₦airaland Forum

@anonimi,

anonimi:
It seems you missed my response eons ago here

Thanks - and that was why I pointed out this also, from where Yomi got his thoughts from.

anonimi:
Can you check out the difference between assets and income?
Fifio clearly stated that the tithes paid by the Israelites to the levites could be considered as income for the purpose of their (levites) tithe payment.

Are we now basing our thoughts on what suppositions or precisely what is stated? If I were the one making these assumptions, I know what inundations would have ensued. Nonetheless, if you argue that the tithes that the Levites got from Israel could be considered their "income", what is the argument you have against those who receive tithes as their own "income"? If the former case was just perfect for you, what problem do you have with the latter - especially when the apostle Paul clearly made reference to that same case of the Levites in 1 Corinthians 9:13-14?

anonimi:
Apparently the levites were not payying their tithes properly hence the curse on them in Malachi starting from chapter 1.

Em, sorry O. . . no vex. Malachi 3 was not about the Levites - please see those who were involved in verse 9: "Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation." You can't miss that and assume that the curse was on the Levites because they were not paying their tithes properly!

Which even brings another question - if the Levites had any "income", would they not have been paying their tithes from such "income"? Are you simply ignoring what the Word says where I pointed out that they had no inheritance and so could not be seen to have any "income" from which to pay the tithes you are blaming them for not paying?

For brotherly love sake, I am willing for the sake of argument to consider it so. But I warn already that as we progress, you guys will run into a huge problem on this point O. . . please go back and read that passage again carefully, and the point will become easy to see.

God bless.

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
I would keep on reminding you that biblical tithes as ordained by God had absolutely nothing to do with income or wages it was always strictly edible items meant to be eaten it God's presence. Income / wages tithes is a mordern day unscriptural fabrication.

I did not ignore your reminders - and we shall get there subsequently. For now, could you point us where money was specifically mentioned in the type of giving that God ordained for you in the NT?

@FifiO,

FifiO:
I'D so sooo love to be gone from here, at least for a while. However-

me sef, I don dey itch since to vamoose!

FifiO:
Understand this, the Levites were obligated to pay a tithe out of their "income". Only, their "income" was the tithes of the Isrealites.

If I was the one that said the above, the house would come crashing on me. Sista, the Levites had no income whatsoever! How many times did God emphasize that very point, lest we run ahead of ourselves? Here are examples:

         Numbers 18:20
         Numbers 18:23 & 24
         Deuteronomy 14:27

If they had no inheritance among the children of Israel, from where do we suppose their "income" to be got? If they labour for wages in the temple, they would not need to take anything from the children of Israel in that case. Yes, they lived off the service of the temple (see 1 Cor. 9:13); but that is not what Scripture regards as "income", unless for the sake of argument we just want to read it so. The problems will surface later if we do.

FifiO:
please look at this:

Numbers 18:26-27 Thus speak unto the Levites, and say unto them, when ye take of the children of Isreal the tithes which I have given you from them for your inheritance then ye shall offer up an heave offering of it for the Lord, even a tenth part of the tithe 27 And this your heave offering shall be reckoned unto you, as though it were the corn of the threshing floor, and as the fulness of the wine press.

Nehemiah 10:38-39 And the priest the son of Aaron shall be with the Levites, when the levites take tithes: and the Levites shall bring up the tithe of the tithes unto the house of our God,to the chambers, into the treasure house.39 For the children of Isreal AND the children of Levi shall bring the offering of the corn, of the new wine, and the oil, unto the chambers-

I've looked at the above; and will subsequently bring out a few things:

FifiO:
Levites never offered 1%, what they offered was 10% of the 10% they recieved from the Isrealites ( being their own income, so to speak)

I'm sorry, it does not say so. Shal we quote it again and see?

             Nehemiah 10:38_________________________________

             And the priest the son of Aaron shall be with the Levites,
             when the Levites take tithes: and the Levites shall bring
             up the tithe of the tithes unto the house of our God,
             to the chambers, into the treasure house
             ______________________________________________

The "tithe of the tithes" was not pointing to the Levites own offering - no. The whole passage shows that it was the "tithe of the tithes" of all Israel that the Levites took into the treasure house. Please read it yet again. .  slowly, and you will see it. If I miss it yet, I'll be glad to consider it. When you read verse 39, what you are mistaking there for tithes are the "offerings" - please see it. The point is that the tithe of the tithes was simply "10% of 10%"  of that which Israel gave - it was that very portion that the Levites carried into the treasure house, instead of eating it there in the presence of the priest.

Shalom.

KunleOshob:
@Pilgrim.1
Given that you have giving us your definition of tithes and the meaning and you emphasized that it is not compulsary neither must it be ten per cnet, how the do you deifferentiate tithes from Offerings.

Very good question, Kunle - and I was coming to that sometime yet. Infact, TV01 has asked the same by inference, and I noted that occasion will serve us to discuss that point. For now, I would like to address the queries one after the other before moving on to other concerns - just like I pormised sarmy, I will keep my word to you.

KunleOshob:
Well since Pilgrim.1 is slow on growing this thread, i decided to help her out

I was actually slooooooooooooooooooow! You no go blame me - all the things wey I dey carefully read are sooooo amazing that I have to keep going back to them to make sure that I no go wayo anybody for here! Sorry, I'll smart up and answer present sir next time.

@Ovamboland,

Ovamboland:
Pilgrim 1,

The point is God is not moved by your tithe, He never demanded it whether by compulsion, obligation or voluntarily, if you give in support of church activities as laid in your heart fine. Don't call it tithe.
Your giving is unto need not as a mantra or doctrine to be taught to others in order to get returns on investment ROI

I think you are actually making a big mistake here and I don't want to scream in big fonts at you. Please kindly go back and read issues before you assume to drive a wedge where it is unnecessary. For the umpteenth time: NOBODY in our arguments is making tithes compulsory - and if you fear to use the term "tithes" in this discussion, please dress warm, because I will spare nothing when I take you to task thereto. Let me repeat it again and again and again and again. . 


                 ____________________________________________________________

                  'I don't think you have noticed how many people ackowledge that tithes
                  have nothing to do with the idea of ~

                            DEMAND,
                            COERSION,
                            COMPULSION,
                            FORCE,
                            CAJOLING,
                            MANIPULATION,
                            INDOCTRINATION,

                            . . . or [size=14pt]any other ONOMATOMANIA[/size]!!
                 ____________________________________________________________

I said it since and repeated it several times. . .

        (1) here

        (2) and again

        (3) and here!

. . and I'm repeating it here in this reposte for your blessing.

Shalom.

@sarmy,

Now to the other points you raised:

sarmy:
Please correct any of them if assumed wrongly or add more if needed, I don’t have all the passages to support them but I think at one time or the other you have done that.

1. Tithe was ordained by God pre-mosaic law (Abraham tithed)

No, I'm not inclined as such. God did not "ordain" prior to the LAW. Abraham was moved by faith to give tithes unto Melchizedek (see Galatians 3:7 on the principle of his faith).

sarmy:
2. To be given to those that minister to God or for God’s word propagation (Melkizedek)

Melchizedek did not have such a need - which is why I have often said that this tithe issue is not always a matter of "need-driven". What "need" did a King have - when his name was "King of righteousness" and "king of peace" (Hebrews 7:2)?

sarmy:
3. Beyond the law, designed as a mystery so God can bless His people (Melkizedek blessed Abraham)

God blesses those who tithe - He also blesses those who give other types of giving. Is it a mystery? Yes it is. How? We shall subsequently come to that.

sarmy:
4. Not compulsory, but whoever needs God’s divine blessing can tap into it (Abraham / Jacob did)

Not exactly. The tithe is not a "formula" for tapping into for any kind of blessings - unfortunately, that is how it has bene presented by some televangelists and the reason why many have become bitter about tithes and call it all sorts of derogatory terms. However, those who tithe look beyond what they can get from God: they are making a statement of thankfulness to the One who values their recognition of His Lordship over their lives. It is more a matter of worship than of "receiving"; although the worshipper is definitely blessed when he/she does so.

sarmy:
5. Not necessarily 10% exactly or the percentage that matters, but quality of the proportion (the best part)

It is not even the 'quality of the proportion' - please see above about the significance. It is not man who estimates the tithes; rather, it is God Himself Who places the value on it as He sees it [Num. 18:21 & Lev. 27:30 & 31].

sarmy:
6. Other giving accepted by God but Tithe is primarily ordained by God to sustain His work and for Him to keep releasing His blessing (OT/NT alike)

That's deep. I'm not sure that God's purpose in ordaining tithes was so that He might keep releasing His blessings. Certainly, He blesses when tithers are faithful; but He did not present it as a "formula" for His blessings.

sarmy:
7. Those who are not tithing will not be punished but they are not connected to the mystery

I may say so - without risking being blunt. Those who do not want to tithe should not feel squeezed somewhere as if they should then feel compelled to do so. What I observe is that God draws the heart of the believer by faith to see what He has ordained for them.

sarmy:
Reason why I said it seems like a revelation, one can not support this DIRECTLY from the scriptures but if one adds some scriptures together like you did, it’s possible to see beyong ordinary/letters and see this as NT concept of tithe.

That's okay - I've never been shy of saying simply that I believe the Scripture can be understood by exegesis and not eisegesis. The principle of comparing Scripture with scripture is not lost on us when we read 2 Peter 1:20 -

          _____________________________________________________________

      Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
          _____________________________________________________________

sarmy:
Not many will agree with this concept and for the fact that none of the early churches directly used the word TITHE to represent any of the giving; one may assume this is another ploy to make children of God give more than ordinary just ‘giving’

The suspicion does not deter tithers who know what it means. Do I suspect that from the many arguments against tithing, the one issue responsible is human disinclination to be faithful givers? I'll come back to this point later.

sarmy:
I don't have any problem with this concept, since it's giving by His grace not by a do or die. Most children of God will give their best to God to show His love and goodness.

No worries - they may not call it any name or measure out a % anyhow; but I have said that the name itself should not scare anyone who loves to tithe.

Bless.

@Jesoul,

How body?

JeSoul:
Anyways I am fine jare, thanks to God, I have a huge presentation to make & impress all the phD's in attendance . . . nervous to the bone, but confident in God, so if you have a minute, pray for me!

Go in His favour - you're both blessed and covered. Jesus is Lord.

@Ovamboland,

Ovamboland:
For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the Law, to perform them” (Galatians 3:10). It is actually the opposite, if you tithe by obligation then you are bound by all the law. Galatians 5:4 explains “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace

Can I ask you: WHERE are people tithing by OBLIGATION in recent discussions in this thread?

@anonimi,

anonimi:
It seems you are the one missing the point all this while and that explains why you have been going on & on saying the same thing over and over again.
Go through all the posts of those of us opposed to preachers (in partcular) and others in general who tell those they are in a position to influence that tithes are compulsory/obligatory/required/obedience to God/carries a curse if not done (or blessing if done).
Without mincing words and with all seriousness, any preacher who says such a thing is a fraudulent person, no matter how many miracles he claims to perform in Christ's name.
I hope the distinction is clear enough for you now.

I wasn't missing anything - unless you want me to bore you with the links where I made the case lucid. You guys started out by directly referring to tithes as a 'lie', 'false doctrine', and a 'fraud'. I asked simply that we look away from those who have abused it and encourage ourselves to look into the Word to see what it says. Did you ever oblige that? What was your response to that other than come back reposting Yomisays and his ungodly attack and pretentions of Adeboye? I asked you directly if Yomisays represented your views - you have forever ducked that one and now claiming I was not paying attention all along. What is your question again, dear brother?

@KunleOshob,

KunleOshob:
That is what we call wuruwuru to the answer. Translated to english meaning working towards a predetermined goal. Or in this case the gospel according to pilgrim.1 anyway my dear sister nothing personal i see you are already getting pissed off judging by your response to my last post.

Hehe. .  lovable brother! Sorry naw. .  I no vex! True, I no vex. I was getting really bored from being teased with the endless repetitions. No wuruwuru intended in mine O!

KunleOshob:
PS: You still didn't remember to state your definition of tithes( in one sentence)

Ok, I have done so above. As I said, I was definitely coming back to answer that question; but I wanted us to go back and see if indeed I never once touched on it. Now that I have wrapped it neatly as distinct from its meaning, am I still under arrest?

_{I dey come for you. . . just wait there!}

@Analytical,

How body? Lol, no mind me. . . I saw ur request about the YIM thingy; but I will find time to concentrate on yours when those "friends" go to sleep for a while.

Analytical:
Pilgrim is very correct here. She has always maintained that:

- Tithe precedes the Law.
- It is God-ordained but not mandatory.

Well, lol. . . I may be wrong all the same - and I say this humbly. That is why I am seeking as many questions that people may have, so that as I address them, those who may not have grasped it may understand why I have been stating these issues. Thankfully, you brought out another very fine point that helps us illustrate what I have been saying - here:

Analytical:
The 2nd should not be too difficult to grasp as TV01 suggested, seeing they don't mean the same thing. For example, marriage is God-ordained, but not mandatory. Paul also chose not to marry but did not condemn those that did. Does marriage have its blessings? YES!!! Are those who refuse to marry cursed? NO!! I hope this clears the seeming contradiction in that statement.

You are a wonderful teacher! Bless!

Dear sarmy,

Thank you for again calmly bringing our the essential points that underscore your concerns. Although indeed they have been addressed earlier, what draws my interest is the way you invite a discussion in simple terms. Let me as simply reason along yours:

sarmy:
Please correct any of them if assumed wrongly or add more if needed, I don’t have all the passages to support them but I think at one time or the other you have done that.

I'll be glad to share them again where necessary - that's not a tedious thing for me to do. But let me show you what was being pointed out between the "meaning" and mere "definition" of the term tithe.

    (a) the definition of tithe is 10% of a particular aggregate:

          It is in this sense that we have been looing at what is 10% of 10% etc.
          As such, when that is the only thing that occupies our focus, we shall
          remain stuck on seeing just 10% every single time, even though from all else,
          we know that "the tithe of the tithes" (10% of 10%) is simply 1%.
          Please do the simple maths and see for yourself that in Nehemiah 10:38,
          it was not treated as "relative", but rather in absolute terms from the
          total value of Israel's tithes in that case.


    (b) the meaning of tithe is its singnificance:

          Here we are looking beyond the mere definition of tithes as 10% or 1%
          and seeking the real significance behind the subject of tithing itself.
          When I give my tithes, what in effect am I saying to God Himself?
          My tithes are not valued by man's estimations; rather, God Himself said that
          the real significance HE places on it is what counts - which was why I shared
          that He is not looking at calculated figures in income, for even the Levites who
          gave their own tithes had no income!


I do hope that will help now; and the difference between those two points seems to be what has proven difficult for many people hitherto.

Now, do I have direct scripture references for both the meaning and definition of tithes (whether 10%, or 1%, or yet the "significance"? I believe so - and that is what I have often shared all along:

       ~ the definition: (a) the tenth part is the tithe - [Hebrews 7:2, 4 & 6]

       ~ the figures: (b) tithe of tithes = 10% of 10% = 1% [Nehemiah 10:38]

       ~ the significance" (c) God Himself places the value, not man - [Num. 18:21 & Lev. 27:30 & 31]

            For example: Num. 18:29 -
                   'Out of all your gifts ye shall offer every heave offering of the LORD,
                    of all the best thereof, even the hallowed part thereof out of it.'

That is the significance of my tithes - it does not mean that I don't have other gifts among my giving. However, my principle is that for me to understand the significance that my tithes point to, God is the One who says that "out of all my gifts", there's that part which He deems the 'hallowed part', or the 'best part'.

Here is the problem for many: since pilgrim.1 says that she does not argue tithes based upon the LAW, why is she quoting the same LAW? I have my reasons, defined in only one word - PRINCIPLES.

It is not by coincidence that the apostle Paul quotes the same LAW in Numbers 18 when discussing this ministry in 1 Corinthians 9:13-14. He does not say that we should apply the law in a legalistic manner; but he draws from it a principle and concludes with these words: "EVEN SO. . ".

Secondly, the argument many people make about the LAW of tithing is that we are not under the Law, but under grace. Granted. My question is simple - our friends should please explain where Paul was quoting from when he says in 1 Cor. 9:8 - "Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also?"

Thirdly, when I say that I do not base my discussion of the tithes upon the LAW, what I mean is this: I am not at any time seeking to "justify" the veracity of tithing as a Christian from the LAW. That is why I have often looked outside the Law and intoned that tithing came before the LAW. What the Law did not originate, it cannot abrogate in this case.

Fourthly, I have called attention to another point: the real issue of the LAW is founded on one thing: "justification". No one is justified by the works of the LAW - as is clear in the NT (Romans 3:20, 28 and Galatians 2:16). That being so, I am not seeking a justification from the LAW if I applied its principles in order to understand the significance of tithing. Tithes did not justify anybody in the OT; nor does it justify anybody in the NT.

Fifth, because tithes are not a matter of justifying anybody, I don't see the panic among those who have been screaming it that it is "dangerous" to give tithes under the LAW - when infact I am not giving tithes based upon the LAW?

You see, I could go on and discuss the LAW for another 15 points that will make Christians who argue anyhow to deeply think before they hastily draw conclusions. If people are only stuck on 10% every single time they see the word "tithe", I am not one of those - and I have shown that "the tithe of tithes" is not 10% but 1%. Go and calculate it simply and come back showing that 10% of 10% = 10%!

Well, I thought it might be helpful to see these issues again, even though I have repeatedly stated them in the past; just so that you understand where I am coming from when I mention the meaning of the tithes. All I ask is simple: if the verses I quoted and the points I raised did not say any of those things I highlighted, all anyone could help us do is quote the verse and show us that I inserted words that are not there.


The other parts of your queries will be answered soon - I have never ducked any question from anyone.

Shalom.

mazaje:
it is writting in the bible, the biblical god said that people rod him when the refuse to pay/give their tithes and offering. why would a god that has and owns everything demand people to offer anything unto him?

I'm still asking you the same question: did He ask YOU to give Him anything and force it on YOU?

@FifiO,

FifiO:
I don't assume it's any thing other than 10%. You know you first raised the issue of 1% and I had to go and check it up and this is how I understood what I read:

*Isreal gave God 10% tithes
*Levite gave God 10% tithes (c/o Aaron)
*No one gave God 1%
1% comes up only in relative terms.

Indeed I raised the issue of 1% in relation to the idea that many people are stuck on a percentage as if that is all there is to the meaning of tithe. Why did I do so? Because in absolute terms, the Levites had no income, and that which they offered was merely 1% of the value of Israel's heave offering (both Israel and Levi had heave offering - and the part that was Israel's was simply 1% when it was waved, and not 10%). Now, since that point was not clear, I made reference to what is known as "the tithe of the tithes" in Nehemiah 10:38. We all have various understanding about this; but what or how do we translate this latter case as 10% of 10%, Fifio?

FifiO:
A tithe means, not is,ten parts of something, or 10% of something. 1% is relative,and was actually originally raised by you. we have only tried to reply you on that ppoint.

Please see the case of Nehemiah 10:38 and help us digest the 10% of 10% - which in that case was not relative, because it was not the tithes of the Levites, but the tithes of Israel that was taken into the Treasury (please go and see it). How do you make this latter case a "relative" issue if not that we would be neglecting the fact that it was actually Israel's tithes there, and not the tithes of the Levites? Is 10% of 10% still equal to 10%?

This was why I made a point simply to say that I am not one of those who is stuck on fastidiously shlepping the idea that tithes in all references has to be 10% every single time. I only pointed that out to enable others see beyond the % and go one to its value! people think it is the conscience of the believer that actually makes it valuable - and my response was simple: it was God Himself who places the value on it. hence, when we see it how He sees it, our perceptions will be better helped.

FifiO:
As per the word "mandatory", I think what everyone is saying is that it is not a must that we must pay tithes.
1. Pay tithes, under the law of moses
2. don't pay tithe, under the law of liberty

As anyone wishes. I have said again and again since last year that I don't argue tithes based on the LAW. Do I post you the several links to show how many times I have said so?

FifiO:
However we look at it, there will be a trying of how we have handled it, rightly or wrongly.
So those who don't believe in tithing are like " why tell us we must?- why make it mandatory?"

That's not the issue, FifiO. Those who don't believe in tithing have said very sad things about tithing and tithers - that's the issue. If antagonists have simply shared that it is only a matter of liberty, this thread would have passed on. Why refer to tithers as thieves, manipulators, fraudsters, etc just to prove that they do not believe in tithing? I still have several examples I could refer to where antagonists have said worse than the one who condemned tithers to HELL for simply tithing! What kind of attitude is that, despite the fact that those of us who tithe have been saying for ages that it is NOT compulsory?

FifiO:
And those who believe in tithing any sum are like "its not mandatory to give any particular sum"

See?

FifiO:
That's where it seems like everyone is saying the same thing in a disturbingly different way.
Blessings!

Bo, bless you and enjoy.

Dear FifiO,

FifiO:
@Pilgrim.1
my dear Sista, thanks for that. You see, I was getting worked up by the sacarsm I felt coming from yours.You see, we don't all have to agree on ALL points, or even disagree on ALL points, unless we are arguing for the sake of arguments only.

Without an iota of pride, I think I have been first to admit that these discussions have been shaping my views on "tithes". At one point I tried to sum up what I was learning from the two major views and I put that here because I believe this is a place to share.

I again apologise - you're not the only person who thought I was being sarcastic, whereas I was not being so. To share a point, soon after I made an indirect inference to your earlier input, you can't imagine the number of friends who called my attention to it, one lady even saying that she had gained soooooo much from my insight until I "messed it up with your tone". That's why I came back and apologised and offered them that I would take a chill so that others would come and share as well, since I did not think this thread was all about me to win any point anyway.

But I was calling trouble for myself for asking to take a chill. . . because so many people came back again with queries, and my dear friend even went so far as to 'konk' me with allegation of "showing off". My reply to her was simple: I would thenceforth be firm, if that would help people come back to reason that the issues being repeatedly trumped up were unnecessary.

Look again at the questions being asked: and then ask yourself in all honesty if I had ducked any single question? If on the other hand people are saying I was saying nothing at all and rather dancing around the questions, where have they gone back to those references and quoted them directly to show that the several things I highlighted were not so written there - particularly as to the meaning of the tithes rather than just the %? When I highlighted your quote of Numbers 18:26-27, I already knew the verse you were looking for; and had to come back when friends said that I was not being fair to you - which was why I posted that it was verse 28! Why? Because I cared enough to read what you were saying, go back to Scripture to check it out, and then come back online to share points based on your submission. If I did not think you were correct, I pointed it out and showed it as well; where I agreed with you, I also pointed out the same.

We can all help this very important matter by being fair to ourselves - where we agree, we do so; where we disagree, we do so. We don't have to quarrel about anything, keep harping on issues that are not even there, scuttle around queries while claiming that others are not answering our questions, and refrain from using uncouth language on any pastor who abuses the subject (for the simple reason that we are all guilty on either side of the divide with extremes). If later on, anyone is interested, I would be all too glad to share why I tithe without anyone forcing or demanding it of me.

I do hope you can forgive my tone and hope we can find a more enabling atmosphere to talk.

Shalom.

@KunleOshob,

Good morning. I trust you've been blessed all the while.

KunleOshob:
@pilgrim
You can now see i am not the only one that has problems with your submissions, the truth is that you have said a lot on this thread but then again you have said nothing the problem being that you keep dancing around in circles and you never hit the nail on the head and if at all you have any point it is always lost in your lenghty posts. All the links(your previous posts) you provided don't say anything, they are merely form without substance and lacking in sound scriptural basis.

Kunle bros, I actually would not have wanted to reply your ideas above - because it is quite dishonest. Partisan loyalty from people who refuse to read issues is not the same thing as being honest - and that was why I had wanted to leave this issue until people confuse themselves all over again.

If you and several people do not want to see the point in my inputs, no wahala. But to come back and repeat the same things I have dealt with and then keep harping on what nobody is saying here is actually a bore. WHAT precisely were the questions? And what precisely did I not answer thereto? Even so, what have you guys actually done in going back to those Scripture references and point out that what I quoted and stated are NOT written in those verses? Has any one of you shown any such obligation to do so? No. But then you come back alleging that I have said nothing - as if those links are opening to blank pages.

KunleOshob:
You would have to do much better and be more precise if you are going to get your message across.

I have done so. I only went into detail when people stared asking a lot of questions they had carried with them for quite a while - questions which they had before I posted anything here. If the several appeals I raised that we face the Word and not the slurs went largely unheeded, what is the worry in the matter now that you assume your problems have been about what I posted? What exactly have I been saying since last year 2007?!? Is it not the same thing over and over and over again?!? People did not pay attention to them, and that is why I simply wanted to chill out and let them get as confused on the issue instead of coming back playing these euphemistic games of 'pilgrim.1 you are saying nothing!'

If it has blessed those who are always bitter about this matter, all well and good. Bitterness does not carry us anywhere - and that was the first thing I started pointing out. I find it very tedious and funny that all the while I was discussing issues from Scripture, the lot I read from you and those opposed to tithing are just repeated castigation against men who have derailed - as if that was helping your views. When I posted just one example of how very hideous antagonists can be in this matter, you guys smarted up and came back with the idea that nobody has been taking an extreme position.

One thing with me is this: I can be firm when needs be, and I'm not ashamed to state what I believe, be that ever so passionate. What I shy away from is duplicity and euphemistic games from our brethren. If we are all saying that TITHING is Christian Liberty (as TV01 graciously and aptly put it), my question is this: WHY THEN HAVE WE BEEN ARGUING at all?!? Why not let Christians who tithe to enjoy that liberty instead of using that as a platform to attack others?

I'm sorry if I sound really firm this morning: I'm not upset even then. It's just that I have offered to be left out of this games for now and concentrate on other issues. . . until such a time when occasion may invite inputs from me. If the heat rages on here, I might as well go to another thread and share why pilgrim.1 is a tither without anyone coercing her to do so.

KunleOshob:
Sarmy asked you a precise question which required a precise answer ( what is yout definition of tithes?) and you avoided answering the[b] very simple [/b] question, the reason being your definition of tithes obviously does not have any scriptural basis and your defining it here in concrete trems would only ridicle your position hence your decision to avoid answering.

I promised I was going to come back and answer that question - and I have done so in many other posts previously - that was why I clearly repeatedly posted those links!!!!! I don't shy away from questions - brief where I can help it, detailed where more questions come. if you're worried about not reading answers in mine, where have you or anonimi answered the few questions I have often asked you repeatedly?

Bros Kunle, again like I said. . . pilgrim.1 could take a chill for now so that nobody misreads me as being upset. I'm going to be very firm here because I don't think these games are helping anyone here - not you, not me, not any other. I apologise upfront if I have to be - but until you guys settle down and get to grips with your summations, just don't take any notice of me till then.

Much grace.

Zephaniah 3:17

The LORD thy God in the midst of thee is mighty;
He will save, he will rejoice over thee with joy;
He will rest in his love, he will joy over thee with singing.

@Hnd-holder,

Long time no see, no hear, no read. . ! It's all good.

[quote author=Hnd-holder link=topic=74061.msg2940032#msg2940032 date=1223975476]The Bible is a library were catholics kept the scriptural records written in scrolls . The scrolls were turned into books when Printing press came around the 14th century. Catholics wrote the Bible from the traditions.[/quote]Be careful small-small. Catholics did not "write" the Bible - unless you're saying that Moses and the prophets were 'Catholics'.

mazaje:
why does and all powerfull force/being who all everything need money from his creation? why do people have to offer unto god? is a a mafia cappon? why do people need to sow seeds? but then again god owns all things. he owns all things and needs to be given money to massage his ego. . . . . open your eyes people. . . . . .

@mazaje,

How body?
What's your problem, mazaje? Has He asked you to give Him anything and forced it on you?

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:
@reindeer
Yes I agree that there is a total difference between how it is practiced in the new testament, but I feel something very important was missed. Why were these things not fully banished? Jesus himself said he did not come to abolish these laws.

Were the LAWS you are referring to given to Gentiles?

[quote author=Okija_juju link=topic=151765.msg2933109#msg2933109 date=1223845514]My Answer; It dosent matter the amount, the questionis what part did God play in earning you the cash.
Lets say I am a practicing criminal (e.g a Yahoo boy), and one of my Magas pays up, does God deserve a fadden?? Remember that he doent support my business, neither does he promise me anything in return even if I split my cheese in two halfs and give him the larger cut.[/quote]The first point here is whether you count as one of His worshippers. He's not asking 'Yahoo boys' to give anything if they have not given their hearts to His love in the first place.

@Chrisbenogor,

In the replies just above, I noted that you were holding on to just one premise for your inability to believe in the Biblical revelation of God; even though you argued that it is not so. No wahala. However. .

Chrisbenogor:
Now to the other issues, pilgrim it would be stupid of me to hold on to this one issue and say that's why I do not believe in the way Christianity paints God, if you go some posts back you will see where I said it is one of the foundations, you can call it a pillar but it is just one of them.

Let me just ask a question here: since I observe the highlight above as to your concerns, question is -

      WHAT are you going to do now, since you cannot believe in God as revealed in the Bible?

Just curious, if anything other than that.

Bless.

Chrisbenogor:
2. For Christians to admit that those actions were wrong, that is where I question Christian honesty,

I'm not one of those who "admits" that those actions were wrong. People may allege therefore from this that such a thinking makes me a killer, and that would be a wasted idea based on deliberate falsehood. To "admit" that such actions were wrong is to deliberately ignore the very foundation of man's own nature way back in Genesis 4 and 6 and then keep harping again and again on the warfare of the Israelites.

Chrisbenogor:
you might not agree here on Nairaland and I do not need you to all I intend to do is to strike that which is in you to show compassion even to the wicked which Christ came down and did, so how in the heck is he the Son of God, mind boggling.

Aren't you postulating an imploding statement that suffers a sudden inward collapse here? You are asking me to show the same compassion as in Christ, and then you question that same Christ as being the Son of God! You're already creating a huge problem for yourself and your readers. If you are asking to "strike" a compassion in me which I derive from Christ, and then question that same Christ, what in the world are you really saying?

Chrisbenogor:
I hope the bigger picture is getting clearer now, it is not that this one issue no, I am saying Christ had ample time to say well you know moses took it to the extreme to wipe out people like that, better still if Christ did not why is nobody saying it among the Christian community, why?

If you're waiting to put words in Christ's mouth, does that solve your dilemma? Let us even assume that many people in the Christian community would say what you're asking, would you jump at the offer to receive God's love then? If not, why NOT?

You see Chris, I wasn't kidding when I said I've been through this issue before I became a Christian. The one thing that brought me to Him was an honest evaluation of my own heart. In simple terms: if I set some moral standards for myself, would I truly believe in and apply that standard in my own life? In the same way: if anyone said what you're asking them to say, would that have made you believe in this "loving God known as FATHER"??

The real issue here is not what you're suggesting - and may I dare say that we (you and I) know it deep in our hearts. This is why I said that I'm not one of those who "admits" those actions you complain about in the Bible are "wrong" - because even if I should acquiesce, you still would stand where you are not not make a move closer to Christ. What then would have been the benefit of my compromise?

Chrisbenogor:
The main reason I was getting agitated was that no I am not lending credibility to the atheists, no be them holy pass we know but that is not what is disturbing me, it is how a God that is supposed to be loving order this when my mere mortal instincts are screaming that they are wrong.

"Mere moral instincts" instincts should have told you that consistency is seriously lacking in your submissions - and I don't mean that in a rude way. If you tell me that the warfare is not the one thing that disturbs your ideology, we would have seen the other things that you would have presented. But it's even more difficult for you to convince anyone that you have any other real issue than this one, and while trying to disengage from it, you're still harping on it.

Lol, Chris. . I should not have gone this length - but just to show you what I meant at the beginning: you're still on the same page on this issue even though you say it is actually not this one.

Chrisbenogor:
I have been fortunate, or unfortunate if you want to put it that way to be in crisis torn zones, in fact ever since 1999 I have had been encountering these things, most people never know what it is like to be in the real battle front, it is only then that you will appreciate the numbers, have you ever passed by the way and seen a ghastly motor accident where legs and arms were chopped off and you felt like you wanted to vomit, then you do not know what is going to hit you if the number we are talking about is in the hundreds not to talk of the thousands I do not even want to comprehend one million and for them to be killed with swords, gross.

While I appreciate your narration there, may I also suggest to you that so many of us here have seen warfare - both religious and non-religious violence. Not many Nigerians are ignorant of recent civil unrests in Nigeria; I also have seen things happen right in front of my eyes in Pakistan; others have been and still live with wars every single day. In spite of this, how in the world are these people able to come to a saving faith in the same loving God that people have a problem with because of Jesus? The excuse has always been the same for those who say they cannot believe - it has always been the "killing with swords", not so? Ask some of these people why that should even be a reason at all - and you would predictably hear them say that is not the issue they hold unto for their inability to believe. You sound more like doing that same thing Chris. . and I'm sorry that there's nothing new here that you have presented. That is why I have not sought to push the "God" question on your submissions - but rather asked you to take a look at the morality of man without God. Do you feel any better then?

Chrisbenogor:
Men like me could protect ourselves, we could run faraway and try to survive, but women and kids it poses a real challenge for them, more so, it is a known rule that when someone is unarmed you are not supposed to kill that person even if he was putting on a soldiers uniform that is why they are called prisoners of war POW, women and children are not taken because it is just inhumane to kill them, they are "weak" in a sense, please note that I am talking in a general sense.

I appreciate your general sense; but if you actually look at real scenarios in warfare - how many men are able to "run"? At least, I have seen things with my own eyes and very thankful to have stayed alive. But even when people are running, how many men died in such running is something that may stagger us.

Regards.

Dear Chrisbenogor,

Good morning. You did the right thing to have taken a good sleep and be refreshed to share your thoughts. I did the same.

Chrisbenogor:
Now to the other issues, pilgrim it would be stupid of me to hold on to this one issue and say that's why I do not believe in the way Christianity paints God, if you go some posts back you will see where I said it is one of the foundations, you can call it a pillar but it is just one of them.

I may be mistaken; but it seems to me that this very point (the 'mass killing') has often (or always) been the very underlying current for rejecting faith in the Biblical God. Let me remind you of a recent example that accentuates this:

[list][list]

That is my problem, not       that it is the christians that did it but it is the same God that ordered it you believe in, personally I cannot believe in a God that would order those mindless killing of women and children its sick, and that is where my problem with Jesus comes in

[/list][/list]

. . so there. Even reading through your reposte this morning, one is struck that it is that very feature that is highlighted yet for the same inability to believe in God. I already noted that as long as that is the one thing people are holding unto for their "inability" to put their trust in Him, they have not been asking the real questions of their own hearts - and that is why this search for a "cardboard religion" of a complacent 'god' will lead nowhere, nor will that satisfy the deepest longings of your own heart or anyone else's.

The two points you highlighted below are saying basically more or less the same thing; but even so, I'll oblige some comments on them:

Chrisbenogor:
Not at all, let me make something a bit clearer for you, I think personally that you or no one would be able to give reason to those mass killings what I always try to achieve is simple,

It all depends on what "answer" you're seeking. One possible reason was the sovereignty in God's holiness, which I hinted earlier as the one thing that terrifies man. Yet, that answer may not go down well with people holding on to this 'warfare' hiatus; and it is understandable why the natural mind is unable to grasp that point.

Chrisbenogor:
1 That the way God has been painted in the bible is askew, there is no Moral symmetry in the actions of God and his well known prophet, take the case of the Golden calf for example, people tell kids these stories without letting them even know that Moses ground the calf and mixed with water and gave the Hebrews to drink, what do I call that plain simple torture no amount of painting to me will make that right, he also went ahead and ordered the levites to draw their swords and murder their friends. Let's not forget that Aaron who made the calf in the first instance was honored with being the high priest. The point I am trying to underscore is that this does not fit into the moral, just and loving father God is often potrayed to be these days, there is a great shift in the NT and Christians still believe in this "God".

Chris, hang on a minute - it seems to me that you've run ahead of your thinking here. Listening to someone like you narrate reports the way you just did would just mislead the listener. Please go back and understand the reason for Aaron giving in to the desires of the people - the Golden Calf idea did not start with him; and all he did to restrain the people involved just didn't yield any fruit. You know what? Even in our day, this principle holds true: if a man is set in his ways to do evil, God will let that man drive on his desire and face the consequences - and that is after several warnings have been given.

Secondly, I wonder that if your problem is that people don't tell kids the details of the event such as the driking of ground dust etc, why is it that history classes do not tell kids the details of atheistic murders? Yea, I know that will flag up the same excuse again as to "condemning" every sort of mass killing; but are you not here doing the same thing in highlighting the case in the OT and yet never able to grasp the reason for how it is that a man opposed to Jews in particular would become a killing machine without God's help?

Third, when you posit that this issue rests on the moral nature of God as being called a loving 'Father', the question drives right back to ask what kind of morality you are envisaging for yourself. On the one hand, you offer that this warfare is not the real issue for your lack of faith in Him; on the other hand you are not too keen to seriously face up to the question of what man is without God - loving Father or not. Like I said, the warfare is not the one thing that kept me from His love; and if that is even an issue, my simple question is this: show me a morality that has helped man stop his own destruction without the help of God or religion.

Fourth, people who go on and on about God's morality not fitting with His loving nature based on those warfares are failing to see that even in the NT, the same God declares that He will definitely judge evil men! NO? Now, dear Chrisbenogor, what kind of 'god' serves your morality if he/it leaves wicked men unjudged at the end just because you cannot believe in 'God'? That's why I'm not pushing the Biblical God on your submissions; but the problem here is that even trying to discuss your own assumptions are giving you more questions unanswered than you are seeking from harping on the warfare of the Bible.

If we are going to be honest on this point, then the very thing you are asking should be applied both ways - history classes for kids should also be as revealing in telling kids the details of the murders from atheist leaders; and if that is not 'good' for their health, where is your own morality to ask that kids be told the details of Moses case but not the ones done by atheists?

Kai, 11, Takes Eighth Countdown Win

Press Assoc. - Monday, October 13 05:12 pm
______________________________________________________________________

https://d.yimg.com/i/ng/ne/pressass/20081006/15/3506439944-third-win-young-countdown-champ.jpg?

An 11-year-old boy has became the youngest winner of Countdown's "Octochamp" title
in 20 years. Kai Laddiman from Broad Oak, East Sussex, beat Richard Pascoe, a market
research manager from Leeds, by 105 points to 55.

This was his eighth win in a row, earning him the game show's Octochamp crown and
making him the second youngest Octochamp in the programme's 26-year history.

The record-holder is Allan Saldanha, who became an Octochamp in 1988 at the age of 10.

Kai trounced his opponent after spotting the nine-letter word "thirteens" in the last
round. He then took six seconds to solve the conundrum, rearranging the anagram
"nicejoint" to form the word "injection."

He grinned happily, sighed with relief and gave a big thumbs up after winning.

He said: "It felt brilliant to win, it was so amazing. I wasn't expecting to go that far.
I thought I could but I didn't think I would." His mother Naomi Laddiman said
she was "very proud" of her son.

Kai's victory propelled him to the number two position on the series leader board
and earnt him a place in the series final in December.

The series winner will receive a limited edition leather-bound dictionary and
encyclopaedia set, which may be taller than Kai if all the volumes were stacked on
top of each other.

______________________________________________________________________


source: Yahoo News

Hi TV01,

TV01:
Yes 0! All this talk of deeper meaning, allowing God to show us what we are not seeing, hallowed part etc etc. This would suggest a revelation of sorts or at least an insight/understanding that we are not seeing.

But no problem. I would therefore request that you share! If you cannot share for some reason, why go there? If it's divine say so, if you cannot reveal it, advise. If it's your own study or by dint of scholarship, again, I would exhort you to share.

If all these are mere symptoms of a restlessness you should clearly say so. How many times do you have to keep harping on issues like this as if you are largely unware that they have been dealt with? This is why tedious repetitions are not helping this discussion - I already have shared on these matters, and posted links in direct response to your own queries:

       https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1312.html#msg2908410

       https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1344.html#msg2918203 (repetitions)

       https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1376.html#msg2918691 (summary outline)

       https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1376.html#msg2921847 (again detailed)

       https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1376.html#msg2922746 (reiterated)

      https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1216.html#msg2884413

      https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1248.html#msg2885787 (succinct here)

      https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1248.html#msg2888222 (reiterated)

      https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1248.html#msg2888480 (addressed again)

      https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1248.html#msg2888555 (again outlined)

If after sharing on all these repeated queries and people simply are not interested, it is not a worry at all - I have often said that I wasn't "trying to make anyone bend to my persuasions or just accept anything".

The least I expected anyone to do was go to those same references from Scripture that I offered and show that what I pointed out was not even written in those texts - is that too much to ask? Instead of dismissing them out of hand and then resort to all this euphemistic games, one would have expected issues are discussed as we find them in the Word. If people are not willing to do so, I have offered to just let the matter be for the meantime.

Regards.

@Chrisbenogor,

Lol, calm down o. . no need for the frayed nerves. Let's talk, hmm?

Chrisbenogor:
And which I agree with, only that is not the issue here that's my point, the Issue is God ordered the mass killings, they were carried out by Moses , it was wrong to kill women and innocent children, that is the issue here.

And who ordered this:??

Hitler did 43 million with air planes and war tanks

. . see, we can go on and on and on about this issue, but you're missing the gist here. Let's assume that God was in the picture - your worry is the killings. Now again, let's assume that God is not in the picture - do you have your answer now? or did Hitler et al spare "women and children"?

And by the way, I find this refrain of "women and children" a really stupid thing for anyone to always say when trying to defend their position - as if the life of men are any less valued! What's with the thick emphasis in your quote on "women and children" - did men not go through those same worries? I'm not being particular on you; but it just sort of raises my brows to hear the same cliche every so often as if the lives of men are by any means devalued.

Chrisbenogor:
True , my point? God and Moses were responsible for the gruesome death of those twenty something million innocent people they have to moral right to tell me what to do!

And who was responsible for the "43 million with air planes and war tanks" quoted in yours? Your point is a bit on the tangent, bro. . . because it's easy to point fingers and harp always on "God and Moses dunnit!" And for all that, who "dunnit" in the atheist case?


Now, dear Chris. . I no wan vex you, so relax. You see eh, my palava is not the wars that worry you. Like I said, I have asked these questions, used them the way you did, even more than all this; but how did those queries settle the deepest longing of my own heart on the 'God' question? And yours? Does it make any sense to keep harping endlessly on this one issue as if that is the only thing that gives the atheism itself a pat on the back.

No, I'm not trying to wax philosophical or complex again: all I'm doing is asking you to calm down and think for yourself if those queries will answer the deepest longing of your own heart, or you would really need to get to grips with your own struggles? I assume we can agree that endlessly harping on these war questions does not bring anyone closer to the real answers for our own hearts.

JeSoul:
Hehe Pilgrim it's okay sis, don't get defensive because I wasn't taking a shot at you with my "redundant" comment . From my vantage point, you all agree on this:

These we can all agree on, abi I'm wrong?

Now as for the "extremes" that you mentioned, I do agree with you its wrong to take either end of the spectrum. And I suppose part of your gripe is to get a few others to accept that?
A few of us recognized that from following this very animated thread for pages now , part of why I said things were being repeated, its just that with the sheer volume of other points being raised the essence of that fact has been lost n buried and given way to regressing to 10% or 1% or this offering or that offering.

@Jesoul,

Lol, I wasn't trying to be defensive about anything; nor was I trying to make anyone bend to my persuasions or just "accept" anything. I believe there's a balance on this matter, and that's what I've been trying to share. If going into details was sort of making the discussion cumbersome, perhaps I should just let it be until much, much later.

Blessings.

@sarmy,

sarmy:
I'm trying very hard to see beyond the ordinary, especially from your perspective, reason why I kept coming back to you.

It seems you've got a kind of revelation of it and also trying very hard to explain it. Is there a mystery to that name tithe and from your perspective, how do you define tithe (I'm sorry if this has been mentioned b/4)

There's nothing to be apologetic about. The one thing I've often drawn the attention of the reader to is what has been highlight in yours. The other question you raised will be answered subsequently.

Blessings.

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:
@pilgrim

Lol, you simply may be unaware that you're living by that code. What is the code? I would leave you to go and find out about the basic premise of their philosophical ideology of a life without God.

Sister you are absolutely wrong, totally absolutely, trust me you could never be wronger in the whole of Nairaland, hitler I know very well what his silly Ideologies were, Stalin was just a power hungry sucker I read up not too long ago. I do not subscribe to their school of thought or anyone's for that matter, that I have my views about religion does not give me the right to enforce it on anyone, my code is simple would I like to be shot like a pig for believing what I do, HELL NO!

Lol, I might graciously condescend that my assumptions may be wrong - if at all you presented anything new. That's why I simply left you to go find out. What is the denominator again? 'A life without God' - was that any different from Hitler and Stalin? And was that different from the same premise you had opined earlier that you cannot believe in a 'God' of whom you read in the Bible? No, I have not classed you on the same ideology as Hitler's and Stalin - but I suggested all the same that it narrows down to just one code, viz - a life without God.

Chrisbenogor:
Again I think you are just dancing around the point which is simple really, making it complex will not really help either of us in this discussion dearie,

Hmm, if I wanted to be philosophically complex, I would have done so. That was as simple as I could put it across for you to digest; but if you could not, no worries. The basic assumptions from your arguments still await your own answers rather than merely postulating what you question but have no answers thereto.

Chrisbenogor:
was Hitler a prophet of some religion, did he drop a moral code that Christians live by? Better yet how about we sub Hither for Moses, I think Moses did pretty well without the state of the art technology he was responsible for the death of close to 25 million people, Hitler did 43 million with air planes and war tanks. I mean Moses was a five star General that killed women and kids same way Hitler did , still no one has a problem with that. Seriously Nne, me i think Hitler was a disgusting human being who had no reason to keep living, same goes for Moses no apologies.

I did not make Hitler a cross-breed of Moses; and I earlier stated clearly that even the other example outside of Hitler did not suggest that I was positing Communism, atheism and Christianity on parallels, remember? The one thing I had brought to your attention all along (details apart) was simply to turn your gaze to one thing: man does not need religion to be able to destroy himself. So, all the query of Moses and David et al is really scuttling behind the excuse of not really looking at the same issue from men without a religious affinity. Was that toooooo complex to grasp?

Chrisbenogor:
Moses's was even more despicable because he was annihilating people that lived in the lands they were born, there is no painting or rigmarole would get anyone out of this, how do you think this poll would fare, Do you think Hitler was evil? as against Do you think Moses was evil?

The slagging has gone on for much too long. My point? Atheism in the hearts of men does not project a better scenario.

Regards.

Hi lelele,

I owe you a lot of apologies - and I'll explain when I light up at YIM. Thanks for being so patient with me.