₦airaland Forum

@MC Usman,

Honesty still seems to be a vacant commodity in your problem. Could I refer you to the same issue I had already discussed twice over? Or are you so at pains to get noticed?

Refers: 1

Refers: 2

Refers: 3

Refers: 4

I already hinted you: it's not healthy to keep seeking to lay your unrest at others when you have issues in your own religion that everyone knows about. If you can't deal with them, it is hypocritic to seek to "correct" others on your own misgivings.

Cheers.

Wordsmith:
those who blame God for every ill man encounters are as guilty as those who don't use their God-given resources to combat and rectify those ills.

Gbam. I thought so as well.

And, oh. . Chrisbenogor, I owe you an apology on this:

Chrisbenogor:
Where were we when it all started, I was sleeping then had to see me dentist:-)

. . . didn't mean it on you personally. It's just that people should by now grow up and refrain from this hypocrisy of often seeking to blame their unintellectual accidents on other people's worlviews. Cheers.

@Chrisbenogor and Pastor AIO,

Thanks for your counsel - I had wanted to do the same and even mentioned that it is not in every case that I engage myself in all kinds of unnecessary arguments. before now, I've often stated so many times that we should not make ourselves the victims of needless arguments; but it saddens me to note that these issues are often presented in a roundabout way to blame society maladies every single time on Christianity - nevermind the hypocrisy of blandly saying it is "religion" (perhaps they should go over to the muslim section and start the same trouble there, then we shall receive news flash and updates on the results). Why can't we all just learn to discuss issues as simply and as non-partisan as is possible?

Anyway, thanks guys. Enjoy.

Okay guys, I was trying to sift through the plethora of info available to me on the phenomena of Crop Circles. I guess (as someone noted offline) that I was being "economical with gist", and I thought probably a good thing (not the best thing) to do at this point is to post some of those findings for people to read and make out issues on their own. Enjoy.


A NHNE Special Interview:
Crop Circles:
Colin Andrews & Joyce Murphy
Monday, September 30, 1996
Interviewed by James Gregory & David Sunfellow

http://www.nhne.com/interviews/intandrewsmurphy.html

[list]Interview:

NHNE: How did you first get interested in crop circles?

ANDREWS: I became involved after spotting five circles in the form of a cross in a field near Winchester, Hampshire, England in July 1983.

MURPHY: My academic background is in mathematics and physics. I happened onto George Wingfield speaking in a Dallas hotel in 1991 and became fascinated with his descriptions of crop circle geometric designs and mathematical glyphs.

>snip<


NHNE: How many crop circles have you personally visited and investigated?

ANDREWS: Approximately 2,000 individual circles in 600 patterns.

MURPHY: Over 40 since 1991.


NHNE: Have you personally experienced anything unusual in connection with visiting crop circles, such as feelings, visions, physical sensations, heightened sensitivity, etc.?

ANDREWS: Yes, but too many to go into here. There are many references in my book "Circular Evidence," and in the "Undeniable Evidence" and "The Madison Square Garden Crop Circle Special" videos.

MURPHY: Myself, only warmth; however, I have witnessed all sorts of reactions in other people including a client last year who was violently ill for two days with flu-like symptoms. Then we discovered that another person with another group was experiencing the same violent symptoms. A scary experience as an expedition leader.

NHNE: What was your most memorable crop circle experience and why?

ANDREWS: While visiting a circle in a remote field at Kimpton, Hampshire, England during July 1987, I heard a very strange buzzing sound which was close to me and appeared to interact with me. I was overwhelmed by the experience and it left me very touched because it began after I had stood near the ring alone and prayed for a clue as to what the crop circles were about. A year later, the same sound was recorded on two occasions in crop circles -- one was at "Operation White Crow," the other while a BBC TELEVISION crew were interviewing myself and Pat Delgado, my co-author of "Circular Evidence."

MURPHY: This year's Triple Julia Set -- a fractal following the single Julia Set -- and most emphatic, the Mandelbrot Set of a couple of years ago. Whether hoaxed or real, these were the most meaningful to me personally.


NHNE: How many crop circles in England do you estimate are genuine, versus faked?

ANDREWS: I think it is possible that as many as 70% of the crop circles currently appearing in England are hoaxed, but that is not by any means a confident figure. Many are not visited on the ground due to limited resources, but by aerial surveillance you can usually get a good idea of legitimacy. I have visited many hoaxes and have been part of a number of experiments with people (including the British Army) who have tried to replicate the features of the genuine article. The experience of Pat Delgado proves that if you jump to quick conclusions before all the information has been gathered, it is possible to be fooled. [A few years ago Delgado was too hasty in announcing that a certain crop circle was legitimate, only upon further investigation to discover to his dismay and embarrassment that it was a hoax.]

MURPHY: I do not have any estimate of percentage of real versus fake, but the ones I have personally observed showing layers of plaited plants, an intricate, intelligent layering that which I know cannot be man made, are about three times as common as the sloppily-pressed-down ones consisting of just damaged plants.


NHNE: What are the qualities that most distinguish an authentic crop circle from a hoax?

ANDREWS: These are the main ones:

-- Well-defined geometric design.

-- No damage to plants.

-- No soil compression or foot prints.

-- A spiral fingerprint recognized by my database.

-- Rotations verses diameter.

-- Changes in plants at cellular level (I personally think this is not yet established but has been published in the scientific literature).

-- Magnetic anomalies.

-- Established mathematical ratios between component parts.

MURPHY: The huge intricate designs and the layers of plaited plants.


NHNE: Have you personally met any of the people responsible for creating fake crop circles and, if so, why did they say they were doing it?

ANDREWS: Yes, several. The most fascinating thing is they do not know why they do it. Some younger ones just do it for a laugh or publicity and the results are usually very obviously hoaxed. Even the famous Doug and Dave have admitted, "It was as if we were being told to do it."

MURPHY: No, and it is hard for me to imagine anyone wasting precious time and energy on such a feat as hoaxing a circle.


NHNE: We understand that there are records of crop circles from as early as the 16th century. Is this true and, if so, how wide-spread and developed were crop circles of past centuries versus today?

ANDREWS: There are three records of crop circles in the 1600's, but the modern-day phenomena started around 1923 with small numbers up until 1976, at which point they increased in number and complexity.


NHNE: Crop circles seem to be evolving into increasingly complicated shapes. They also seem to have evolved through a series of strikingly different themes over the years. Any ideas why?

ANDREWS: In general terms, we appear to have been spoon fed images of animals, insects, mathematical models, fractal geometry, and, in recent years, astronomy. I interpret that as a spiritual nudge: "Know who you are and how you work and then look outwards to learn more."

MURPHY: No, but would anyone be paying attention to just simple circles after all these years? If they had remained just circles, by now they would be just accepted without question as part of our humdrum reality. Perhaps someone is trying to hold our interest or attention. Remember, our attention spans are growing shorter and shorter these days. We must be constantly entertained with increasing cleverness!


NHNE: Do you have any explanations as to why some genuine crop circles are so stunningly symmetrical and beautiful while others seem sloppy and disjointed?

ANDREWS: No, but I have noticed the hand of different cosmic artists throughout my research -- country by country, and county by county. I believe we ourselves are a part of what is happening -- our awareness is reflected by the organizing field in the quality of the form produced.

MURPHY: Don't know why any genuine circle would be sloppy unless the makers caught the crop in a very advanced stage and thus the palette became difficult to work with.

NHNE: Most foreign crop circles appear to be concentrated in the USA, Australia, Germany and Canada. Any idea why this might be? Why aren't more crop circles appearing in other countries around the world?

ANDREWS: Not known, although you have missed a major hot spot in the Czech Republic.

MURPHY: Maybe persons in these other countries are so caught up in the more human things such as getting food on the table, etc. that they just do not have time to pay attention to something they feel is trivial.


[The following questions were answered by Joyce Murphy only.]


NHNE: Why do you think most crop circles are appearing in England, typically within a 40 mile radius of Stonehenge?

MURPHY: No real opinion on this unless somehow Stonehenge is the true center and the more perfect works of this art occur near the centers of strength. I just heard a theory about Stonehenge a few days ago from a recent abductee who reported that the aliens said Stonehenge is a cosmic clock with a crystal in the center which breaks up light into rays of red, blue and at least one other color (I forgot which) which are then projected onto specific stones. Perhaps crop circles are just appendages of this clock.

NHNE: How do crop circles that have appeared in snow, ice, rice paddies, sand and other natural media compare to the ones appearing in crop fields?

MURPHY: The only one I have seen was a photo of a circle on the Hudson River formed on very thin ice. I remember it to be quite complex, considering the materials the artist had to work with.

NHNE: Crop circles are appearing in more and more other media. Any ideas why?

MURPHY: Just trying to get the message out -- whatever that message may be. Perhaps it's, "If I keep trying and trying, and maybe one of these days those Earth idiots will get the message."

NHNE: How many serious crop circle investigators and crop circle organizations are there in the world today?

MURPHY: Quite a few persons are now doing crop circle research. We are seeing more and more names of organizations that we have not heard of before. One of the most sensible theories that we have heard is from the very dedicated researcher Ilyes. She has her theory printed in a short booklet form. I would not attempt to quote her theory, but invite your readers to have a look.

NHNE: Given that a host of new crop circles is continuing to appear every year, often becoming more complex and difficult to explain, why do you think the scientific community and mass media at large isn't paying more attention to them?

MURPHY: They feel they have already been there, done that. In their opinion, since they have found no explanation, there may not be one. Also, Doug and Dave (admitted hoaxers who came clean) have settled the issue for most people. Everyone knows that it was Doug and Dave made all the circles throughout the world and are still creating more and more complex patterns in their retirement. I would like to be their travel agent. And now others have taken up the rewarding hobby -- those circles which are not created by Doug and Dave themselves are done by this growing group.

NHNE: Who or what do you think is responsible for creating crop circles? Why are they happening and what is their message or meaning for humanity?

MURPHY: I personally believe that there are three possible answers:

-- The Gaia Theory (as Colin Andrews once stated) that Mother Earth is living organism and that she is crying.

-- That multi-dimensional ETs are creating some sort of message for all us.

-- That the superpowers have some sort of new toy and their games are resulting in these works of art.

I think the season for crop circles may have peaked in the summer of 1996, and that there may not be many more. Our time is nearly up on this planet. We have messed our own nests and we do not even realize it. We are living in a very fragile environment. If only one small element of this intricate creation fails, then we could start tumbling. Total chaos might be the result. If we, as conscious beings, have not received the message by now, we never will.

@mazaje,

mazaje:
you have a way of evading issues i notice,

I sort of noticed that when people are too lazy to think, they make such allegations.

mazaje:
the bottom line is that god has never and will never make a country prosper, only people can make their country prosper if there is a country that calls on god day and night for help in other to prosper that country will be nigeria and where has all the call of help from god got nigeria? god can never make a country prosper only the people in the country can

Calling upon God to change the situation of a country does not mean that people should not work hard at directly confronting social ills. I think that has to be stressed as well. What I don't understand from people thinking the way you do is to base all your ideas on either God or nothing else - which goes to show that you may be deliberately ignoring other factors that go along with nation building. I asked you directly about this issue sometime ago - I never got an answer; and yet I did not accuse you of evading issues.

mazaje:
i live in a mostly atheist country and the people are doing VERY well without any god's help.

I have had the privilege of visiting that country (Finland), and if I had not, it's been in the news that while the country may do well economically, it does not mean it has been able to manage its social ills.

mazaje:
. . you talk about human right abuse? where is human right abuse more evident? china or the very religious and god dependent nigeria?

Who have been carrying out these human rights abuses to such proportions in Nigeria? And is it any milder in the Chinese case?

mazaje:
They are doing FAR better than nigeria which is the most god dependent country in the world which i know. . . . . . .

Are you the onlyone who does not know about the Chinese case or what? Is it a quality of atheism to abuse human rights? Is that something you want to celebrate for part of "doing quite well"?

Hi Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:
I think this should be settled once and for all.
We should stop dodging issues using the hypocrisy wild card. It derails issues, if the thread is about how atheism affects nigeria then fine but it is not. Religious irrationalism is what is being discussed here, and we need to address the issue at hand regardless of whether atheism is irrational too. That simple.

I think the hypocrisy goes both ways, and it's even more hypocritical for atheists to assume that it is only about religious irrationality that Nigeria's problems could be viewed. If one wants to talk about the topic of this thread and keep to it, where were you guys when it was being derailed by athiests?

mazaje:
China. . . . . . . and they are doing quite well. . . . .

Don't be such a teaser. They are doing "quite well" - how many of them have been shown to be doing "quite well" after the olympics? How do you measure "doing quite well" if the Chinese government maltreats its own people?

[quote author=Aloy.Emeka link=topic=182371.msg2957761#msg2957761 date=1224276881]It's fast becoming a problem.[/quote]It's already a problem - and when they identified specifically, we can then find some more gist to contribute.

mazaje:
i don't have the books here with me. . . . i one about two months ago and he predicted this financial crisis in detail, he even warned of the housing bubble and mortgage meltdown how devastating it will be if it burst. . . .

Since you posited that he said the same thing, it would be interesting to have read some of those. But I'm not pushing - just thought you might have helped to share. Cheers.

mazaje:
go read up his books

Just take style post those same things he said - not hard to do, abi?

huxley:
good day for this one again?

Ahh, there - I knew I read someone else point out the difference between theology and teleology.

huxley:
Can anyone point to any country in the world where the distinctive hand of God can be identified as having help the country through its travails?

Hi huxley,

Maybe if you asked about specific countries where people have distinctively rejected God, then you may have your answer.

huxley:
Most cosmologists consider the universe to be the 3+n dimensional space around us. To this end, it is right to describe the Big Bang as the origin of the universe as this fits squarely with our current body of knowledge.

Should I remind you that no honest scientist will be so assuming as to be that dishonest? Remember what we saw earlier from the source I referred you to in the other thread? It is still there and stands as testimony to the fact that the BB theory does not present any evidence whatsoever for the origin of the universe - what is appropriate to say is that it posits a theory for explaining the evolution of the universe, not its origin.

huxley:
If it turns out that there are in fact multiverse, with ours just one of millions, or that our universe is an oscillatory universe of expansion and contraction, then that definition will have to be revise.

i'm familiar with this line of reasoning. . . interesting at the basic level on discussions about 10-dimensions. No, I'm not kidding - so many people know only about the 4th-dimension; but there is infact an interesting theory about 10-dimensional measurements.

huxley:
The mistake you are making is that you are treating science as dogma. This is not surprising, given you belong to the dogmatic fraternity.

If anyone has been an unrepentant dogmatist on scientific issues they least understood, I think you have the medal for that. Nowhere have I ever treated science as a dogma - and that is why I have consistently noted that neither atheism nor theism is science; as well, I have not tried to use any scientific theory to bash any worldview. But even so, you're just sounding queer here: because this appeal to "revise" theories is a wash - is it not the same group of people that have been "worshipping" science who have often used it to shout against others with a current of "it's a fact"? You fellows are so funny - every single time you try to hold a theory as a fact, and have been consistently called to review your assumptions, you have always held rigidly to that idea that you're right! Who indeed has been the dogmatist here all along?

huxley:
Science and scientist see no problem in revising their theories in the light of new supporting data.

Atheism is not science - and there are many theists who are scientists.

huxley:

I did ask you many times to explain CMB and the measure expansion rate of the universe, but you have proferred no response.

I deliberately ignored that because you were assuming a extremum of littel interest to me - and if you wish, scroll up and see my comments on the same CMB yet again. The more you try to use these issues and parade them in our faces like we don't know anything about them, the more we humour you to keep shouting where you hardly listen.

huxley:
Can you show any well-attested study that show that crop-circles are not hoaxes? I can show you many studies that have concluded that they are indeed hoaxes;

1) Two of the leading makers (Doug Bower, Dave Chorley) of crop-circles in England have publicly confessed in 1991 to having been making these circles for about 10 years.
2) Schnabel, J 1993. Round in Circles. London Hamish Hamiltion.
3) Nickell, J 1995, Crop Circle Mania wanes: An investigation Update, Skeptical Enquirer 19(3) 41-43.
4) Nickell, J 1996. Crop Circles. In the Encycleopedia of the Paranormal.

Just out of interest, what is the frequency of crop circles today and are there equally represent in all parts of the world?

I am really soryy for those names you posted there - these fellows should learn to be thinkers. I'll leave you with a few thoughts for now and then come back and raise specific questions about this phenomena for your consideration - then we shall see how your skeptics scuttled round those same questions. Here are a few considerations:

Crop Circle Research site

Crop Circles: Quest for Truth - a documentary.

Cheers.

huxley:
I know you are a good student of atheism, correct. Can you tell exveryone what the core atheistic tenets are, besides the various definitional differences amonsgt those who self-declare as atheists?

Have I not said already that it is not in my place to define atheism for those who are atheists before they have had the opportunity to tell us so themselves? Sorry, huxley. . . it pays to learn to reason along with people, not against them.

When we had discussions of the definition of atheism, one remarkable thing you will have noticed was that I was consistently referencing a[/b]theistic sources, letting atheists themselves tell us what they think atheism actually was. Where I disagreed with some atheists' views, I used other atheists' arguments to show how wrong and assuming the former were - and for all that, I did not compromise my position as a Christian theist; nor did I try to bend atheism upon the anvil of Christianity. I deliberately remained on the tuff of atheist authors who knew for themselves what they [b]wanted atheism to be - not what it actually was. At the end, I summarized my inference with just one point: the observation tha atheism generaly involved both the question of "denial" and "existence" as far as the supernatural is concerned. That is not far different from your admission above - and for all that, not one time did I "attack", "disrespect", or even "ridicule" any atheist's definition discussed. I simply let them choose for themselves what and how they wanted us to view atheism.

On the other hand, I find the approach and attitude of atheists on this forum to be somewhat funny - they often ask for attitudes from others that they themselves cannot offer to anyone else! How rational is that? If atheists on the forum do not envisage others attacking their worldview, why are they making a career out of constantly attacking the Christian worldview?

huxley:
All religious movements have a set of core tenets/doctrines/beliefs/precepts. What are the core atheist tenets/doctrines/beliefs/precepts? Having read some atheist philosophers as Nagel et al, can you show us how these philosophers defend these tenets and how these are instrumental in governing their lives?

An atheist lives his life on the foundation of one thing: the denial of the existence of God and the supernatural. What this means to them is what has led to the various schools of thought within atheism. That is why people like Nagel, G. Smith, Michael Martin, and a whole lot of others have been seeking to educate their community about atheism - and that is why you will not find just one type of atheism, but many shades and coteries within that worldview.

huxley:
Did you really mean abiogenesis? I think you made a typo there. KAG referred to baryogenesis not abiogenesis. Anyway, back to my point.

No, I did not make a typo - I was wrong. You're correct, KAG was about baryogenesis rather than abiogenesis - my mistake.

huxley:
First, I do not generally assume others are ignorant of points. However, I take a strong stance against willful ignorance, described as the deliberate and willful avoidance of the opportunity to learn of be informed.

It seems you would have to first deal with this issue in your own person. No crudeness intended here, huxley; but if I have to be honest with you, you woul just have to change your attitude when discussing with others and then take a strong stance indeed on most of the things you have displayed willful ignorance about, described as the deliberate and willful avoidance of the opportunity to learn of be informed. This is hard for me to put across because I don't want anyone to think that my statements here are seeking to put you down in anyway; but the point is that when people have tried to sound a caution to you about certain matters, you seem (yes, "seem" to just ignore those calls and go on doing your thing as if those who call your attention are plain ignorant. Rather than fill the page with a plethora of examples, a reminder about the case of the BB theory as posited for the "origin of the universe".

To be honest with you, it could not be your fault to use those choice of words - because we know that so many other "scientific" sources are making that same mistake. To seek a balance was why I had to post sources that were unbiased by the cosmetics and show that what you should (or might) have been looking at was the "evolution of the universe", and not its origin. Issues like that is what I understand as the reason why many people simply just don't want to be occupied in a shouting match - and for the same reason I have often said that we should not make ourselves the victims of needless arguments.

huxley:
This is usually accompanied by dishonestly misrepresenting the opinion of well-accepted experts in the field. This is not to say that conterveiling opinions are not welcome. Such counterveiling evidence must be backed by well-attested support to be taken seriously.

Good - and that was the reason I offered that opinion of "well-accepted experts in the field" without recourse to the dishonest misrepresentations of those using the Big Bang theory as a front for the "origin of the universe".

huxley:
Let me give you the gist of the scientific position on the Big Bang. Now, is there evidence that the cosmos is expanding? Absolutely. It has been measured. In fact, the rate of expansion is know.

Are there other internal evidence with the space of the universe of a rapid expansion? Absolutely. The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB).

Before I proceed, how do you account for these measure facts?

Given that the cosmos is expanding, it follows that at some point in the distant past it must have been much smaller than it is today. In fact, so small that it is theorised, it was smaller that this period . . This has been calculated to be about 14 billion years ago.

Now, when the universe was just as small as a period, you can raise ALL sorts of questions, many of which are not yet resolvable. Question like;

1) Was there time before the period started to expand?
2) Was the period part of some complex multiverse?
etc, etc.

And for our purpose in this discussion,

10) Can we consider the little period as the universe, or is the universe the 3+n dimensional space created post-expansion?

Dude huxley, you amaze me. . on the one hand, you hold the idea that you don't usually hold others as ignorant - but what are you doing here? You just seem to imagine that I had no clue whatsoever about the CMD before you starting trying to use that as a battering ram in arguments? Lol, dear huxley, even when you migrate from the BB theory to CMD, do you now see what I had been trying to point out all along? The questions arising from these theoretical postulations do not yet account for the origin of the universe. If they did, what was the need of seeking answers to issues dating before that time-measure? This is what fascinates me - that we all assume we have the answers already, and yet we're asking questions that go back beyond the point where we started!

May I say this, huxley: we're all students of these theories, and not one of us can use these findings to bandy the other. Do these theories negate the reality of our spiritual experiences? No - honest people engaged in science will tell you plainly that they do not. The problem for many people is to use these issues to scream a "no-God" atheistic agenda, whereas atheism is not science. On the whole, our assumptions on both sides rest on interpretations of our world; and it would be unhealthy to use these matters to posit that theists are backward thinkers in the corridors of science.

@huxley,

huxley:
Did I say anywhere that Comminism and its persecutions was associated with "well-reasoned, philosophically assessed propositions"?

I'm sorry, but there's no need for being over-reactive here. Your postulation for a "well-reasoned, philosophically assessed proposition(s)" simply shows you have no clue about the Communist manifesto. One may argue long and hard about this slake of ideas, but no matter how you slice it, it only comes back to you in a detrimental way to show precisely that the Communist factor cannot be ignored as far as that same ideology you project is concerned.

huxley:
Did I even so much as implied this? Look at my comment above and tell me how you came to link it with communism. If anything, it was meant as a blow against the likes of the Communists, and other forms of political and religious persecutions.

What you consider a "blow" against others is much more heavier against atheistic philosophies - and we have seen it demonstrated again and again in many quarters besides communism.

huxley:
Did you not see me refering to secular persecutions above? Atheist is not rationalism, so it is also possible for atheist to be irrational. As we have discussed in the past, atheism is the denial of the existence of god(s) or the lack of a god-belief. Ordinarily, it says nothings about ones morals, ethics, etc.

Lol, please refrain from being this humourous. Now you agree that atheism is the denial of the existence of God/gods, which is good to know; and for all that even that position to deny the supernatural is hardly rational - which I take from your admission that it is possible for the atheist to be irrational, no?

Besides, I wonder why you guys seem to be so inconsistent in your philosophical musings - if morality is an onomatophobia to the athiestic worldview, then for crying out loud why do you guys bother so much about this very issue? Since atheism says "nothing" about morals and ethics (I doubt it very much), then why has that been such a problem to the atheist himself? It tends to hypocrisy to keep harping at what one has no solution or say in, while trying to school others about how that very thing should be understood and done! If atheism says nothing about morals and ethics, it then becomes a laughable adventure for atheists themselves to even describe themselves as "Atheist Ethicist". I think we have gone past this idea of making bland statements to wave in people's faces as if people are ignorant of the facts on ground.

huxley:
For goodness sake Buddhist are atheist yet they would be classed as harbouring unsubstantiated beliefs systems and are thus irrational in holding such beliefs.

I'm sorry again, but please don't even try to wave this simplistic idea promoted by people like Michael Martin in our face. Buddhism is NOT atheism by any stretch; and if you want to take me up on that, I shall be too glad to help throw Martin's miscalculations about this to the bin once and for all. I'm not being crude, huxley. . . but I'm weary already of celebrated writers misleading the public - which was what Martin did; and yet I have looked in vain to see how many atheists have tried to correct Martin.

huxley:
Yes, to direct answer your point, atheistic irrationalism is also one of the bane of civilization. By the way, I used the word "secular" because that is what the poster used, and in the context of his post, given that these were politically motivated actions, it was the correct word use, rather than the more religious-evoking word of atheism.

Okay, I'll grant that to you from the explanations you gave. True, I had not reasoned it the way you have just explained, and that was why I pushed for a clear statement to be made as not to confuse the reader of the paradigm. Good one.

huxley:
I ask again, although I know I will get no response - what are the basis for your believe in the Christian narratives? Any beliefs held on no evidence, or in the face of opposing evidence, is held on irrational grounds. Particularly where such address issues that are capable of being demonstrated categorically one way of the other.

I would very much have wanted to skip this point yet again, not because there are no answers, but rather because you keep ignoring the basic premise of keeping things in their propoer perspectives between theology and teleology. Please huxley, repeat after me: "they are not the same." That is the first lesson you would have to learn and not keep ignoring that issue to make a case for irrational thinking.

When you talk about "evidence", one has to ask what type of evidence you're looking for. If your claim to "evidence" is merely a matter of bending phenomena to naturalistic rationalism, I'm sorry to disappoint you - because even that worldview is inadequate to explain the super[/i]natural. There are just two ways round this:

(a) Ask the atheist what he believes but cannot "prove" - and I have given just one example of Richard Dawkins in another thread. The point here is to ask if Dawkins' inability to "prove" what he believes should let anyone take him seriously. Why is anyone not asking him to drop his "belief" in the face of his inability to "prove" it?

(b) Ask the skeptic to investigate orphic phenomena - and his immediate reaction is to denounce what he cannot deny as a "hoax". Yet, it is a sad event to observe that these same skeptics are no longer coughing out as loud when evidence for what they denounce are presented to them. I shall get back to this point.

The point here is that if you're asking me to provide "evidence" of a naturalistic kind for something that is supernaturally determined, don't you think you have it confused already? I know at this point, the usual tendency is to scuff at what is supernatural; but in due course, I shall present a few pointers to help your calm down in these matters.

huxley:
For instance,

1) What is the ground for believing that god created Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Who then sinned and plunged humankind into eternity of evil and damnation?

The grounds for my believing in the creation narrative is not based on the BB theory, but rather on the fact that we find a reality with us today that sin and evil ([i]sometimes synonymous) are evident today in our experiences. How do you account for the reality of evil from the epistemologies you ahve been arguing, whether from the Big Bang theory or any other naturalistic theories?

huxley:
2) What are the grounds for believing that a virgin gave birth to a god?

The Virgin birth of Jesus Christ is not to be misconstrued for His "origin". Mary gave birth to the Humanity of Christ, not His Deity. . . and in His Deity, He preceded Mary.

huxley:
When I ask such question, you inevitable turn the tables round and start talking about atheism, Dawkins, etc. Why can you not answer these questions?

I don't turn the tables round, but rather try to offer you a context for discussing these issues. Your problem has been to use atheistic arguments against theism, under the pretence of "science", as if theists do not engage in science or only atheists do science. Once you can learn to not confuse yourself between theology and teleology, things will be easier for you - nobody worships science or knowledge: and both atheists and theists are engaged in science. The problem with irrationalism is to pretend to this hubris of science against religion and make victims from unnecessary arguments.

huxley:
Supposing I was a Sihk, seeking some answers about the Christian religions. If I were to ask these question, would you turn around and start attacking Sihkism?

Good question - have I ever taken that approach? Do evangelical Christians often take that approach? However, what often happens in this case is that when Christians are discussing on issues of their faith, the first reaction from most atheists is to seek to attack them. Even you have yourself said several times that you delight in attacking other people's worldview - what sense is in that? Isn't it strange indeed that it would have to be theist who calls your attention round that matter to show you that the first principle of reason is not to "attack" or disrespect ideas, but to learn and educate people both ways? I am not a Sikh or atheist, but my approach has never been to go out of my way to begin to attack their worldviews unnecessarily.

mazaje:
Robert Kiwashki predicted the same thing in much more detail back in 1999. . . and he the way he is non religious. . . .

Help us post some of Kiwashki's predictions about the same detail - it might be interesting to see. Source, document, publication, all - just out of curiosity.

[quote author=plus_Queen link=topic=184782.msg2957731#msg2957731 date=1224276389]Wilkerson on Benny Hinn


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dZyG8sIy1I&feature=related[/quote]Hehe. . nne, you no even hold jokes small at all! Lol, did you listen to the full episode of that message? Lol, I go find am post later.

huxley:
2) What is the truth about the origins of the universe

[size=14pt]
If you guys are more concerned about the truth, can you tell me your best epistemic approach at arriving at such truths and can you show how it has reliable served humankind?[/size]

If you are honest, why were you pretending the Big Bang theory as the best explanation of the ORIGIN of the Universe, whereas the theorists themselves have said that the BB has no evidence whatsoever for the ORIGIN of the Universe? What sort of entertainment about "TRUTH" are you proposing this evening, huxley?

You see, I have said several times that we should not make ourselves the victims of needless arguments. If you wanted to talk about the origin of the Universe and proposed the Big Bang theory, that would be simply laughable - because we know where to go for info for the BB. From all accounts, honest thinkers will tell you that the BB does not give evidence for the Origin of the Universe.

Shalom.

@huxley,

huxley:
Good point indeed. What was the central theme between the religious persecutions and the political persecutions? Was any of them based on well-reasoned, philosophically assessed propositions?

Lol, what do you call the "well-reasoned, philosophically assessed propositions" of Communist persecutions, eh? Just try and be balanced and include that one as well, so we see how "well-reasoned" atheism truly is.

huxley:
The problems the world faces is irrationalism. IRRATIONALISM is humans biggest threat. Irrationalism exists in many forms: religious, secular and political.

. . . er, try and be magnanimous enough to include atheistic irrationalism - it doesn't hurt to mention them as well as the others, abi?

---

huxley:
I shall preface this post again by asking you for what you believe. Much as I think I know, having been a Christian myself and lived amongst Christian, read their literature, I think I have a fairly good idea of what it is about. But supposing I am wrong, I am happy to be corrected.

I think I have stated a few of the things I believe as a Christian. That you are no longer one and have chosen to not believe in those things does not necessarily mean that everyone else is wrong. I sense that has been the current of your efforts lately, and apart from me, several others have highlight that such an attitude is unsustainable in the arena of reason. Not even whne one has to put the cards on the table and rationally discuss issues in their proper contexts.

huxley:
What is it that critics of Christianity are unjustifiably critiquing the religion for?

One example already offered - the pretence of misconstruing theology for teleology. Just an analogy - imagine some theist trying to discuss the atheistic worldview in theistic slants in whuch they invariably arrive at skewed inferences. What do you make of such folks even after they have been offered the necessarycorrections to go back and think again - but rather than do that, they surface in another town and parade the same hubris?

That is precisley what so many people have been doing - and I know that if I mention Dawkins again, the house would come crashing down on me. It is not only Christians that have told him to take a crash course in philosophy - even his own atheist colleagues have told him so several times. Besides, how much more does he need to be offered the advice before he sees that honesty is a very prized trait in seeking to engage people (remember how so easy it was for him to keep misrepresenting a colleague in academic corridors?).

No, I know how tired you must be to have me even mention Dawkins again - I apologise. Just that he fitted this type of high-handed restlessness of atheistic fundamentalism that pretends to "know it all, listen to nobody, and if the going gets tough, just shout at others with an overweening ego to declare yourself always right and others ****-heads, flavoured with irrational rants to always attack and disrespect others' views!" See what people worry over?

huxley:
Are there any core Christian doctrine with which you disagree and on what grounds do you disagree?

How could I disagree with my Christian beliefs? It is like asking if there are any "core" values of atheism that you disagree with - what do you think I would be asking then? The thing is this: both ways (Christianity and atheism), it is not in either my place or yours to try to interprete our worldviews for every single proponent we interract with. I don't have the moral justification to say that I do not agree with such and such "core Christian doctrine" - albeit we may all have issues that we may not all agree over (different from "agree with". The same thing with you: you cannot claim to disagree with the "core" values or ideas of atheism; and just as these differences in interpretations exists, we find so many coteries (factions, groups, sects) in both worldviews.

huxley:
Where have or did you try to reason with me on the above? I don't recall us discussing about theology and teleology, but I would like to be corrected. Generally, my guiding principle is that any discussion devoid of evidence will sooner become uninteresting to me.

I actually have mentioned these matters to you besides others who have done so. As for what you meant by "above", am I mistaken that it was you I discussed the "Origin of the Universe" and showed how you were wrongly passing out information that was misleading to the public interest?

huxley:
On the question of the Origin of the Universe, if my recollection serves me correctly, you failed to make any more posts after I pointed out, with the write-ups from Stephen Hawkins, Victor Stenger and Nairaland's own KAG, that the Big Bang theory does not address the question of the origin of matter, which was your bugbear. The origin of matter is address by baryogenesis while Big Bang address the question of cosmic expansion. You abandoned the thread and took flight without so much as acknowledge these contributions. Flight from reason, I call that, errrrhm.

I abandoned that thread, not once, but twice - and I already said that I would do so the moment I notice that there was no need to further dialogue with people who are pushing their own ideas without the openness to reason. I only came back after initially leaving it, because I just could not bear seeing you drivelling on and on about "ORIGIN" or the Universe hen I knew that the BB did not have any such evidence for that! Now, dear huxley, are you trying to tell me that KAG's offer of abiogenesis is what accounts for the ORIGIN  of the universe? Do you imagine that I would waste my time trying for many pages more to keep repeating myself on that issue? No, I don't behave like that - even though my silence may be misinterpreted. When you find the evidence for the ORIGIN and not those clever terms you have been shoving around, I may come back in - I said so.

The problem with engaging discourses with you sometimes (not problem with "you" is that you just assume that not many people know these matters. From the very onset, I knew you were not talking about ORIGIN of the Universe - I tried to point that out, but you went on about your prerogative to be either illogical, rude, etc (I satnd to be corrected). I already indicated that if we needed info about the Big Bang, we knew already where to go, because what you were reposting did not have any bearing at all with what you were trying to argue. . . Until I thought to simply help you post just one example of what the BB theorists were actually saying in regards to the formation of planets, noting also that they stated clearly that the BB does not have any evidence whatsoever for the ORIGIN of the universe (which was rather the evolution of the universe - yet just a theory).

I saw all those matters, that's why when I felt we were not getting anywhere, I simply folded myself away from that thread - I always do so these days when reason is dismissed for hubris (dare I say we all are guilty of this same thing between times). Reason why I didn't come back after KAG's posts? Simply because I didn't see any improvement on the same things we have been arguing back and forth until then.

huxley:
About your thread Our Orphic world. Granted, there are many things we don't yet know and understand about our world. But that is no reason to ascribed them to "supernatural".

Bros, hang on a bit. This lady here (pilgrim.1) is not one of those who is persuaded by that atheistic excuse that "we don't yet understand our world" - even with all the noise about the advancements of science? If memory serves me right, I know how many skeptics dismissed the crop circle phenomena as "hoaxes"; but when evidences were served them, they found excuses with clever words to describe them - even when they called them "scientific"  explanations, others have largely debunked such philosophies because they leave more questions than answers. Was it too much for such skeptics to simply admit that they do not have answers to those paranormal pehnomena than to pretend the hubris of excusing those phenomena under "scientific" rationalism and further embarrassing themselves? No, they didn't say they were waiting until they understood - they first declared them hoaxes and then later excused them.

One thing I can appreciate, even though I've been slow to grow that thread, at least you at this point have given me a good turn with your simple honesty. That is something that is hard to find from so many other skeptics.

huxley:
Mind you, it was not long ago that thunder and lightening were thought to have "supernatural" origins.

And during that time (if I'm thinking what you are thinking), I know how many such claims were declined and even debunked by theists; but that is not to say that there haven't been some instances where these phenomena occured supernaturally.

huxley:
Do you think they have supernatural origins? Do you think rainbows have supernatural origins? In fact, the thread was so full of such inanities, I felt I'D better leave the for the moon-watchers.

Lol, this strain sounds familiar - that's precisely the reactions of many skeptics who were invited to study genuine crop circles: they excused themselves on such grounds of "inanities" and sat behind their cubicles hooting that they were hoaxes. These phenomena are still happening today, being recorded, being studied, and being said to be "orphic" - honest investigators have reported events and occurences among these and asked skeptics to go and verify them results independently - wonder of wonders, those same skeptics baulked at the invitation and instead patted themselves on the back with the few crop circles that were man-made! How serious is that?

You see, huxley, in as much as we all agree that there are "orphic" phenomena in our world today, what I have stated again and again (as honestly as I can manage) is that I don't have any answers to them nor would I even pretend any. But the skeptics reaction seems to always be the same - for what he is too embarrassed to admit he has no answers for, he dismisses as an "inanity" or a "hoax". People are smarter than such hubris.

Enjoy all the same.

Hmmm, @plus_Queen, how body?

If it is David Wilkerson, there's substance in what that man has been saying - and anyone who has the time to check out his no-nonsense church (and yet graceful atmosphere) will just know the bit. Not even when people may claim that "so many people" have said the same thing that Wilkerson said. . no, the guy is detailed, and some of the stuff he has said without fear of losing face have actually happened as stated.

This one was on my mind, but for the life of me, I just couldn't get my hands on the copy of the book when I heard it mentioned in a podcast sometime ago. So glad to see it here reposted, because I had been seeking to read it slowly and digest the details for myself. Thanks for this exercise, bless you. Jesus is Lord.

@sarmy,

sarmy:
Apostles needed not to against tithe DIRECTLY since it was no issue, they did not teach it as a subject, they were not asking early Christians tithes, and definitely you can’t expect both the Christian Gentiles and the Jews to be practicing it.

My dear sir, it was an issue, in as much as the Law we are discussing is concerned, it actually was an issue - and that was why you will not find anywhere in the NT condemning tithes. No, not one! If the apostles felt that it was to be condemned, they would no less have directly mentioned it as they did the following already highlighted:

● observance of days

● observance of months

● observance of times

● observance of years

● outward circumcision

● keeping a sabbath ritually

● meats and drinks and divers washings

● carnal ordinances

All these and many more were specifically outlined and the teaching of the apostles were clear about them to such extent that they categorically discouraged them under the new covenant. For anyone to assume that merely circumcision or sabbath were "metaphors" for the Law is to indicate indeed that such a person has not studied the subject at all - and that is why they often fail to notice these very detailed issues mentioned in the NT.

Where the apostles would have us discourage certain matters/practices, they clearly said so - and it is remarkable that a huge issue such as tithes and offerings in the OT that God categorically spoke about in many places should not even at any time be condemned in the NT. The challenge still stands - let any careful student of Scripture go and find out if there is any verse at all that condemns tithe, and let them share that verse with us publicly. My answer still is this: until such a time, there is not a single verse condemning tithes - NOT ONE.

It was for this reason as well that I asked a question: did the apostles not teach anything of Christian practice that was derived directly from the OT Law of Moses? I know this seems to be a most embarrassing question for those who are driven always to assume the extreme idea of having nothing to do with the Law; and that is why as soon as they can help themselves to answer that question in simplicity and honesty, I will then walk them through this very matter yet again.

sarmy:
Was there any teaching on giving (YES) but different from the way average Jewish Christian of that time will understand TITHE

Granted - I won't argue anymore on that.

sarmy:
Was there any direct teaching on tithe (NO), how can we assume Christian Gentiles were practicing what they were not taught?

Christian gentiles were actually practicing so many things derived directly from the Law of Moses - and that was taught by the apostles. Christianity was not built on the ideology of gentile thinking - go and read some more and if the case is not clear, I shall be only too glad to serve some sizeable examples for your consideration.

sarmy:
Why would the Apostles condemn what no Christian of that time was practicing?

We only assume that "no Christian" was practising tithes, and that is why that idea still makes those believing such things to be unable to proffer simple answers to a few questions I have asked about this matter. As long as we continue to think that tithing is all about the Levitical priesthood, we shall continue to miss the real issue of why the apostle mentioned it categorically in positive light in Hebrews 7:8. The oracles of God were not given to Gentiles, but rather to the Jews (Romans 3:1-2); and when Gentiles became believers, they only had to learn and live by the Scriptures committed to the Jews as well (Romans 15:4).

Every time people base their theology on the Levitical priesthood for discussing tithes, they will always have a problem with Hebrews 7:8 and never be able to see the power of Melchizedek in relation to tithes there. You just imagine someone who was a Jew (or a Gentile familiar with the Jewish scripture) when he heard that verse read to him - what do you think would have been his reaction? Protest? Nonchalance? Or just plain argument to disavow tithes and Melchizedek? The only reason why there was no argument about this issue is because they knew clearly that a solid teaching was already given on the matter, and not the excuses we hear today about why we should do or not do this, that or the other.

If anyone has to make a case, rather than assume things in a general way and deny what they don't know, they could easily go to Scripture and see for themselves that tithe was never once disavowed such as we find for the Jewish feasts, sabbath days, new moons, and circumcision. Not one verse in the NT condemns tithes in the way that many legalistic brethren are doing so without a single warrant from God's Word.

Shalom.

@sleekmag,

sleekymag:
Pilgrim.1,
You are simply amazing. Your fact-finding methods and way of analysis are simply commendable. Your persuasion for tithing as you outlined in the previous pages was also spot-on. Keep up the good work.

Well, what can I say? I'm quite encouraged if you gained from my inputs, as I wouldnot like to have it any other way than to benefit others.

sleekymag:
Paying one's tithe is much more a heart thing than a pocket thing.

That is simply the summary of everything I have been trying to state in so many pages. Thank you for wrapping it up for me in so, so few words.

Many blessings.

@sarmy,

sarmy:
I wonder how the early christian Gentiles would have been paying tithe when there was no DIRECT teaching on it from the apostles, knowing fully well it was not part of their culture, even for the christian Jews, they still would have needed some kind of DIRECT teaching or instruction on why they can now give tithe to the apostles rather than the Levites they were used to as of that time.

The problem here is that you still have your sights on the commandment to take tithes according to the LEVITICAL priesthood. Once you can understand what apostle Paul meant in Hebrews 7:8, even using the AMP, this difficulty will evaporate. You are doing yourself a disservice by seeking a direct command stating "go and pay 10% o ye Gentiles or else!" Brother, you will not see any such stuff - even though it is linked by inference in Hebrews 7:8.

If they wanted to disavow anything (such as circumcision), they said so plainly:

1 Cor. 7:19 -
"Circumcision is nothing,
and uncircumcision is nothing,
but the keeping of the commandments of God"

This is a clear statement; and the seriousness of this matter on outward circumcision is underscored in so many passages:

Galatians 5:6
"For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing,
nor uncircumcision;
but faith which worketh by love. "

Galatians 6:15
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing,
nor uncircumcision,
but a new creature.


There is another issue that people held onto - the Sabbath; and everywhere you look, you will find that this was another matter of the Law that the apostles spoke about in just the same manner that we see for the case of circumcision:

Galatians 4:9-11

"But now, after that ye have known God,
or rather are known of God, how turn ye again
to the weak and beggarly elements,
whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.

I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain. "


My point in all this is that, where the apostles wanted to discourage a practice, they clearly said so, as in the examples of circumcision and sabbath and observance of days and times! Do you know what the apostle there was referring to by "times"? What about such festivals as the New Moon feasts of the Jews? And the feast of harvests? All these matters (including sabbath, circumcision, etc) are clearly discouraged by precise referrals.

But the problem for many people is that they are always looking at the LAW and making it what it is not. For instance, someone might say that "circumcision" was a metaphor for "the LAW" - but this is simply not true - and the evidence is there above. If those brothers keep harping to make the LAW a metaphor for circumcision (or vice versa), then what do you do with the other specific things mentioned in this passage as matters of the LAW?

Simply, just as you will find the position of such matters of the Law as circumcision and sabbath and holy days and observances of times - all matters that are discouraged as Christian practices, you will not find a single verse in the NT discountenancing TITHES. I have given that challenge out, and I'm still waiting for answers from those who have been making such disavowals. You will not find anywhere in the NT where tithes were condemned - NOT ONE! If you find that verse, please help us quote it directly.

sarmy:
There also suppose to have been at least a scripture verse where they gave TITHE (not this issue of a proportion) if at all they were actually paying tithe, Paul should have used the name precisely somewhere in his epistles like:-

On the first [day] of each week, let each one of you [personally] put aside (your TITHE) and save it up as he has prospered [in proportion to what he is given], so that no collections will need to be taken after I come

With this there will be no ambiguity. I'm only trying to be objective here, there must have been a reason why Apostles did not teach tithe directly but yet we assume the Gentile Christians were paying it

You're still much driven with the name "tithe". Call it whatever, but if you give any % at all, what is that called? I simply want to know - that was why I offered the case of the 20% added to the 10% and wonder if that was still to be called "tithes".

sarmy:
When someone pays fine or penalty, it's different from when it's regular or normal tithe, the norm is that 10% is tithe

Are you saying I can put 2% (a proportion) of my income into tithe basket in my church on Sunday and call it tithe, that will be a lie

I only wanted you to confirm for us if the 20% of the total value that is added to 10% can all still be called "10%" in your estimation. You have a sweet word now for it: "a FINE". . hehe. Bros, I no see am for Bible O! So, what do you call 20% (of 10%) added to 10% before bestowal? Is that still "10% tithes"? Lol.

Enjoy.

@sarmy,

sarmy:
1 Cor 9:13
13Do you not know that hose men who are employed in the services of the temple get their food from the temple? And that those who tend the altar share with the altar [in the offerings brought]?(A)

Cross references to ver 13:

Deut 18:1
1THE LEVITICAL priests and all the tribe of Levi shall have no part or inheritance with Israel; they shall eat the offerings made by fire to the Lord, and His rightful dues.

My dear sister, I'm not an expert but from the two passges above, OFFERING was common to them, Paul meant offerings not tithe for the upkeep of the NT preachers.

Lol. . I think you're coming closer to the very exact thing I wanted you to see. What does Deuteronomy 18:1 point out was the "offering"? Have you asked yourself what was meant by the "offerings made by fire?"

I know that when many people see these cross-references, they just go by them without stopping for a minute to really look at what the verses are saying. Not that I have any problem with Deuteronomy 18:1; but when I first started discussing this issue of 1 Corinthians 9:13, I noted two distinct matters there:

     (a) ministers (priests) at the Temple

     (b) ministers (priests) at the Altar

I made it absoluetly clear that they did not refer to the same things all at once. Why? Because those who easily take the cross reference of Deuteronomy 18 have not carefully looked at the distinctions of these matters and may not have noticed that the real reference to look at was Numbers 18.

In Numbers 18, we understand that the Levites were specifically alloted a particular sphere of service - but when you read the early verses, you may wonder whether the Levites also were asked to minister about the things pertaining to that sphere where the sons of Aaron served. Let me highlight it again: WHO was the LORD focusing on when He said:

           "only they shall not come nigh the vessels of the sanctuary and the altar,
             that neither they, nor ye also, die"  -- Numbers 18 verse 3.

Who was it that were not to come nigh the vessels of the altar? I think when you think upon the answer, it becomes apparent that (perhaps) the apostle wanted us to see the difference when he spoke both of the (a) Temple and (b) the Altar in 1 Cor. 9:13 (KJV) ~~

          "Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things
            live of the things of the temple?
            and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? "

Even the AMP says:

           "Do you not know that those men who are employed in
            the services of the temple get their food from the temple?
            And that those who tend the altar share with the altar
            [in the offerings brought]?

From all accounts, did he mean the very same set of people in this verse - just only the Levites?

Now, when you look back to Numbers 18, you see what the Levites got:

            "And, behold, I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel
              for an inheritance, for their service which they serve,
              even the service of the tabernacle of the congregation." (verse 21)

             "But the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as
              an heave offering unto the LORD, I have given to the Levites to inherit:
              therefore I have said unto them, Among the children of Israel
              they shall have no inheritance."  (verse 24).


I don't know if these matters have helped to clarify the point between the classes of priests and their sphere?

So, what was my point? The offering you're looking at in 1 Corinthians 9:13 should be understood in light of the service of the Temple (or "tabernacle", so long as you're dealing with the Levites in matters of the Temple, please look again and see if it had nothing to do with TITHES? Shall I remind you? Here -

          Numbers 18:21 (AMP)

          (a) And, behold, I have given the Levites all the tithes in Israel

          (b) for an inheritance in return for their service which they serve,

          (c) the [menial] service of the Tent of Meeting."

In simple (a), (b), and (c), I have arranged them so you could compare the notes and see what the Levites got.

But does this mean that I'm calling for a legalistic application of the Law of the Levites into 1 Corinthians 9"13? Far from it. Like I have always maintained: my position and persuasion of the tithes is not based upon the Levitical priesthood; but rather upon the priesthood of Melchizedek - although we may obtain some benefit for understanding the "principles" of these matters from the OT nonetheless.

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2955914#msg2955914 date=1224254446]If you have said that 10% is a portion, what name do you give that? Are you aware that there are some recommendations even in the OT where someone may offer more than 10% and it is referred to as their tithes?[/quote]Here is one such example:

     Leviticus 27:31 -

     "And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes,
      he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof."

Just thinking: if such a person actually added a fifth part to his tithes (that's 20% of the tithes now), then -

       ● would it still be correct to say that the added 20% is still 10%?

       ● would it still be correct to say that what he gives is still "tithe"?

       ● would it still be correct to call this total a "tithe" or something else?


As I said, two things people should note - (1) I do not base my persuasion to tithe upon the Levitical priesthood, but rather upon the priesthood of Melchizedek; (2) I do not feel that the exactitude of a proportion/percentage is the overarching feature, rather it is the principle of tithing that is of greater import to me.

God bless you sarmy.

@sarmy,

sarmy:
AMP version specifically referred to offering, and no where in that chapter will you find tithe

13Do you not know that those men who are employed in the services of the temple get their food from the temple? And that those who tend the altar share with the altar [in the offerings brought]?(A)

I saw the verse before I asked - and that was because I wanted you to think about where the apostle was quoting. This is not the first time I have said this before; but using the AMP (which I also use sometimes), one would find "offering" there, but not so in other versions, NO? Inspite of that, I had raised this issue so many times about where precisely the apostle was quoting when he said "Do you not know. . " in verse 13. I asked you to show us what verse that word was used in that chapter, because I knew the moment you saw it was verse 13, it would take you back to the OT - in which case one would wonder there if what I have been saying is skewed. If the apostle in that verse did not quote the OT, I would be glad again to show it; but I guess you have seen it already, NO?

sarmy:
Are you saying any proportion is equal to tithe, 25%, 30%, 45%

I did not make for a specific figure - at least you can bear me witness on that. Rather, I noted the "proportion" and asked that any figure or percentage you mentioned would have a name - whereas, it was not the "name" that was important, but rather the principle behind it. I know this is difficult to understand, but when we look strictly at the Levitical priesthood law where we find a commandment for tithing, isn't it obvious that the total value of the tithes of Israel was beyond 10% No, I'm not dragging us back, but when you see this matter, you come to wonder that the tithies for the year of tithing added to all the other tithes was not merely 10% - are we together on this?

That is why I have often stated that the figure was not my problem - whether 1%, 10%, 35%, 75% or whatever percentage anyone chose. What for me was important was the divine principle - and I know people were not comfortable with that. At some point I offered to take a chill until people would see it, noting that if we did not try and correct our perceptions then, we would run into huge problems later. Did I not say so?

The bottomline is this: what is "proportion" doing in that verse - however anyone slices it?

I know why I'm still asking this question - because some of our friends are persuaded that we should "just simply give" - no percentages, no measurements, nothing of the sort, but "just simply give". No worries - but I would just like to know what "in proportion to" is doing in that verse in the AMP.

sarmy:
A proportion does not neccessarily mean tithe, whereas 10%, 20% or 45% is a portion or a percentage of a thing

If you have said that 10% is a portion, what name do you give that? Are you aware that there are some recommendations even in the OT where someone may offer more than 10% and it is referred to as their tithes?

You see, sarmy, I don't like to go on and on about these figures. I'm a very passionate contributor in this thread calling for us to not be bogged down with figures - we would simply injure our thoughts. But if you just want only one example more, I would be glad to give it to you.

sarmy:
I was not refering to levitical priesthood, what I said was that Jews of those days know tithes were always meant for the Levites, so if the Apostles wanted Tithe, they needed to instruct them DIRECTLY, we can not assume that they did what he did not teach, is there passage of the Epistles of Paul where he directly instructed the Christian Jews or Gentiles to pay TITHE, lets look at the 1 Cor 16:2 AMP version for example.

2On the first [day] of each week, let each one of you [personally] put aside something and save it up as he has prospered [in proportion to what he is given], so that no collections will need to be taken after I come.

Paul said put aside something, any amount, he did not say put aside you tithe, he could have said tithe if he wanted them to bring tithe, why did he not use the word TITHE in any of his teachings on giving. At least it would have benefited the Gentile christians who were not used to the word TITHE.

2% is a proportion but not thesame as 10% or Tithe, if any proportion is thesame as tithe then many church leaded will need to be told

One answer I have for you: what did Paul mean by "in proportion to" - in proportion to what? What are people measuring it to? Why should he even give us this idea that people should set anything aside in proportion to anything (income, wages, etc) - why even go there at all?

sarmy:
Correction:
I should not have used 50% for sure, but I think many out there who are still under the threat of mal 3:8. Thank God for your life and many who are doing it under grace.

Okay, I concur - I personally know some who are still doing this under some pressure, and it doesn't matter whether it's tithes, offerings, freewill contributions or donations. . . just name it, and you will be surprised what is happeing in many circles.


Bless, bro.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
This response seems aimed at confusing issues, but for clarity of pupose i would re-state the facts on how tithing was smuggled into the church after being missing for almost six centuries.

I would not seek to confuse anyone - they would have said so themselves.

KunleOshob:
* Despite all your allusions and conjectures, it still remains a biblical fact that there was no record of tithing amongst the first christians as recorded in the bible

No wahala - that was why I had asked and am still asking: what is the meaning of "in proportion to" in 1 Corinthians 16:2 in AMP? I didn't write that verse, so please show your adulators another panic measure from your quarters.

KunleOshob:
* The earliest positive doctrine on tithes is contained in the letter of the bishops assembled at Tours in 567 and the [canons] of the Council of Macon in 585.”—The Catholic Encyclopaedia.

1 Corinthians 16:2 preceded 585AD, NO?

Just so that you understand this issue, let me use an altogether different example: the word Trinity was not used among the first Christians, not so? But did that mean that the first Christians knew nothing about the Father, the Son,a nd the Holy Spirit being the same One God?

It is okay to panic around looking for some AD letters to see the word "tithe"; but long before that time, I would like to know from your history archives when the apostle Paul admonished Christians in his day to set aside a "proportion" according to 1 Corinthians 16:2.

KunleOshob:
One thing is clear tithing was not part of early christianity and it was smuggled into christian doctrine over a period of time be it 777AD as you put it.

777AD was not my postulation - I only referenced it from those who do not know the difference between when tithing "began" among Christians, and when it "became" a civil law.

KunleOshob:
I don't know why you are asking what is the difference in what i posted and yours when the differences are sooo glaring.

I asked because you're sweating to make a difference where there is none.

KunleOshob:
When tithing was smuggled into christianity and when it was adopted into the english law are two totally different periods spanning at least twelve centuries so don't lets confuse issues here.

I'm sorry for you, Kunle. Your 12 centuries is now the same thing as the 17th century on the same English Law, abi? No be me you go confuse, because I'm not the one throwing dates left right and center between 585AD, 777AD, and the 17th century.

KunleOshob:
I wonder why you are trying to insinuate that both occurences are one and the same when they clearly are not, maybe you should rea my previous post again i really don't think you understood it.

Lol, where did I project that idea of thinking they were the same? Did I say that what "began" is the same as what "became"? Hmm, Kunle, clam down O. . . you may shoot yourself in the leg soon.

Cheers.

@huxley,

huxley:
This is an extraordinary admission.   We know as a Christian, you have no choice but to believe in these "creatures".  Many Christian foundational doctrines are based on the  existence of such beings.  Unless you are one of the very liberal Christians (essentially cultural Christians), you have to believe in these beings.

I think you're making a typical mistake that I often read from rationalistic skeptics. In Christianity, people are not asked to believe something because they don't have a choice but to just believe in them. While this is the typical "strawman" strategy that atheists do not like others to use against them, I see the same thing happening here and rather use the term fausse braie ('wrong pitch'). What is happening is that while as an atheist you would not like people to make suppositions about you before you define it for yourself, you seem to be happy to define other people's worldviews for them before even seeking to understand their raison d'etre!

I believe in the tenets of my Christian faith, not because I have no choice than to believe in them. But to assume that I should then be examined by a rationalistic worldvew that has consistently failed to examine its own ideas, is to play the same fausse braie sentimentality that you guys have often decried. If you think it is okay to bend Christianity by the prism of humanistic rationalism, would you be happy also to allow others to bend your own worldviews by the prism of their tenets? If not, does it not suggest the hubris I have often highlighted all along?

huxley:
We have asked repeatedly for the evidence at the heart of belief in the existence of such beings and repeatedly you are unable or unwilling to profer such evidence.

I have never shied away from rational dialogue - the reason why you may not have been receiving answers may be due to your prerogative to be determined to be irrational in your outlook and I can point just a few examples of some (who are not even Christians) having pointed this out to you personally.

A second thing is that you often fail to reason along with people, no matter how many times they have shared the same insight with you. An example in this case is when I remember highlighting the difference between THEOLOGY and TELEOLOGY - you keep making the same mistake of ignoring that pointer and then raise issues that when further scrutinized, you would simply have to come back and admit that you were hastily driving wrong assumptions. An example was the discourse on "Origin of the Universe", whereas the grounds for your arguements do not present ny evidence for the "origin" of the Universe.

huxley:
You have ample space NOW  to show us and the world evidence for their existence.  If such evidence stands to to scrutiny, you will be vindicated and all attacks on your beliefs will be forestalled.

I'm not here to beg that any "attacks" be forestalled - because the hypocrisy in that statement has been proven so many times. I was one of those who started asking you whether the aim of reason was to "attack" ideas: and even when you acquiesced that it should not be the case, have you stopped or relented in "attacking" others? It is not my worry that atheistic mindsets would always want to "attack" - and that is what stands as testimony that the very idea that atheists are 'rational' people is far from reality. We can dialogue without pretending this hubris; but if that is not sufficient and I make reference to atheistic fundamentalism, you guys protest against such mention. If you're going to reason out issues intelligently, let us know: if otherwise, nothing changes from this habit of holding out something you cannot receive when served at you.

huxley:
By the way,  as a former muslim,  what do you think of JINNS?

I have my thoughts about Jinns - and I saw the thread you raised for that purpose. But huxley, you're coming a tad too late to asking me this question, because I already have said that I won't discuss anything that has to do with Islam. My discussions are not springboards for Islamic theological debates.

However, what about angels - since Christianity has something to say about the subject? Yes, I believe in angels, but not because I have no choice other than to believe in it. Do I believe in the existence of demons? I do as well, though I'm not affected by them in anyway - that does not mean I haven't seen what they can do to people. It is because the skeptical idea that we should only believe what we can see and account for in a naturalistic sense, that was why I started out the experiement with a thread on "Our Orphic world". It was not my aim to embarass anybody - but the point was to show that there are things happeing in our world which are "supernatural", because they cannot be measured or quantified in naturalistic terms. And for people to keep harping that these things are not "real" and rather "hoaxes" is to pretend the same hubris that has not served the atheistically driven mind of extremum.

It would have been interesting to see how people who are too bent with this extreme positions react to some of those phenomena mentioned earlier - eg., the crop circles, the UFOs, etc. There are more - and mention of these is not that I'm ducking the question of jinn and angels. Rather, I'm indicating to you that your tools of enquiry are too weak to account for supernatural and paranormal phenomena. A second thing to note is that atheism is not science - and to pretend as if it is only atheists who engage in science is to make the same extreme assertion that has not served your cause any better.

Cheers.

@sarmy,

sarmy:
It seems you did not get the gist "most churches preaching tithe believe members will not give enough if they don't pay tithe (true/false)"

If this is true, where is the faith in God who ordained the church, is He not able to inspire members to give more than enough like in the days of the apostles.

I tell you the truth, more than 50% of those paying tithe are doing so under fear and that also, is lack of faith (If there is fear, there is no faith)

Well, I may have misread you; but I don't know how. Not that I'm forcing issues - but how could YOU have known that more than 50% of people tithing are doing so under fear? Under fear of what? That is why I did two things: (a) I did not want to hastily post my own persuasions, and only did so when some indicated that it would be of benefit to them; (b) I was persuaded to do so, if perhaps they may understand why I am not under fear when I do so.

I don't know how many tithers there are in the world; but I'm not sure that 50% of those paying tithes are doing so under fear. That is questionable. The churches I exemplified earlier (Catholics, Anglicans, Assemblies of God) are tithers - and they don't seem to be doing so under any fear. I have been to so many local churches of Assemblies of God Church (on invitation of friends), and you should wonder that they joyful spirit with which they give tithes and offerings is simply amazing!

One thing about human nature is that when man feels he is being pressurized to do something, he could choose to revolt and stop doing that very thing. Take yourself for example: you were wondering whether to leave your church because of this matter of tithing. let's assume that you never read anything from this thread and you actually left that church to a non-tithing church, would that not indicate the very thing I just said? By leaving, you made a choice to no longer be under any fear or feeling of binding to be compelled to tithe! The same thing could be said of anyone - they don't have to feel compelled under fear of anything to tithe.

I'm not sure it is fair to assume a position for people before they have the opportunity of saying so themselves. That is why I cannot assume anything about another person living "under fear" until they have said so themselves - and then we can see if indeed it is 50% of those people who are living that way.

sarmy:
It is not lack of faith for not tithing, it is lack of the word of God to back it up and faith cometh by the word of God, if there is no sufficient word of God in NT to back it up, it may be better not to do it.

I agree - precisely why I offered to you earlier that if you're persuaded to tithe, don't let that persuasion come from what pilgrim.1 is saying - she's a "silly pilly"! No, seriously : don't be persuaded by arguments - rather, let the revelation of God's Spirit bring that conviction to the heart to make a decision either to tithe or not tithe. When we can appreciate this point, I believe we can then understand why the apostles never used the terms we detest, nor even try to command people to obey what the Lord had ordained on this matter. They knew that only the Spirit of God would bring a deep conviction to help the tither do so.

sarmy:
I strongly believe one can set aside a proportion of ones income on regular basis for church & mankind not by any manipulation but through understanding of the reasons why it should be done. One of the secrets of financial success is ability to set aside a proportion of ones income for a particular objective regularly (I don't see why this should be difficult for any child of God for 6 months as you mentioned above if one understand why it should be done.

God bless you for your wisdom. I deeply appreciate that.

@KUnleOshob,

KunleOshob:
As usual you are very wrong on this issue again, i am almost tempted to allege that you deliberately confuse issues to butress your point. To set the records straight, tithes was intorduced to the church after the council of macon in the year 585AD by the catholic bishops for the sole pupose of meeting the "growing needs of the church". tithe was not included in the civil laws(of England) till the seventeeth century and the tithe war was not till the 19th century. so lets stop confusing issues here. the fact remains that for the first six centuries of the christian religion tithes was never a part of it.

Kunle, what have you said differently from what I said earlier? Before the "civil law" of the 17th century, did people not practice tithes? When actually did it become a "civil/political law" - was it among the apostles?

There's difference between when something "became" and when that same thing "began". Tithing among Christians did not "begin" in the 17th century, nor in 585AD - go and find out. Some quote 777AD, and yet, all these fellows are making things hard for themselves. The simple problem here is that they are driving themselves to read it as "tithing BEGAN" at such periods in history - and that was why I pointed out this fallacious way of reading issues earlier.

Cheers.