOshob:
@Pilgrim.1
Are you a lawyer? If you are not i seriously think you should consider taking up the profession i think you would make a very good one. I have observed that you have a passion for winning arguements(cases) and you would go to any lenght to prove your point even if you have a weak case. That is the trappings of a very good lawyer. . The way you play with and dance around words and phrases would mesmerize confuse any Judge. You are also very resourceful and have a rich repertoire of knowledge (ammunition) to bamboozoo any body. But in this case you just can't win and it is for the simple reason i have been trying to tell you since which is contrary to your claims, you have been consistently inconsistent.

Many thanks for your compliments - God richly bless you.

TV01:
Hi Pilgrim.1,

I trust you are well today.

Thanks for offering to answer my questions around your understanding on this issue. As I said I am equally ready to respond to any you may have. Could I crave your indulgence and request concise replies, submitting myself to reciprocally clarifying any questions you may raise in turn in like manner.

From your submissions, you obviously define a difference between Christian "tithing" and Christian "giving", although you claim tithe is not any fixed %age or in any way mandatory. I also read your alluding to a specific use for the tithe. On that basis could I ask that you;

1. Clearly outline the difference, noting the the reasons for this difference and or the application of both.

(Correct me if I've misunderstood and ignore the question, I'll be happy to rephrase if I'm wrong)

Look forward to your response.

Regards
Deji

Hi TV01,

I'm doing good, and trust same for you. Thanks for that concise reposte again.

Yes, I would like in due course to specifically outline the difference between tithes (in my understanding as relates to the Christian) and other types of giving, before going on to talk about their applications. For now, I think we all have come to the point where we understand that this ministry is not a matter of "just give" as some of us have held it to be in the past, for such an idea was not pointing to anything specific (IMHO).

In due course, I shall make a detailed reply showing my persuasions to your enquries.

Blessings.

@mazaje,

mazaje:
You are running way from the issue, athiest kill and their killings are bad. . . what makes it confounding is when a force/being or what ever claims to be the greatest source of love or mercy turns around and does things that shows he completely does not know what love and mercy are.

I haven't been running away from no issues and have always sought to address them directly - without the hypocrisy that has become second nature of playing partisan politics with words of no import as we often read in these exercises. Atheists kill and their killings are bad. .  what indeed makes it confounding is that atheists themselves have not been able to address the force driving atheistic murders without religion or supernatural forces - and then hypocritically seeking to ignore that fact, they worry themselves to death about the same issue in religious killings. Tell me, is that not as bad a case you have just made for atheistic "experience, scholarship and reason"? This is the reason why I stopped entertaining this clever hypocrisy that is saying nothing, pretending the atheist case as made without a claim to moral values. . . and then try to define what those same moral values mean!

mazaje:
. . . athiest never claim to be the greatest source of love or mercy so when they kill their killings are different than when a god that says he is the greatest source of love and mercy but kills and orders people to kill to the extent of punishing them if they refuse to killsome times the biblical god kills for reasons i believe athiest killers wont

I have not asked any atheist whether they are the source of love or mercy - talkless of whether they are the "greatest source" of those virtues. The one problem is this lie that atheists do not make any such claim - please educate yourself above that slice and then you will see how many atheists are struggling to take a consistent position thereto.

mazaje:
. . . . example in the bible god killed 40, thousand people for looking into an ark of covenant or kills childre for being kids. . . hitler killed for power and conquest not because he did'nt want people looking into his bedroom. . . . . but kai it seems you don't want to address the issue because i believe it makes you feel uncomfortable, you are more interested in turning the plates against me nice try . . . they call it tijustsu in marshall arts abi you don become barack obama?

I have never felt uncomfy discussing these issues - never. While any atheist may say very illogical and irrational things in seeking to address, they often start off asking for "experience, scholarship and reason", and yet fail to follow through with those same elements in their discussions. As long as they play these hypocritic games, why should I worry about seeking to bend my neck to your irrationality - especially when it clear you don't have a handle on what you're trying to say? Dear mazaje, even the most basic of issues (the definition of atheism) does not hold a concensus among you guys - and if you have failed to hold a rational scholarship even on that note, it does not surprise me that making a reasoned discussion with some of these atheists is an enduring waste.

Regards.

@MALAMA,

Good morning, how body? Glad to see you respond this morning.

MALAMA:
Pilgrim,
you obviously didn't get the fact that I was making a mockery when I talked of the first fruit offering, atonement offering etc. If I was for all of such,why would I have asked you to explain Acts 15? I was trying to let u know that the same way 'God did not condemn tithing (because u want to know where God condemned tithing outrightly like 'Thou shall no longer tithe in this new covenant') is the same way He didn't condemn all the other parts of the Law'.Understand here that I'm making an ironical statement.

My apologies if I misread you, but I don't think so. In quoting Acts 15 and then making the point of "my" this and that, it didn't come across as a mockery - more so because I have seen those same arguments many times in the persuasions of those who decline tithes as a legitimate exercise for Christians wishing to do so. Besides, I was wondering why you would be resorting to the same Levitical rites where I have pointed out so many times already that my convictions for tithing is not to fulfill any obligations of JUDAISM. I made that point so very clear, and that was why I would rather not trail off discussing Acts 15 about questions or concerns that were not clearly stated.

No, MALAMA - I do not live by the old covenant, nor do I argue my convictions to tithe from there.

MALAMA:
You know the grace that I was referring to because you mentioned it to TV01 here :

c) Post-Mosaic ushers us to the present where the grace of God in Christ Jesus is offered to all the world - Jews and Gentiles.

The point was simple - God's grace is just that: grace. But dispensations are a different matter altogether. Under the pre-Mosaic dispensation, we find the LOVE of God; during the Mosaic dispensation, we also find the LOVE of God; and post Mosaic dispensation, we find the LOVE of God. If anyone is arguing about this matter, does it then mean that there are 3 types of the LOVE of God?

We should not strain at this matter - because every single excuse I read from people discussing these dichotomies are not even substantial enoughto address the core of our subject. Take, for instance, the following other highlights:

(a) sometimes, people argue against tithes, because they feel that Christian giving is done by willing hearts and cheerful spirits. My answer is simple: both in the OT and NT, people gave with the same disposition - a willing and cheerful heart.

(b) another argument is that Christians give not by Law or Compulsion. My answer to that is simple: Abraham did not give by Law of compulsion in tithing to melchizedek.

Every single dichotomy or paradigm that have been raised in obejction to tithes has been addressed already, and I'm only just trying to be patient to repeat myself on them, so that after we have addressed these issues satisfactorily, then we can move forward and I could share with all how tithes are not the real problem of the Church.

MALAMA:
When I give what I have to others (money,time,material possessions), I don't call it any special name like 'offering/tithe/love offering' etc. I don't even see the need to.I'm content to be used by God as a vessel to meet someone's needs. When I give money for God's work,the percentage of it with respect to my income is between myself and God. And by experience, I've given my 100%,so I know what I'm saying here when I talk of 100%.

I applaud your effort - honestly giving 100% of your income at any time is no mean feat. Please do it again for just 6 months with only 10% and let's know the testimony in contrast to those who have been tithing joyfully for years! The problem here with a lot of us is that we make these statements just out of hand (not dissing your actual giving of 100%), and yet we have a problem with people who consistently give just 1 out of 10 to God. What is the problem with that? Please share with me how you give from month to month (no, I'm not asking you to give me theexact amount in pounds or Naira - just how you give regularly).

MALAMA:
I've also made a commitment to God never to make wealth a prime thing in my life , my priority in this life is to know Him more and love Him more. In a nutshell, the new covenant giving is not confined to percentages or done in obedience to a law/out of compulsion.

Have I not mentioned these matters before, MALAMA?

MALAMA:
Abraham's tithing to Mel has nothing to do with God's injunction and was carried out as a normal practice of the times ( tithing and circumcision predated Abraham and were not exclusive to the children of Isreal).

All the same, please walk us through Scripture and let us see it! That is a simple request - I just want to learn what I'm not able to see yet, thank you.

MALAMA:
He did that to Mel because of his dual office-a king and a priest,more on the priesthood office) and not to the king of Sodom. If God had seen that Abraham's tithing (one-off and booty possessions) was worthy of emulation,He would have used it as a term of reference when instructing Moses on the issue of tithes.

What "office" are you making out here that Abraham must have seen? Are you trying to read things into the text? Just curious.

MALAMA:
How was faith (the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen) involved in Abraham's tithing?

That is the point I have asked - which I will answer myself since no opposer to tithes has yet addressed (not to my knowledge). I know a few opposers to tithe who see faith there; but some, like you, do not see that same faith.

MALAMA:
You are still being nebulous about the 'mystery of the new covenant'. Could you pin it down to something concrete?

Soon, my dear. . . soon.

MALAMA:
Lev 27:30-31: I gave u an illustrated example on the word 'tithe' because it has only one meaning i.e. specificity of terms without ambiguity.When tithes are being redeemed, the person adds 20% of the value of the tithe to the original value of the tithe and hands over the money to the priest and takes his tithe( crop or livestock) back home with him.

Please show me where you read the highlighted in Scripture.

Cheers.

@mazaje,

mazaje:
@ pilgrim
No be small thing. . . .I like your line of reasoning but athiest have nothing to answer because they don't go around claiming things that are completely propesterous.

I am sorry to deeply disappoint you - isn't it the same hypocrisy to argue about morality and yet assert that atheists do not go around claiming things that are preposterous. If you want to educate yourself on these matters, go and revisit the points I have made on this same issues and the highlights I gave about them. Talk is cheap and I'm sorry to be disinterested in repeating myself endlessly. Yes, call it a deviation or whatever you like - but while asking me to answer your questions, isn't it the same atheistic hypocrisy to fail to answer the few questions I left you in some earlier threads?

You see, I don't have a problem with people discussing - I engage in discussions that are meaningful. But for someone to keep pandering this hubris every single time and yet fail to look inward at their own convictions is to cheapen their intellect. We have been through this question of "kill" so many numbers - at least, in comparison, you have not been able to address the greater number of atheistic murders with wet blood dripping through their fingers in recent times! Have you been able to address that question? And you have the nerve to repeat this same hubris?

This is the same atheistic fundamentalism that I'm seeking to address, and glad that this thread was raised to that effect. People many times pretend as if their worries are perculiar only to religion! "Fundamentalism" seems to be a strange word in your worldview - and pretending about this same issue is to be conceited ina  most queer manner. How have you been able to address this same bane of fundamentalism even in atheism, if you're going to be reasonable and scholarly at all? You worry about "killings" - sorry, without the help of religion, atheists are murdering and still persecuting people today! Are you the only person to be so fundamentally ignorant of that fact? Every time you shelpp this problem of "killings", please turn your sheets over and look again at atheistic murders - that is a greater problem for you to digest! And if that is it, you are serving the same atheistic hypocrisy to point accusing fingers and shout all day on that same problem where indeed you have failed this same test of "experience, scholarship and reason" to see what I have said earlier:
     __________________________________________________________________________

     Fundamentalism pervades every facet of human endeavour - religion, politics, and atheism.
     This is why those who only see fundamentalism in religion and fail to highlight the same
     fundamentalism in atheism are doing the most serious harm to their own intellectual
     adventures. . . .more than that, it feeds the real bane of fundamentalism with the necessary
     ingredient: hypocrisy.
     __________________________________________________________________________

If atheists have no claim to virtues of morality (that same lie that you're most likely to be happy shlepping around), what is the hypocrisy of their efforts to discuss the same morality and even trying to legislate how others should live their lives? If "killings" are the real issue for your excuses, please go and do something about atheists who murder without the help of religion or morals. Start from there to address the real problem in passing the test of "experience, scholarship and reason", instead of this hubris.

Cheers.

@anonimi,

anonimi:
I am not sure you know of a popular ad in Nigeria at a time: If it is not Panadol it is not Panadol.

Another Nigerian ad says: '7-Up, the difference is clear!' You cannot be using a franchise name for what you can't find in the NT - that is plain hypocrisy, I'm sorry.

anonimi:
If your tithe is not a tenth (10%) of your earnings it is not tithe. It is offering, gift, vow, first fruit etc etc etc but definitely not tithe.

Can you show me where in the NT you have any injunction for Christians to give such "first fruit" and "vow"? One may haggle on and on about their fear of using the term tithes; but bros, I don't have that fear because I dealt with it a long time ago.

anonimi:
You can speak more dogo turenci till Armagedon that will not change the Biblical definition of tithe as a tenth of your earnings. That F.Y.I. has been abolished by Christ after his fulfilling sacrifice at Calvary.

You never fail to amuse me about this roundabout complain. WHERE did it say that Christ's sacrifice abolished tithes? Don't turn and spin - just show me that verse!

You guys are in the habit of reading your own thoughts into Scripture to make it placate your fear against tithes, but you are so at ease to transmigrate OT terms into your NT givings! Please show me where you find these terms in the NT!

Nobody is asking you to dip your hand into your pocket and hand it over to them so that they could use your money for their own tithes! These same excuses of "abolish", "redundant" and "condemn" are often only cop-outs - and yet you can't show us where you find a verse for what you so fastidiously assert!

anonimi:
We are now expected to give as our hearts desire a proportion (%) of our earnings, freely determined by the giver and not in reference to a tenth (tithe).

Let me call that 'more hubris'. Kai! May God give me grace to be humble here. HOW in the world would you fight so much (with weak excuses) against tithes just because it is your worst nightmare of a 10[b]%[/b] - and yet, you come back here to talk about the same thing of a "proportion (%)"?!? You guys are quite good at confusing yourselves, you know. Only 1 out of 10 has been a problem to you - but you still come back hooting for a nameless "proportion" in [size=14pt]%?[/size].

Interesting. Could you give us an example of that "proportion (%)"?

anonimi:
I hope you can bring yourself to understand this fundamental even though tiny difference.

Please do share more - I am willing to get to the bottom of this "proportion (%)".

But thanks sincerely for sharing - I truly appreciate it.

If the real issue is actually "fundamentalism and the fear of truth", these fellows should help themselves and stop applauding their myopic comfort zone. Fundamentalism pervades every facet of human endeavour - religion, politics, and atheism. This is why those who only see fundamentalism in religion and fail to highlight the same fundamentalism in a[/b]theism are doing the most serious harm to their own intellectual adventures. . . .more than that, it feeds the real bane of fundamentalism with the necessary ingredient: [b]hypocrisy.

huxley:
Schimmel provides us with a sophisticated understanding of the mentality of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim scriptural fundamentalists, and of why and how they tenaciously cling to beliefs that have failed the tests of experience, scholarship and reason -- and the dangers of their doing so.

These fellows have failed to understand that their own test is already a laugh. The dangers are indeed unparalled for those celebrating this hubris of pointing accusing fingers at religions and yet fail to subject atheistic fundamentalism to the same scrutiny. Has anyone failed to notice how atheism has failed the same test of "experience, scholarship and reason"? It isn't surprising that these chaps would be gleefully applauding this partisan exercise under the hypocrisy of a worry about "fundamentalism" - they should be honest enough to understand that this same fundamentalism pervades the atheistic worldview as well.

@huxley,

huxley:
Christianity was only a marginal improvement on the lot of the female sex.

Lol, were you trying to impress your choir? So sing to them: how does atheism improve on the lot of female sex?

huxley:
In fact the rate of divorce amongst Christians is worse than amonsgt declared atheists, according to the Barna Group, a leading Christians researching organisation. (Admittedly other Christians have challenge this research).

You seem to revel in news like this. . . the only problem you may have to explain to yourself is why even atheists divorce at all. It is not a matter of whose divorce rate is higher - it is a question of honestly examining your own heart before pointing fingers at others.

MALAMA:
The new covenant giving has no boundaries,whether it is 100% or 1%,it should be done with a willing and cheerful heart not out of obeying a law.The old covenant giving/tithing was done in accordance/obedience to the Law and by compulsion.

I keep telling you: the people under the old covenant also gave with willing hearts and cheerful spirits - even under the Law: please go and check. If "willing and cheerful hearts" is the epitome of our giving, there's not much a difference between that and how it was done in the OT! So, this argument is already retired, nothing different in a cheerful heart - they applied both to the OT and NT.

However, like I always said, talk is cheap! How many people who reject tithes are able to give above 10%? Let's say as Christians, we want to give more than those under the Law, not so? Let's be real, people: how many times have you endeavoured to give just 11% of your income for 6 months? Please, before you hoot next time for 100%, be sure that you know by experience what you're saying! Many people opposed to tithing often give this weak excuse - and if you ask them to give just 11% for a cause for God's work, they are the ones to first grumble and out the door!

MALAMA, we should learn not to follow the example of hypocrites. "WE", I said - because the tendency sometimes is to make so much against tithes, but become so lazy to talk about a 100% that we never dream of giving for one minute! Why then do we make so much noise against just 1 out of 10 that God gives us? is there something churcning in our hearts that we clutch at and fight so much against because we feel threatened unduely?

As someone has said - let's learn to travel light. I raised my hand to God that I will never let money or possessions have me. . NEVER! I trust you have also made that commitment at one time or the other. If so, let's challenge ourselves for only two months to give 15% instead of 10%; then our talk about 100% will be more meaningful!

MALAMA:
Since your tithing is not based on the levitical priesthood or the jewish rites , then don't make it seem as if your tithing has a basis in the new covenant because it doesn't.

Sorry, it does - if you can't see it, no worries.

MALAMA:
You mentioned 'mystery of the new covenant'. Has the mystery been revealed, or is it still hidden? Do expantiate please.

The mystery is there for us all to see - but we have deliberately clouded our vision with the lies of men who make so many excuses and curse their brethren to Hell because of tithing! The moment we have a change of heart, we shall also see it.

MALAMA:
You are right here- God didn't condemn tithing, He also didnt condemn my firstfruit offering, my atonement offering, my not eating unclean animals, my not going for a church service in my menstrual period, my not planting two types of seed on a single plot of land and a host of others. Then why did Jesus come in the first place if we are to go on with all these practices Are we to tell Him that His Son came in vain?

MALAMA, please clam down! There is a difference in the way you're arguing and what Scripture says. If you want to argue the Law, let me know - and the first lesson you have to learn is that YOU were NEVER given that Law at any time - because you were never a JEW!! So, you cannot claim any thing from a Law that was never given to you and then begin to say that God didn't condemn "my firstfruit offering, my atonement offering", etc - you were never asked to bring these things in the first place!

So what is this idea that it was your firstfruit?!? Did God ever ask you as a Gentile to offer those things? Don't you know what the Law says?

        Romans 3:19 -
        Now we know that what things soever the law saith,
        it saith to them who are under the law:
        that every mouth may be stopped,
        and all the world may become guilty before God.

Were you anytime as a Gentile under the Law? If you were never a Jew or a Jewish proselyte, how could you be talking as if you were under the Law?

MALAMA:
All those references you brought for 'grace' have no bearing with the grace of Christ that I was referring to. The grace of Christ brings us into liberty which is what the Law had failed to do.

Are you saying that there are different types of the "grace of God"? I just want to know - because this sounds like a clever way of rejecting the truth you can't handle.

MALAMA:
I agree that dictionaries and encyclopediae should not replace the bible, but how can u understand the bible which was written in another language without these? The English dictionary has defined 'TITHE' as a tenth part. It did not change the meaning of the word in the original Hebrew or Aramaic,it just conveyed the meaning to us English-speakers. When someone redeems his tithes and adds a fifth part to it (notice that 'a fifth part' did not have a special name like a tenth part which is 'tithe') it is no longer called a 'tithe'. The priest who accepts this ' redeemed tithe' knows what percentage it is exactly and the man who makes this offering does not just call it as 'tithe' , he qualifies the offering he is making so that he priest knows it is no longer ten percent ( the man says to the priest 'here is a fifth part which I have added to my tithe according to the Law of Moses').

Please show us this assumption from Scripture, thank you.

MALAMA:
In my church and a few I've been to, when food and clothes are being given in recognition of a need, it is called 'love offering'.

I was asking you directly - not what those churches did! If you can be comfortable with what those churches did and called them, what then is the problem with just tithes? Why are we so scared of this one thing that we shall fight the world till the moon becomes red? Why are we so relaxed with this hypocrisies of naming other types of givings with terms we can't find in the NT and then disdain the one we can find?

Easy MALAMA. . it pays for us to look into Scripture and put our hearts there.

Cheers.

@MALAMA,

Many thanks again for your reply of late. Sad though that I would have to once again repeat myself on many issues; and happy the day when we can move forward without my having to be endlessly repetitive.

MALAMA:
you base your tithing on the Abraham-Melchizedek relationship,right?

Wrong! Again, this is what I said: "my premise is the priesthood of Melchizedek".

MALAMA:
There really isnt any big deal,so to say on Abraham's tithe because,tithing was an already recognised practice during his time adopted by the nations then (whether pagan or not); Abraham was only following the customs and practices of the people when he tithed (let us remember here that it was war booty,not personal possessions) to Melchizedek because he had to pass through Mel's land and Mel was a king (likened to the Yoruba proverb which says one shouldn't pass through the land without saying hello to the oba-with gifts); the tithing was not prompted by a divine injunction from the Lord and faith was not involved in this tithing.

I deeply appreciate your input, but dear sister. . . take am easy and go back and check your ideas before the Word. The problem is that you trailed off, and such reasoning does not draw my interest. Let me tell you why:

1. How you arrive at the idea that Abraham was passing through Mel's land is beyond me; for that is simply opposite to what we find in the Bible. The Bible says that it was Melchizedek who came forth to meet Abraham, and not the other way round (see Genesis 14:18 and Hebrews 7:1).

2. Notice that there was another king that went out to meet Abraham also - the king of Sodom (Gen. 14:17). If Abraham was copying a pagan rite from the nations around him, he would definitely have been tithing to those pagan kings as well long before Melchizedek met him; for those pagan nations had their own system of worship and priests, their own pagan rites, ceremonies, and customs.

3. If it was a matter of "passing through" a king's land that necessitated giving tithes, Abraham surely passed through such several lands, including Sichem (Gen. 12:6), Egypt (Gen. 12:10), and Canaan (Gen. 13:12). Why did Abraham not tithe to those pagan kings? Afterall, we know that they had their own pagan rites and priests as well? If Abraham was emuliating anything from the pagans around him back then, he surely would have tithed to their priests - but is there any such?

4. Here is a hint that we all know: the name Melchizedek king of S[/b]ale[b]m speaks to us some very significant things:

       ● king of righteousness

       ● king of peace

By contrast, Sodom means "scotching" - and even with their pagan rites and ceremonies with all their systems of pagan worship, Abraham did not once seek to tithe to those pagan priests. This is why I detest the excuse that many people make here, because right there in Scripture they cannot even see that Abraham was not imitating the rites of the pagans! Not once! This lazy excuse of "pagan-this-and-pagan-that" is shameful even for Christians who call themselves the children of Abraham! We make these excuses and then come back to use the same thing to argue that Abraham was depicting the superiority of the priesthood of Melchizedek - forgeting that the Lord Jesus Christ is our High Priest after the order of Melchizedek! As long as we let the world define our faith for us, we shall continue to be as blind as they are!

Let me share a bit more on this point. The devil is not after our goods, my dear - he is ragingly seeking our souls! The king of "scotching" (Sodom) did not ask for goods - nevermind that he was a pagan king! But what did he ask for? "Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself." This is instructive to us all - and a solemn thought: while we have been arguing back and forth about "goods" in tithing, the devil is busy keeping people from seeing the message of that event and making nonsense of our tithes - why? because he is seeking the souls of men!

Today, as Christians some of us disdain tithes, excuse it under the spell that it was a pagan rite, condemn it where God never once did so, . . some even go as far as calling the case of Melchizedek a 'scandal' . . and what do you think the king of 'scotching' is doing as we condemn this mystery? Please think carefully - and we shall come back to share more on that.

5. To say that faith was not involved in Abraham's case in this instance is to miss everything else! Can you please share with us how else Abraham could have been prompted to tithe to Melchizedek on that one occasion? What did Abraham see that he could offer tithes to Melchizedek and not to the king of Sodom - since both kings came forth to meet him? It was even the king of Sodom that met Abraham before Melchizedek, and yet Abraham did not entertain anything from the king of Sodom - for the person you fellowship with (symbol of bread and wine) speaks about the condition of the heart.

So, as long as any Christian continues to make this excuse of a lie from the devil about equating Abraham's tithes with pagan rites, they will have every excuse to miss the message of that passage! As Christians, dear sis, I urge us to drop this excuse pronto - too long have we given ourselves to such a mishap (and that is why you shoulod carefully review your idea that Abraham was "passing through" as if he met Melchizedek instead of the other way round).