₦airaland Forum

Okay, good people. . . I've had a good laugh, and I was not supposed to do so. Please forgive me - knowledge is given to us by God to help one another, and not dampen the spirits of our loved ones. Would you be gracious to pat this silly pilly on the head (even konks sef are welcome)!

First, FifiO. . no vex - I wanted you to go back and see the verses again and study it closely before drawing that inference. The verse you were actually looking for was verse 28 of Numbers 18, which you did not quote. Yes, indeed: the Levites gave a part of the heave offering to Aaron the priest, but have you checked carefully what they gave? You said it was 10%, and explained that as -

"which was 1% of what the isrealites gave to him (Num 18:26-27)"

That was why I asked if 1% was the same as 10%? We may say that they could be the same; and so we would be making the mistake of assuming that it was either 1% or 10% . . or we are not sure. Ah, someone might say, it was 1% when considered from Aaron's point of view - my question would be: would Aaron be counting that as Israel's tithes or as the tithes of the Levites? No matter how one slices it, where exactly is the 1% and 10%?

As far as the real value is concerned, I'll come back again and point out where they are - still in that Numbers 18, which you probably missed and therefore assumed that we expounge the idea of any 'hallowed' part in all the offering. No wahala, I'll try to come back and quote them out.

Regards.

@sarmy,

Okay. . . I've just a few moments to while away; so here:

sarmy:
It's difficult to accept that TITHE can be 1% or 10% or that the % does not really matter

So, what in your view is TITHE? I have no problem seeing what it is in Scripture; and I don't think that I have so far been saying that it doesn't matter. What I have done so far are two things:

(a) refrain from staying on a particular percentage (1% or 10%)-
because that is not what is paramount in the tithes.

(b) engage on the meaning of tithes, rather than just seeing
only a traditional definition of it as "10%".

If people say it doesn't matter, I won't (and haven't) pushed the matter - because I know for sure they would still come back sooner than later to say it is difficult to see it any other way. That is why I have simply tried to leave matters in God's hands and let Him show us what we are not seeing. . . afterall, we all learn from each person's contribution.

sarmy:
Tithe is widely known as tenth of a thing or 1/10 of something

No wahala. . . as you continue to study it, you will come to see things and then I wonder what you would say later on.

sarmy:
Numbers 18:26-27 NIV version
26 "Speak to the Levites and say to them: 'When you receive from the Israelites the tithe I give you as your inheritance, you must present a tenth of that tithe as the LORD's offering. 27 Your offering will be reckoned to you as grain from the threshing floor or juice from the winepress


In as much as children of God (NT) can give to God as blessed by Him, there is no reason why it MUST be called tithe b/4 it's acceptable to God.

No wahala. . there's no reason why anyone would want to call it any other term and still be vexed by it. We are now used to the recurring phrase "just give". . as we get along we shall see how very misleading such a concept is. For now, I won't push the matter.

sarmy:
None of the early churches named their giving TITHE, absolutely none. Thanks

NONE of the early churches named their giving by any term - go and read it and find any. Again, none of the early churches used the terms we use to speak about so many things in Christianity - and we still believe in and practise those things, NO?

I've appealed, dear brother. . as long as we keep searching for names, terms, %, frequency, LAW, etc about this matter, the further it will continue to confuse us until we set our eyes beyond those ordinary matters and seek the real meaning of what we are discussing. Does it not have any meaning at all? If not, end of story - we can as well throw the whole thing over the bridge and live as we choose, No?

Blessings.

@sarmy,

sarmy:
Hi Pilgrim,

It's difficult to accept that TITHE can be 1% or 10% or that the % does not really matter

Tithe is widely known as tenth of a thing or 1/10 of something

Numbers 18:26-27 NIV version
26 "Speak to the Levites and say to them: 'When you receive from the Israelites the tithe I give you as your inheritance, you must present a tenth of that tithe as the LORD's offering. 27 Your offering will be reckoned to you as grain from the threshing floor or juice from the winepress

Lol. . . okay, since you and FifiO and a few of us are often making a mistake here, I'll come back and share. The verse that Fifio (and the rest of us) have been looking for is verse 28 of Numbers 18.

That is why I have been holding on for now. I'll reply soonest. Cheers.

@TV01,

TV01:
Did Jesus pay tithes?

I doubt it, he was a carpenter by profession and not from a land owning family that I can tell. The tithe was always on agricultural/land based produce. Livestock or arable crops. It was never money, so the poor, disenfranchised etc would not be liable or considered in default.

My dear brother, I urge you to please go back and spend some time on this matter and not to just be cemented on one assumption, no matter how many times you think you have read it. I am begging you, because you may have no opportunity to come back and shy away from this assertion if your errors are pointed out. Let's not be too much in haste to understand issues.

TV01:
Indeed, tithe was in part meant to cater for such. It makes little sense to demand a tithe from those whom it was meant for.

My brother, try and go back and see it O. . . you may be arguing from a secular humanistic ideology and not actually seeing what is there. I am begging.

TV01:
Or insist on a tithe of a poor persons recipt of the tithe distribution?? Although a heartfelt freewill offering in appreciation would be kind of cute !

Is this now a matter of 'kinda cute' thingy that we have no interest to look into the Word? I'm just wondering.

TV01:
Extreme?

It's extreme to claim curses accrue for not paying tithe, it's also lie.

Please, please and please - go back and see that the extremum is applicable to both those arguing for and against tithes in Scripture. I have given an example already - there are so many others I could easily repost here, but I don't want to scare anyone to see what tithe-antagonists have said about their brethren.

TV01:
It's extreme to claim hell for those who pay, but if you do pay as a mandatory obligation based on the law, it's very dangerous, why needlessly fall from grace.

I don't think it is healthy to keep repeating this issue ad hominem - we have stated it since last year 2007 that it is not MANDATORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! To keep harping on what nobody is saying is not helping the health of this discussion.


Regards.

olabowale:
@Pilgrim.1: « #281 on: Yesterday at 03:08:11 PM » 
Don't forget that I love you so much as I love any of my womanfolks. lol. Pilgrim, you make me laugh. We are educating ourselves about matters of religion and nothing else. Okay. I know you are ducking my questions. Others have been carrying the waters for you. All there is for me is to be sure that your conscience is continued to be challenged. Nothing else!

You had every opportunity to defend your Islam without waiting to jump at my post and come back with this excuse of loving me. My conscience is quite at peace in Christ, that is why I'm not restlessly jumping here and there on issues about your religion.

@FifiO,

FifiO:
You two, the issues you've provoked has not ended, don't shake hands just yet.

Lol, as for me, I no dey spend eternity on any issues "provoked". . . and my handshake still remains.

FifiO:
1.Tithe can be any amount: Guys, that's the first and biggest problem here.

It is not a big problem - just calmly go and study the matter and you will see it.

FifiO:
In fact, the isrealites paid 10% tithes,levites paid 10% tithe to Aaron, which was 1% of what the isrealites gave to him (Num 18:26-27), but ultimately no one paid 1% tithe to God.
So, exponge the word tithe, unless it is the 10th part, or 10%

You're funny! I have small kweshuns. .

   (a) where did the Levites pay tithes to Aaron in Numbers 18:26-27?!?

   (b) so your 1% is the same thing as 10%?!?

You see, it seems the problem we have in the Body of Christ is this attitude of reading issues too much in a haste and missing the essential features of what we're reading. I don't want to be tedious, and I'm not harping on you, FifiO. . . but here is just one case that persuades me that we often jump to conclusions on so many matters. So, please kindly quote out Numbers 18:26-27 and show us where the Levites paid 10% to Aaron. That will be helpful, and then just perhaps it might help you go back and revise your submissions on the other points you had raised.

Shalom.

Hi all,

I am almost falling off my chair with these games I read here. Maybe people have to go back a few pages and re-read issues before making anything redundant.

What actually amazes me is that after arguing back and forth, we all now come back condenscending to the very same highlights we have tried to once ridicule. I only went into detail because I knew it would come back to this same point: "we are all agreed". May I ask: agreed on "what", precisely?

You see, rather than be tedious over this matter, perhaps we need to be reminded that people have adopted extreme positions on this subject - and the post showing the man who condemned tithers to hell is just an example. What essentially would I "agree" with such a thinker? That the fellow is any better than those who call a "curse" on non-tithers? Haa!

It is not recently we began to state that tithing or any kind of giving in the NT is not made mandatory to anyone. We kept saying so on so many pages - but NO, our friends were too occupied with their own tradition to even listen at any point. That was why I asked anonimi directly if he thought Yomisays had any handle on this matter. Why? For the simple reason that he was following the very same extremum from the guy who condemned tithers to HELL! Oh, sorry. . . I was to "agree" with that, yes?

If people do not appreciate the meaning of tithes as is taught in Scripture, no worries. But why often refer to tithes as FRAUD? The compromise here was for them to have kept forcing that idea until they lost the steam, and now come back saying we did not think it was "mandatory" - as if that was breaking news and has not been stated so clearly so many times.

Make una enjoy. . I guess the same worries would have remained if no one ever drew our attention to those who condemn tithers to HELL.

@m_nwankwo,

How body?

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=159045.msg2935604#msg2935604 date=1223903433]I guess you have a reason for usinig inverted comma with respect to the son of God. Reading the above may imply that the son of God as given in the Grail Message is similar to that of the Bahai faith. The son of God as given in the Grail Message has no relationship with Bahai teachings. According to the Grail Message, Jesus is the son of God because he is an incarnation of God.[/quote]Where did you read me making this implication, m_nwankwo? Where did you read me making the inference that "the son of God as given in the Grail Message is similar to that of the Bahai faith"?

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=159045.msg2935604#msg2935604 date=1223903433]Bahai does not believe that Jesus is an incarnation of God even though it uses the term "son of God".[/quote]I don't remember saying that Bahai believes Jesus is the incarnation of God - or did you read me say so anywhere?

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=159045.msg2935604#msg2935604 date=1223903433]Neither do Bahai believe in Trinity. Stay blessed.[/quote]Did I say anywhere that Bahai believes in the Trinity?

I think asking questions should have helped you better, rather than reading things into my post there.

Enjoy.

Hi @KunleOshob,

My weekend was splendid, thanks.   And yours?

KunleOshob:
You keep missing the point Pilgrim.1, we are not really opposed to tithing what we are opposed to is the lies and fallacies some preachers preach about "compulsory tithing" which is manipulation of scripture and aimed at de-frauding faithful christians of their hard earded income. We have no problem with people paying tithes out of the goodnss of their hearts to worship God or further his work.
How was your wekend?

Well, perhaps I had been missing the point - and I'm thankful for that grace to bring it to my notice. The point in all this was that on both sides of the divide on this issue, people have said things that are way too extreme and not helpful. If we are all of the mind that Christians can gladly give tithes, there would even be no need to have debated this and the thread would not have grown over a thousand replies.

In any case, I thought it might be helpful for people to see just one example of how extreme an opposer of tithe can be. Yet, if we look at other abuses, the story doesn't change. Whether it is freewill giving, contributions, donations, tithes, or whatever else it is called - there have always been abuses where people have been defrauded. Tithes is not the only or most serious matter that one should argue on this point. To keep tithes as the main focus of this abuse only results in disaffections between believers.

Other money-matters that people use to defraud others are far more than tithes. People should not keep harping against tithes as if it is the basis of every evil that people do to be sentenced to HELL. If people want to sound the alarm against money-frauds, there are many more examples that are far serious than this matter. Has anyone been watching TBN lately?

Thank you again, dear brother. . . and may God continue to refresh your heart in His grace.

So, as hinted earlier:

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=272.msg2934442#msg2934442 date=1223889036]Abraham's faith has been frequently highlighted as well; but our friends opposed thereto vehemently disagreed; and I'll subsequently show an example of such an extremum.[/quote]There are two extreme positions on this issue to avoid:

(a) those who force a curse upon Christians for not tithing
(b) those who sentence Christians to Hell for tithing

What these fellows are doing is that, whether you tithe or not, you are still under a curse or going to Hell. Surprised? Well, look again.

If we worry about pastors who use tithe to curse Christians (using Malachi 3:9), it does not mean that non-tithers have said anything better. Yes, I know of people who, being vehemently opposed to tithing, have said exactly the same thing and worse - sentencing people to Hell because they tithe! Apart from two cases I have witnessed for myself, let me give one example found online by a man who is opposed to tithing. His argument? Here: "Tithing - the old lie that could send you to hell". He quotes Galatians 5:4 and uses that to teach that anyone who tithes has "lost their salvation" and had started "down the road to hell".

Typically, such a man argues tithes based only upon the Law; but like I have often highlighted, tithes came before the Law; and the writer predictably did not make any reference to that at all before concluding that Galatians 5:4 sends tithers to Hell!

Are these antagonists better than the pastors who use Malachi 3:9 to curse Christians for not tithing?

I mean, have we noticed that there is simply no difference between those who force a "curse" upon Christians (using Malachi 3:9), and antagonists who sentence Christian-tithers to Hell (using Galatians 5:4)?!?

These are extreme positions that have no bearing on the Word of God or the leading of the Spirit. So, people who often get so bitter about Christian-tithers need to go back and examine their own lives - often, this bitterness is simply a display of their own rebellious cleverness to be deliberately blind to the Word.


In summary - avoid extremes. Many people (for and against) have fallen into the mistake of being too driven on this, so that what we have looks like this:

(a) If you don't tithe: you are cursed - Malachi 3:9 says so!
(b) If you are a tither: (using Galatians 5:4) you have :
~ lost your salvation
~ started down the road to Hell

What is the difference between these extreme fellows who curse and sentence people to Hell whether they tithe or don't tithe?

This is why I appeal that if we are saying, as you did, that - "No one has denied the right of believers to tithe", why can't those opposed to tithing just simply allow others to enjoy this "Christian Liberty" instead of being driven to the extremum of sentencing them to HELL?

May God help us follow His grace as He leads.

Hallo TV01,

Good morning. 

I would like to first start by commending your resourcefulness and reason in neatly packaging your persuasions in comestible form. My comments:

TV01:
1. Tithing is permissable, but not mandatory - and like most opponents, opposition is to those that would make it mandatory, not tithing per se
2. I believe that in the fullness of NT living, it is redundant and with time one would see that. But why force it? Hence, Christian liberty
3. It cannot be justified/enforced under the law and the prophets or based on something else and then enforced by same
4. Abrahams sole instance was/is not a pattern or ordinance. Abrahams faith is the only pointer for NT Christians.

In summary, those points are the very thing we have all been saying. The pain started when antagonists tried to allege that tithers were justifying a position based on the LAW - thus 'compelling, cajoling, manipulating, demanding, forcing' tithes upon anyone, whereas no tither has been trying to do so. Abraham's faith has been frequently highlighted as well; but our friends opposed thereto vehemently disagreed; and I'll subsequently show an example of such an extremum.

TV01:
5. Confers no distinct or unique blessings over one who simply gives - whatever amount/frequency - with the right posture
6. I don't actually agee that God is obliged to respond to our giving in any form on the basis of some set pattern or return
7. I don 't believe that God ranks giving or distinguishes giving types or gifts/offerings and then responds accordingly
8. NT giving is predicated on need, also noting

Certainly, your persuasions are appreciated - and we can absorb them in brotherly love. However, I would not be tedious to us at this point, lest I run the risk of repeating the examples and discussions I already gave in outlining answers to them.

TV01:
9. the offering/worship element - #1459 - but in the NT dispensation I see no real examples of that, although I stand to be corrected.
10. Following on from 8 & 9, I'D be really interested to hear how one would worship God directly with any physical gift in this dispensation. New thread?

I would be delighted to share on those if and when necessary - with lucid examples, certainly.

TV01:
I'm happy to discuss any point, or any that you may raise, but after so long and with so little consensus, I appreciate that it may start to get circular and tedious.

Precisely. I have summarised the points earlier on a concensus many people have reached; but just so nobody gets confused mid-way about what I was sharing, it was necessary to actually discuss them in detail.

TV01:
I'll find time - or there'll be opportunity at some stage - to explain all the failed jokes/one liners !

That'll be helpful, but not necessary. All the same, warmest regards.

@paulipopo,

paulipopo:
Pilgrim.1

Without doubt we will both go on and on arguing without shifting ground. Feel free to hold on to what you believe but with regards to the attitude and that talk about trying to use scripture to justify my action I can honestly tell you that you are wrong, I was merely making an illustration and not trying to win an argument.

Thank you and that is all I have to say.

True, we may go on forever about this matter. Holding on to what I believe: it is not the Christian commission to go about slurring anyone; and there is no verse in the Bible I have seen that would help justify such an adventure. Simply what I hold.

Regards.

TV01:
3. we are only to have the faith of Abraham, not to marry close relatives -are you Ijebu ? - or lie to the king.

Haha! What are you saying? Make I speak Ijebu Ode lingo for you before you follow the faith of Abraham? Abi, how does that differ from "we are only to have the faith of Abraham"?

TV01:
4. nothing said to Christians as an ordinance or law or ritual or to suggest that it's a NT imperative

Em, what does 1 Corinthians 9:14 say in your Bible?

KJV - '. .so hath the Lord ordained that . .'

NIV - '. .the Lord has commanded that . .'

AMP - '. .the Lord directed that . .'

ESV - '. .the Lord commanded that . .'

ASV - '. .the Lord ordain that . .'

HCSB - '. .the Lord has commanded that . .'

Now, it seems quite an oxymoron for me to first argue that the Lord had "ordained" this ministry, and then come back and consistently say that the Christian is not COMPELLED to give anything. let me remind us:
___________________________________________________________
'When the apostle noted that the Lord had ordained the very same thing
for the Christian (1 Cor. 9:14), he did not argue to make it a compulsion or
force or make it binding on anyone - indeed he stated clearly that it was
not so written so that people would start feeling they must do it unto him
(verse 15). ~~ (see it here)
___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________
Get the point? Although he recognized that the Lord had ordained that
they which preach the Gospel should live by it, and thus recognizing the
same thing as his "rights and privileges", the point is that he did not use
his rights - a personal choice he made for himself. (see it here)
___________________________________________________________

TV01:
1. We are informed of the once, which was for the reason outlined above. It was not a law or ritual, it was symbolic to contrast types.

I don't remember having made it a ritual or law.

TV01:
2. unacceptable? your point here being? No one has denied the right of believers to tithe, but it's not Christian doctrine. It's Christian liberty.

You guys are funny. No one has denied the "right" of believers to tithe - and yet the same opposers of tithe had called it . . . what? Em, reminder:

False doctrine
Fraud
A Lie
(. . . even worse)

. . . are all the above the same things you call "Christian liberty"? Wait: if it is Christian liberty that believers have the right to tithe, then in heaven's name, WHAT IS THE ARGUMENT FOR ALL THIS LONG WHILE?!? Can people just let up and allow this Christian liberty to be enjoyed by those who are TITHERS as Christians?

TV01:
3. true, please see 3. above. We are not to ritualise his actions. I know, lets go to war and plunder some heathen potentate !

Again, I don't remember ritualizing his actions.

TV01:
4. 3 times, 2 are the same - the gospels - and are addressed to those under the law, but not understanding or living it, and once per 1. above.

Lol, you're still going round in circles. "Christian liberty" - remember? No worries - it seems to me that you guys are waiting to see the word "tithes" about 700 times before you recognize it is in the NT.

TV01:
Beyond the law are grace and truth, John 1:17. Giving is a grace 2 Corinthians 8

Again, I do not argue tithes based upon the Law.

TV01:
I recall the taxonomy of giving severally outlined earlier in the. It simply misses the point, the only drivers are need (and worship). The requirement is not to give, but too have the right spiritual posture when doing so.

I'm falling off my chair! I don't know why you choose to run in circles like this. First, you urged that we "leave out worship offering", then you come back and quickly type "worship" there. The drivers are "need", and you just assume it so, without having checked every single case out. Hmm, I don't think extremum is a very healthy posture to assume, though.

TV01:
You are only agreeing with me giving in response to need and worship. Finito. I leave out worship offering too 1. keep things simple, 2. I believe the bible shows giving to the needy is actually considered worship, 3. if one wishes to make the distinction and then give for either reason the introduction and use of the word tithe or employing notions like "hallowed" are essentially pointless at best and potentially dangerous.

You are too quick to dismiss what you seem lazy to check out. "Keep things simple" - and all I see in your repostes are exculpations driven to assertions that have not actually answered to the gist of what we have been discussing. I have posted reminders in the several links above for this issue, and I hope you would find them helpful.

TV01:
That sis' is the whole problem with your position. Its not only inconsistent, but also contradictory. It's not by law, but you defend it using the law. It's not compulsory, but it is an ordinance. It's not a set%age, but it is hallowed. Forcing a deeper meaning into it is just an attempt to justify it. Can't honestly be sold using the law, attaching blessing or curses is the flip side of the same coin and just wrong. Abrahams example was clearly symbolicand shown to be such in the only other NT reference in Hebrews. So finally, painted into a corner and running out of options, we spiritualise it? Enough already.

I agree - enough already, although I'm not inclined to lazy ideas. If you cannot see what is written, how then do you understand it? Okay, I may pass and excuse the fact that you resumed this discussion mid-way - and I have tried to post the links that address your worries. At least, you should have helped yourself to look directly in the Word before assuming an argument merely on what you read from others. If you do not find "ordained" in 1 Corinthians, one would have expected that you pointed it out, rather than assume I was contradicting myself. On the other hand, if you had seen that word "ordained" and read further to see that the apostle indeed did not force it on anyone, what would the problem be for you?

I'm not confusing issues, TV01 - I may be accused of all sorts, and they don't bother me. The one thing I find really sad with this attitude is that people often tend to close their Bibles, assume extremum, make direct accusations where their understanding fail them; and then worry about where they got off at the last stop. What is so difficult in opening the Bible and pointing out simply that:

(a) the word "ordained" was not used anywhere in 1 Cor. 9:14
(b) inspite of that, Paul did not make it compulsory to anyone (vv. 15 ff)

If you had opened the Scriptures and shown me those points, then you would have a point. But if I simply pointed them out and your argument was that I am confusing myself, you make me laugh. It only indicates to me that I don't have to worry anything about your assertions if you have never taken the time to study the subject for yourself. If these things are not in the Bible, just simply say so and then bring out all those verses quoted in mine and show that I had inserted words which are not there.

TV01:
Your only plank - short and shaky - is that it's a level one gets to. In that case why pursue it? Let them get there. And please, acknowledging that anecdotal evidence and personal experience do not constitute doctrine whilst citing lots of both is disingenious.

I have not built a doctrine out of my own experience, thank you. I think you should calm down and reason along rather than be too driven to extremum. . . such an attitude is quite unhealthy. Read the Word, share your views, be open to other's views rather than dismiss them out of hand. These are the things that help a dicussion. If you cannot make a move along such lines, what's my worry? As I have shown, after all your arguments, the one question is how you dismiss something and come back asserting it - so once again: WHAT IS THE ARGUMENT FOR ALL THIS LONG WHILE if you admit that believers have the "right" to tithe? Is that not smething you should rather have considered instead of trying to assume these extreme posture?

TV01, as always, what interests me most and draws me into a discussion is when people can go into the Word and discuss. I tend to shy away these days when words are merely flying in the air and saying absolutely nothing. The effort is well appreciated, though. . . but it would be more beneficial for people to go into the Word and share their own views instead of pretending that believers have the right to tithe and then come back castigating them yet under the idea that such disdain is to be mistaken for "Christian liberty". That is hardly grace.

TV01:
Kindest regards Miss, it's my pleasure. Apologies if I come across a bit terse, you know I flinch at - but admire - how much you can slap down in one post. Where's mein feisty Pilly, I'm not sure about this new "humble" person !!!

Okay, lol. . . I'll keep that in mind. I don't want to be silly all at once to lose the lessons I have learnt the past few months.

Warmest regards.

@TV01,

Most of the issues you raised again have been dealt with on this and other threads about the same subject - and it seems to me that you would just like to conclude ona default position before even examining what have been said in recent times. Even after these issues ahev been discussed, I might grant reminders as appropriate:

TV01:
You may well have attempted to make a point about the "hallowed part", firstly there is no such scriptural notion. And secondly, you have singularly failed to make it. Please thinkvon the application of "hallowed".

The application of the 'hallowed':

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)

TV01:
Giving - without classification - as a Christian notion is a response to a need predicated on a heartfelt compassion for man, bourne out of a love for God. What hallows it, is the attitude (heart/spiritual sincerity). Perhaps unintentionally, by focusing on the gift, you do no more than ritualise it. Just as a supplicants focus on the Giver, not the gift. Likewise, God's focus is on the giver not the gift.

What 'hallows' it is not the heart of the giver - it is the value God Himself places on it (Leviticus 27:30 & 32).

TV01:
So, it's not compulsory, yet it is ordained by the Lord? Is it an ordinance, a command, a sacrement, a law? Like communion perhaps? Could you kindly draw scriptural parallels or lend further insight to clarify what appears to be a contradictory statement.

Already highlighted and discussed earlier:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1376.html#msg2922428

TV01:
No one - at least not myself, is "vehemently opposed" - in the way you are suggesting, and I clearly outlined my premise and riders in my last post.

I didn't mean you in particular, though.

TV01:
a. as part of the mosaic/levitical law, and any arguments for a tithe drawing on the law must acknowledge this.

I do not base my arguments of the tithes on the LAW:

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)

There are principles in the Law that help us to understand the meaning and value of tithes; but that is not where I start from; nor is it where I see tithes every single time.

TV01:
b. whatever the %age, if stipulated as law, then a. comes into play.

But before the Levitical priesthood, where was tithe "stipulated as a law"?

TV01:
c. NT giving is only on the basis of need (lets leave out worship offering as I requested in my last post)

I don't think so:

~~ scroll down to "Not every example in the NT was about giving to the needy"
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-272.1248.html#msg2893431

~~ examples in the NT are not all on the basis of need:
I referenced the case of the widow's mites besides several others.

TV01:
d. it is if you use the law and the prophets to establish tithing as a NT notion

I do not base my arguments of the tithes on the LAW:

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)

There are principles in the Law that help us to understand the meaning and value of tithes; but that is not where I start from; nor is it where I see tithes every single time.

TV01:
I'll respond briefly point by point;

a. Abrahams case was to demonstrate the superiority of the Melchizedical priesthood over the Aaronic/Levitical. Once. Never before or after, repeated.

We've been through this before. My simple question was this: how many times before and after that incident did Melchizedek meet Abraham? If he did it once and God called it "tithes", what is the arguments there as if to call it something else?

TV01:
b. please cite examples outside the law

I have done so repeatedly.

TV01:
c. worship offering, please don't muddy the waters.

I never have - we have done this thread before.

TV01:
d. outside of Abrahams one of tithe for a specific reason please see a. - it was.

Please see my comment there.

TV01:
1. true, but that bolsters the position of those against

Far from it - those against tithes make so many excuses against Abraham's case and yet are not able to answer simple questions thereto. It seems to me it would have been better and easy for these guys (they wish) if Abraham's case was never called "tithe" in Scripture. Unfortunately, in both the OT and NT they are precisely called TITHES - and that was even before the LAW.

TV01:
2. likewise

Point made.

Dear paulipopo,

paulipopo:
@pilgrim1.

We may need to define judgment to really know what we are debating here.

I define judgment to mean an opinion you form about someone or something after thinking about observation caused by that person or thing.

Now to refer to Romans 14:4-10.

Clearly Paul was referring to hypocritical and self righteous Judgment when he said who are you to Judge the Lord's servant. Judgment in this case meant the use of a self imposed, self righteous and hence hypocritical standard for measuring the correctness in which other people served God. Paul makes mention of how some people consider one day more important than another and others consider all days alike (verse 5), verse 6 he says "whoever observes the day observes it for the Lord , "

Verse 10 merely recapitulated on his earlier posture in verse 4. Paul did not mean that we should keep quiet and not condemn actions that clearly breach Godly standards. Why would Paul 'Judge' the man who was sleeping with his father's wife (1 Corinthians 5: 1-5) and even recommend punishment for him. Or confront Peter for being cowardly in his biased posture against gentile Christians (Galatians 2: 11-14)?

Even in all what you stated, I don't see where you made anything more substantial for your case. Romans 14 v. 10 is a basic principle for which you will find many warnings about the attitude expressed in this topic. Looking at the sad cases of believers who fall into blame on some issues did not make the apostles anywhere refer to anyone as a phoney - and if those verses you quoted were to be used as justifying your adventures here, I'm sorry they do not.

Paul rebuking Peter did not go so far as to make the former refer to the latter as a 'phoney'. As an apostle, Paul could make a serious case to point out an issue to another apostle (Peter), but nowhere did he go the length of referring to him as a phoney and then seeking several verses in the OT to justify where he would have called Peter by such derogatory terms.

paulipopo:
Perhaps he was being hypocritical not practicing what he preached? or maybe the judgment he was talking about in Romans 14:4 is nothing like what he did in 1 Corinthians: 5 1-5 and Galatians 2 : 11-14?

Galatians 2:11-14 does not teach any Christian anything as taking up an adventure to go about slurring anyone, such as you're seeking to justify here with the derogatory term 'phoney' under the idea that you're seeking to "judge" a pastor. Again, 1 Corinthians 5:1-5 was apostolic - unfortunately, you don't stand as an apostle and cannot claim to be acting in that capacity. Besides, when Paul exercised his apostolic authority there, he did not even address the erring believer as a "phoney", did he? I think it would be more helpful to ask yourself what your capacity before God truly is, before you try to justify this misadventure from those verses you cited.

paulipopo:
James 3: 1 - 8 talks about the power of the tongue by especially mentioning that it cannot be tamed by human effort (verse 7) of course this is very true as the cliche 'slip of the tongue' confirms this.

The message is clear: be careful what matter you kindle with your tongue.

paulipopo:
However if we as Christians are to test the spirits and ensure that they are of God (discernment) how do we hope to do this without 'judging'?

We can "judge" if something is of God or not; but to justify an adventure of castigating anyone with such derogatory terms as "phoney" is not the same thing as 'discernment'. Perhaps those who are seeking to use this "discernment" to evaluate whether something is of God or not, should themselves look deep in their own hearts and ask if it is actually of God to go about with such an attitude. It is easy to call people names - the finger is always ready to point at others; however, it is not easy for the same people to sit down and look into their hearts and ask God if He sent them to do what they are happy to embark upon by slurring other people.

If people are teaching falsely, we can point these out; if they are doing things which are ungodly, we can point them out as well; if they are engaging in evil, we could as well bring out these matters - all these we can do without slurring anyone. The spirit that delights in castigating and enjoying such adventures needs to be checked. I have learnt my lessons, and I know what I'm talking about.

paulipopo:
That's my contribution and I hope it clears somethings about 'judgment'?

I understand you - and as you can see, 'judgement' (that is in context of "discernment" is not the same thing as castigating people with defamatory slurs.

Blessings.

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:
OK so one can basically ignore all instructions in the old testament, let me be more clear all those instructions that accompanied the ten commandments and the commandments itself are Christians bound by them? I asked this before if you can remember but that is even by the way side,

Yes, I remember we were having a discussion on the Law in relation to the NT, before it was invaded. The decalogue (Ten Commandments) in principle apply to the Christian life - but again, one has to ask a basic question of what covenant he/she is asking to live by the principles of the decalogue.

Chrisbenogor:
No they are an excuse it is the way they were carried out that is difficult to comprehend that the loving father who ordered it sent his son, I do not have a problem with the war, even though quite clearly the Hebrews did provoke it most of the time but no problem you can kill the soldiers, but the women and children that is sick and there is no excuse for that, take the case of the guy who stole some gold after Jericho fell down, not only was he killed his family was killed too and they were burnt, that is sick plain plain sick.

The problem here is that the murders we sometimes excuse on the hands of men in warfare without religion also involve women and children as victims. If it is sick just because you read it in a religious text, is it any better to excuse the history of these issues outside such texts? You see, the difficulty that many people make for themselves here is to magnify the case of Bible warfare and pretend that we do not find a sicker event in our own history around the world outside of a religious text. Why are we not complaining as much about those cases?

Chrisbenogor:
Hitler, Stalin and all atheists who killed people fall into the same category and I give no excuses for them or anyone regardless of color religion or political affiliation anyone who engages in killing the innocent and defenseless , if Hitler and Stalin did drop a code and I am living by that code or even looking at that code as some sort of moral guide then I am guilty.

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.

Chrisbenogor:
To make it clearer would be more like saying Hitler was a German dictator that murdered people, would that make anyone not want to be a German, certainly not! but if Hitler were a prophet of GOD then I do not think anyone would want to associate himself with that religion, see you cannot help being a German if you were born one, but religion is a choice and God does not change, he has been there and reading the history of the Jews gives us an insight into the nature of God who the Christians still believe in.

There's something that you have touched upon here - I deliberately left it in my previous reply. And that is this: Hitler was not born a German. Go and do a little research, and then come back and see that just in the same way, people cannot afford to be narrow about this issue and blame it on 'I was not born a German'. That is why I extended this issue to look outside of Hitler and talk about State-sponsored brutality as in the example of communist China. What is the connection there? Simply this - people choose to join Communism in just the way you highlighted for religion. They could leave Communism as well - at a very dire cost upon themselves.

I am not supposing to draw a parallel between Communism, atheism and Christianity. Rather, I'm asking that we calm down and look at a basic principle here: just because one finds this painful event of warfare should not be excuse enough to reject the other issues involved in any worldview. If I were looking at atheism, for instance, it is not Hitler, Stalin, Communist China that would be the big issue for me. Rather, I would be asking more serious questions that those and trying to find a foundation for the raison d'etre of my very core existence. You would agree with me here, at least, that the matters of sad warfare experienced in the hands of atheists is not the decider for me - and that is the same thing why excuses on warfare as reason for rejecting the Christian faith is not substance enough to form a well reasoned postulation.

Chrisbenogor:
Again I think the assertion isn't quite the same thing as what we are discussing, we are not born christian, we are talking about the being that supposedly put us in existence, yes man is wicked no doubt you are right, man will do bad things without order from God again you are right, but that does not take an inch away that they were utterly sick, but I think it is Ludicrous for God himself to join the fray only to send his son later to redeem man, theory doesn't cut it for me.

Redemption did not come as an after-thought, and that was the issue I wanted you to note. When people jump from Genesis 3 straight on to the warfares, the whole point is missed by a couple of miles. Of course, redemption would have taken place if we so wished it on a human level - but that would be asking more questions for ourselves for which we cannot even attempt to answer. Now, if God "joined the fray" (even ignoring the fact He already warned about the consequences of choosing sin over our humanity), how does that settle the question of our own search for something, someone, somehow, and somewhere about the questions we ask for ourselves?

Chrisbenogor:
If Obasanjo or Abacha was in the history of the bible say maybe in the place of King David, many people today will not have a problem with what he did, they would say it is not in my place to question why he had death squad that unleashed mayhem on the people. Anyway sha every one with their own.

Precisely my point - we see the past and are many times unable to translate it into the present. We question David and the kings of Israel; but we make passive excuses for men in ourr own time. . . or at best, we euphemise their own actions. As you said, efry-bodi get '[color=Black]i[/color]m own talk.

Warm regards.

@ugo_2u,

[quote author=ugo_2u link=topic=272.msg2932435#msg2932435 date=1223835120]A Curse is attached for not paying (Malachi 3:8-9)[/quote]Hmm, that may be true and valid if the people under the New Covenant were Jews. Many people know that no curse is called upon the Christian who does not tithe; I'm sorry, but that is a Biblical fact.

Chrisbenogor:
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,

I understand; and no, I cannot be judgemental on you. It is not a problem for me to believe in that same God. Mindless killing of women and children - "sick", is it? Okay - I guess we should take a look (an HONEST look) at the same mindlessly sick games of atheistic murderers like Stalin and Hitler. . . and let's see if it makes us feel any better. I know a lot of people would like to parry round these issues and try to make excuses for Hitler and Stalin; some even claiming that Hitler was a Catholic. Mindless people who never reason. If someone derides the same people he murders, does that make him any more a "Catholic" on the basis of his murders? So, what's my point? Simply this: even without the help of God (as in Genesis 6:5) , man has done unprintable things to his fellow. Many people who carry out state-sponsored brutality (such as in Communist China) do not wait for a religion or "god" to believe in before they murder "women and children". . . and yet, we don't read of people using that as excuse why they cannot believe that they are Chinese citizens.

The one thing I appreciate in discussing with you is your forthrightness and calmness to reason, rather than a forced and deliberate irrationality to hyperventilate on religious issues, just because it is "religion". However, if we take the facade away fro a moment and honestly examine our assumptions, we would defintely find enough reasons why we don't want to be human beings and alive - afterall, those who have done more grievious things than we read in the OT have never claimed to be religious; and we still see them even in our day. We could make the same excuse as ~~

'Communist China carries out State-sponsored brutality --
therefore, I don't want to be Chinese'

'Hitler and Stalin were atheists and murdered millions of people --
therefore, I don't even want to be a human being'

'Obasanjo being a Nigerian, did so many politically shameful things --
therefore, I don't want to be a Niegrian'

Haba! Just as we may smile benignly at these excuses as sorry redresses, is it not the same thing we are saying with the idea that just because we read the history of the Jews, therefore I don't want to be a believer in God?

Chrisbenogor:
and that is where my problem with Jesus comes in, he had every right to say plainly stop all this things but clearly he did not. A God that orders to kill people who are in violation of non violent commandments is not one I want to believe in, death sentences were in place for those that violate these commandments.

I understand you. Jesus did not come to ask men to stop being human. He came to do more than "speaking" - He laid down His own life for us.

This is the problem many people have (including me when I wandered in ignorance of the meaning of Christianity) - we often thing that Christianity is a matter of somebody saying this or that. The words of Jesus are important, no doubt; but merely speaking does not define the mission of Jesus as "Christ". Let me remind you that Genesis 3 (promise of redemption in Christ) came before Genesis 6 (man's denegerate wickedness). Man knew that he had to stop his wickedness as plainly as we can find in Genesis 4 (where Cain murdered his own brother Abel even though the former had been warned before that time - verse 7). Do we not find that man was warned enough to stop his wickedness before Genesis 6? Why then is it said God's Spirit would no longer strive with man (Genesis 6:3), if not that the Spirit of God had been warning man's conscience about these same evil that later became full-blown when we come to verse 5?

Besides, one may claim that he cannot believe in a "god" who "orders" murders, because Jesus should have just announced to everyone to stop all these killings. Uhm, even if He did (Matt. 26:52), did man come to himself and stop the killings? I have said time and again already that man is a murderer without God's help, and no amount of shouting from any platform can help man stop his own killings, brutality and murders. Now, these things being so, would it not be utter foolishness on my part to keep searching for a "god" who is so complacent and speaks the cardboard religion of 'peace to every man' in a world that has no respect for itself?

Chrisbenogor, I have searched like you are doing. I have made the same assertions as you have. I have read and delved deep into the minds and philosophies of many worldviews (except the occult). No matter how you slice it, you will find the type of "god" you are looking for, believe me. You can only find one thing, though: the God who shows man who exactly he is without His help, and yet offers divine love in His Son.

It doesn't matter how philosophical one excuses these issues or argue against them. For me, man's decadent history did not start at the wars in later books of the OT - one needs to go back to as early as Genesis 4 and 6 and see man's heart for what it truly is, before any understanding of the subsequent history.

Chrisbenogor:
Pilgrim I could go on but this is one of the foundations of why I refuse to believe in Christianity.
Cheers.

I understand you, bro. The thing is that the very same rule we excuse ourselves upon doesn't stand any chances when really scrutinized for what they are. Regards.

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:
@pilgrim
Long time oh, I certainly missed your insights. Now down to business, your points made sense I should be saying jews and not christians point well taken.

No worries.

Chrisbenogor:
There is a small hitch though, I would like to say christianity takes judaism a step further by also believing in the new testament.

Lol, I may not actually get you here. Christianity does not take Judaism further - as I said, Christianity is not a continuum of Judaism. Christianity did not start out as Judaism which then gradulally morph into the NT. No; rather, the OT prophesied the blessings of the NT - and for all that, even the OT prophesied that the old covenant was not what God was establishing for all the nations of the world.

So, you may wonder as to the difference between the OT (O[/b]ld [b]T[/b]estament) and [b]OC (O[/b]ld [b]C[/b]ovenant). The OT is a specific body of documents in the Bible incusive of Genesis to Malachi; while the OC is the basis of Judaism as a distinct faith on its own ratified by the blood of animals.

Does this then mean we as Christians don't "believe" in the OT? Yes, we do; but as far as the OC is concerned, we as Christians are not called to live our lives under that covenant. Why? For the very same reason that was specifically delivered unto the Jews and not to any other nation -

(a) Deuteronomy 5:2-3
[b]²[/b]The LORD our God made a covenant with [b]us in Horeb.
³[/b]The LORD [b]made not this covenant with our fathers,
but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day.

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

It is helpful to note these point, so that people are better informed when discussing issues of Judaism and mixing them up with Christianity.

Chrisbenogor:
That means you are not in dispute that God ordered those mass genocides as can be seen in the Torah and the book of joshua. That God struck someone dead for not allowing the ark to fall, God putting his seal of approval on Jehu's actions when if murdered Ahab and his sons, the same God and so on the list is long.

I don't have any problem with issues like that - and in the past I used precisely that same line of thought to attack Christians and Jews, as if my own (former) religion was any better than those I accused. In the same way, when people say that they have problem believeing in God just because of the wars they read of in the OT, I often wonder if those same people have taken the time to consider what mankind would have done to his humanity without the help of God. Nobody who proposes this line of thought ever stops for a moment to think about the murders and approval to murder that have been perpetrated without religion involved!

So, while I am not going to make excuses and euphemise those issues, I would not make that the basis for my decision to believe in God. Even without God, people have gone to war and destroyed themselves long before those passages that are often referred to. Example, I wonder why nobody using such excuses ever turns for a moment to think of Genesis 6:5 when man became uncontrollably wicked. Is the situation any different today? Or, are we going to pretend it has always been fair weather with nations who lived without any religious affinity whatsoever? What does history tell us, if we but care a little to find out?

Now, what about leaving Genesis 6 and fast forward to the Ark stumbling for which the man you referred to was struck (Uzza - 1 Chron. 13:10)? Do I still believe in the God who acted in that way? I admit - yes, I do - and I do so with all my heart. What people have failed to realize here is something called the sovereignty and holiness of God. But, of course, the holiness of God has always been a terrifying thing to behold, because man has always fixed his eyes on things that are clearly a departure from His holiness and tried to present God on man's fallible level.

How do I try to "defend" this issues?

I do not "try" to defend them. No, I have no answers and have never tried to explain or defend them on some esoteric explanations. Surprising as it may be, I am not called to "defend" such actions - for if I offer my own euphemistic exculpations and yet arrive at something clearly wrong even though it placates men, what value would it have achieved for either me or you?

Here is something that we just fail to understand: Biblical apologetics is not about "defending" issues that we find unpalatable, because that s not what the big picture is. Talk about warfare and murders and all other vices - everybody's hand is stained with blood, and let the atheist not come here with a hubris of pretending that no atheist has ever killed anyone. However, Biblical apologetics (at least, for me) has only one main aim found in 1 Peter 3:15 & 16 --

__________________________________________________________________

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer
to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness
and fear: Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you,
as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation
in Christ.
__________________________________________________________________

Let me break it down the way it has helped me: that verse is positing that Biblical apologetics is useful when applied to 3 things:

(a) my hope: reasons why I am a Christian; and not why I should argue for not being an atheist

(b) my conscience: the convictions of my own heart; and not the pretences endless arguments

(c) others' false accusations: based on my lifestyle, people will always seek to accuse a Christian of all
sorts of things - for simply being a Christian.

I know. . . I know. . . one may say that I was digressing there. But certainly, I have answered the question in simple terms: it is not in my place to proffer some euphemistic and esoteric "explanation" about those warfares. In as much as I do not have an answer as to why non-religious people have also been involved in some of the bloodiest inhumane things in history, I do not see why it is only the warfares of the OT that should be the excuse for why they cannot believe in God. I facetiously sometimes ask why they would choose to remain atheists and irreligious of we know that the hands of atheists are as stained with blood from murders in human history! I have never seen such people honestly faced up to make the same excuses to "defend" the murders of atheists and claim the same thing: "Oh, that's just why I cannot be a human being!"

@No2Atheism,

Well, I'm going to reply as an off-line just this once so that the tithe discussion would not be derailed.

No2Atheism:
@pilgrim.1,

good to hear from you,

abeg please keep trying to minister to all atheists and muslims and non-christians on this website.

Well, I'm trying to share with our atheist friends on several issues; although I have not as yet entered into deep discussions with them. I thought it might be helpful to make them see the gaps they hold in their own assumptions before I bring them round to see just how far from reality they actually are. Some are reasonable, some are not - and we have candidates like that in almost every segment of the religion/irreligion discussions. For those who hold a rationalistic atheist worldview, the basic prmise has been to ask them to stand up for what they truly believe by first asking questions about the definitiosn of atheism. So far, I have not seen a coherent position on that definition well defended in any discussion before disaffection begin to emerge.

As for Muslims, well. . . I have clearly stated to them that pilgrim.1 would no longer be engaging them in arguments and debates for three reasons: (a) it is rather counter productive - and many people who email may have made me see that point. Howevere, they are happy to go back and read the articulate debates I held in the past and up until now, I have not seen anyone return offline to show me anything different: just insults and abuses seem to flavour their responses. (b) most of the so-called debates these days are boring - if they have not run to websites to plagiarize articles, they would dribble round and round an issue endlessly with ad hominem repetitions in order to keep ducking the issues being discussed. In such instances, those who have emailed me offline have advised again and again that I don't have to keep repeting myself as they do, because it would make me descend "lower than my station" to entertain such frutless repetitions. (c) you won't believe that when someone challenged me to stay off such debates (even though it was tough), I listened - and just as she had predicted, the things she mentioned actually came to pass: she rather urged that the mark of a Spirit controlled woman is to endure all things and let Christ do His work. I listened, and little did I know that fruit would be borne as she had stated. You should have been around about a month earlier - and you would have been amazed as I was.

No2Atheism:
I really thank God that u were saved from the cult of iissllam.

Well, what can I say? The challenge for me these days is to bear all things for Christ's sake and love them even more intensely no matter what some of them do. I'm not perfect, but the Lord has been faithfully helping me.

No2Atheism:
By the way u have not yet gisted me as to the details of the conversion, hope u'll do that soon.

I beleive ur testimony would be good.

Hmm, make I no talk yet - I'm sure someone would privide you with the link soon and also a follow up about what ensued!

Jesus is Lord.

Hi again TV01,

How body?

Thanks for that very intuitive thought there:

TV01:
I wonder, if a tithe is not a fixed %age and is not compulsory, exactly how does it differ from simple giving? And exactly what is your premise or point?

This is somewhat another way of putting a very important question someone had asked earlier; but it may help to say just this bit:

(1) The percentage (%) thingy: My point is that we have always been stuck on a particular percentage in this question of giving; whareas my effort has been to help readers see that is not the point God has always wanted us to look at (IMHO). And what point is it? I think that tithes go further than mere calculations based on income - it goes as far as its spiritual value - which points to that which is the 'hallowed part' of all our giving.

(2) Complusory: My point has always been that nothing has been made compulsory to the Christian as regards this issue. Absolutely nothing. Yes, I have noted that in my opinion this ministry has been ordained by the Lord Himself; but even so, He did not force it upon any believer at all.

Bearing these issues in mind, it then becomes apparent why those who are vehemently ooposed to tithes may have serious issues as not to be able to see these points. In which case, they argue again and again that ~~

(a) it has always been compulsory
(b) it is based every single time on 10%
(c ) it is only given to meet needs
(d) it is always a matter of the LAW

Now dear TV01, I have serious problems digesting those assertions as based on Scripture. Why? For the simple reasons already shared that:

(a) it has not always been compulsory - citing Abraham's case

(b) it has not always been 10% every single time (citing a few other examples)

(c) it was not Melchizedek's need that made Abraham give tithes

(d) it was not always a matter of the LAW (again, Abraham's example)

Now, some are also opposed to the above because they counter that __

(1) Abraham tithed only once

(2) Abraham did not give of his own income

(3) we cannot repeat anything that Abraham did

(4) there was nothing said about tithing in the NT

Again, I counter that indeed ~~

(1) Abraham indeed tithed once; but how many times did Melchizedek meet him?

(2) if Abraham's tithes were unacceptable as "tithes", God would say so

(3) the basic current in Abraham's life was faith (see Galatians 3:7)

(4) there are indeed so many texts in the NT where tithes were mentioned


You see, we keep going round in circles like this until. . .

But my points are that: (a) people should look away from a calculation of percentage (%) and rather look at the basic issue involved in the meaning of tithes - God alone specifically pronounced what it meant: Leviticus 27:30. . . . and, (b) they should be willing to look beyond the LAW and understand what tithe meant outside of it - which was why I have been calling attention to Abraham's case.

TV01:
Also, when you say "types of giving", could you kindly classify these types from NT scripture. My premise is that NT giving is predicated solely on need (I will not ignore, but distinguish it from "offering,even though I don't see that that takes a physical form in the NT. I wil leave that out for the purpose of this discussion, although I'm happy to discuss elsewhere).

Maybe some day we might have the happy occasion to expound on the various types of offerings in the NT. But I think somewhere along this discussions I made reference to the various kinds of giving in the NT (which I "stole" from another poster). In anycase, I shall come back and outline them again.

However, suffice to say that we make a mistake (IMHO) when we assume that all giving in the NT was in refernece to need. I don't think so; and both in the OT and NT, there are examples where they were given in response to worship even though the receiver had no need. Two examples: Abraham to melchizedek (the latter had no need); and the widow mites in the NT (she was the one in need, but were the treasurers in need?). I think we should look into these issues and see the point.

TV01:
Pilly you must realise that you are on a hiding to nothing and have gradually blurred your position.

I'm humble to see where it is so, if you could help me see it. However, even when people have questioned my position, I have always tried to share with them the consistency in my position.

TV01:
I'm actually see no reason to force this, trusting true seekers and seekers of truth will be led. I just miss you some, and thought I'D engage

I agree; we are not to force anything on anybody - and as annimi noted, it is important to note the details so that nobody is confused about issues. If we did not attempt to clarify the details, people would still be making huge mistakes and running with the default idea that tithes were not mentioned at all in the NT; or that tithes = LAW, whereas it is not so.

Cheers and thanks again for pointing out these issues.

Blessings.

@No2Atheism,

Wow! I was wondering who had that fine name until you posted the above, lol. My bros, I'm doing okay. And you? My unceremonious disappearance - I apologise: a lot suddenly came my way that took me way out of town. But I'm around for a while now and enjoying the discussions on various themes. Hope you will also. Many blessings.

@huxley,

I'm sure you would not be so presumptious as to be ridiculous at the same time. The parts of my quote in yours was not saying what you said here:

huxley:
Is this a fair exchange - money for blood of JC?

Where did you read about the "exchange" of money for blood?

My post did not read that I was exchanging "money for blood"; and encouraging others to ponder on what God has done for them to stir their heart does not suggest anyone would be so presumptious as to suggest I was asking them to "exchange money for blood".

@anonimi,

anonimi:
Once again, may I ask you to read what you posted above PLEASE?

I know what I posted - so does sleekmag. The one thing I find really funny with people who are so driven to oppose tithes is that they just cannot contain themselves and must see a case for forcing their presumptions on others. Just let me ask: have you missed the one thing everyone is saying all along in recent times? Here again:

      Tithes is not compulsory - and for those who give, it is not treated as FRAUD.

That is why I have been asking you guys to simply open your Bibles and discuss it directly from there: but NO, you will not be satisfied thereto - is it then any wonder that this issue is causing so much bitterness from those opposed to it? WHY are you guys so bitter over an issue that nobody is forcing upon you?

anonimi:
In one breath you agree with sleekymag "it does not appear to me that he was driving for a 10% to be given every single time" yet you go on to highlight his " You give your tithes, in true obedience to him (God) and his work, There are people give much more to God; "

Yes, I did. And you know what? You had misread him as if he meant to say "Tithes are COMPULSORY for EVERYONE" - which has been the issue you keep driving here. Even sleekmag came back to note that same issue after my last reposte to yours; and if he saw anything contrary in this regard, I trust he would have made it clear as he earlier called my attention to something he did not agree with.

The thing here is that we can all discuss and even disagree with one another on various points. I guess (not sure) that sleekmag was clear and still is that I may be mistaken; and I'm sure I made clear that I'm not forcing my ideas or inferences on anyone on this issue. But as we all learn to look into God's Word and see the shades of our interpretations, a healthier discussion is presented before us.

anonimi:
Ask yourself, how can one corellate your and his agreement that one needs not give 10% or any % for that matter everytime with a later assertion that tithe giving is in obedience to God (thus suggesting mandatory nature) and make reference to people actually giving more thus establishing 10% as the least threshold

There are 3 things I should highlight there:

(a) we have time and again asserted that no type of giving (tithes, freewill, contribution, donations, ministry support, etc) is mandatory to anyone. Please calm down and go back and check us out. I suspected as above that you might have been mistaking our persuasion for a "mandatory" giving - and nothing could be far from the truth.

(2) the fact that we are most agreed that people give much more should make it plain that we are not bent on tithe = 10% everytime. Think carefully here: we did not make any issue mandatory; nor did we suggest that what is given by any name be always 10% or any % for that matter. If people give much more than that in recognition of the real value of their offering (the 'real value' which I highlighted as the 'hallowed part'), why should that be an issue at all?

(3) Lol, I don't remember establishing 10% as the threshold of tithe or anything else. Dear anonimi. . . who has been talking about 1% and saying that it is not the same thing as 10%?!? I have always maintained that view - so I don't think it was a great point for you to have read that we were establishing 10% as the threshold. Lol, please clam down - I believe that we can all discuss amicably without trying to misrepresent anyone's views.

I know of someone who's giving consistently challenges me: she consistently gives a certain percentage (dare I say it: about 35%) differently from what she gives at other times. The best part of it is that she did not receive this as a doctrine from our pastor to give such or any other percentage of income. I remember the evening we had what was called "in-house study" and the lady raised the question of tithe (at that evening, it was quite unrelated to the subject we were studying). Our group study leader said she would pass the question on to her husband, who was a group leader in a men's fellowship of our church. This leader-couple were not even tithers (they told us so); but what came out of that study was not threatening to anyone: because we were all chalenged by our pastors to do just one thing ~~

    -- please, we challenge you to refrain from giving anything to this church for just a month! --

The pastor said afterwards that we should do what was in our hearts to do. My brother, following that study, everyone came to the same thing: nobody was forced to tithe or give, but we saw how God touched our hearts that we have been very careless in this matter. And the lady who asked that question? She's the one who is today giving about 35% consistently.

Today, I asked her the same issue, since we have been discussing this on this forum. She just smiled and asked me to listen to God speak to my heart. I know what I felt deep in my heart and that was the type of challenge I was referring to in this entry.

Of course, I am not building a doctrine out of our personal experience; but think along with me - nobody is forcing anyone to give anything, but if we take anything out of our income to give as any type of "giving", is that not a percentage taken from the income as well?

anonimi:
We all agree that giving is part of Christianity, no doubt about that.
The question we disagree on is how much/who to/when to. These details are necessary in the light of how much abuse can be wrapped thereinto.

I agree; but here you have touched on something - "these details are necessary". I guess that's what we have been trying to do - and the details was why we have been clearly sharing that we should look beyond the percentage figure in % and think upon the real meaning of our giving.

Lol, have you noticed how many people who argue against tithes specifically do not take the time to look at how other types of giving have been abused as well? You can't beat the people you complain against - those who are using this ministry for filthy lucre. They don't mind you calling it "tithes" or "freewill giving". Just anything will be abused (especially freewill giving) to draw out the changed from people's pockets. It is happening much more than some of us have noticed - and I can come back and share on that with you if you care.

anonimi:
Meanwhile the giving for CHRISTians as prescribed in the NT has no compulsion to it.

Tithes were not made compulsory for anybody under the new covenant - and nothing was made compulsory to the Christian. We have said so more than a hundred times already.

anonimi:
Hence, anyone no matter his claimed level of annointing who compels people overtly or subtly is trying to obtain money through falsehood/pretence and is no different from a 419 crook. QED.

Agreed. Further, don't you think the same applies to people who force their views on tithers? Lol, no - I did not call anybody a crook; but I think it is on par to also assume that forcing the likes of Yomisays on anybody is plain falsehood. That was why I asked you this question earlier, and I haven't seen a response yet.

Cheers.

olabowale:
[s]This exact opinion I want you to think about it. You will see that it applies to Islam, in regards to God and His Angels, Mercy and Justice, Prophets, and Gods relationship to worshippers and the whole of mankind. You see, two, can play this game.


Interesting concept. But full of misleading inuendos. The reality with God is that He, alone is the Creator! He created Adam from nothingness. Didn't He? Then clone from the body of Adam, Eve, who was Adam's mate, except that she was of a different gender! Was there an example of either of these human beings, until God decided what He decided? Is there a need for God Almighty to have a son, a partner? What is the purpose of such a son or partner? Is God not the one who forgave Adam and Eve after they have disobeyed his commandment, upon their seeking forgiveness?

Is a different way to create mankind going to be difficult with this Creator who created anew? Was Jesus not a human, who ate, slept, and do all things human do,including urinating and removing waste from his body, as gas, liquid and solid? Both Judaism and Christianity are regarded, like Buhhdism and others as regarded as disbeliefs. This is the position of Islam.

Is God not the same God that declared that Satan has no mercy from Him? And a proof of this is that Satan never seek forgiveness from God, ever! I want any one of the Christians, or whatever, to show where Satan has ever seeked any form of forgiveness from God! To sugarcoat a bad medicine, will not make it go down easy, especially it the sugar dissolves before swallowing is done!



While both of you struggle for who gives the bigger "blood sacrifice," Islam has no need of any "blood bath!" It simply say Oh God forgive me. Allah the Almighty God does accept "Sincere repentance!" He forgives, by His Mercy all sins! When there is no sin, one has practiced redemption. One has been redeemed.


You forgot Judaism that disregarded Jesus completely to nothingness. You also forgot that you dubiously regard all these religions, including Judaism, whom you stole their people, say if I satrt from Israel all th way to Jesus, as disbelievers! While Islam at least spoke about the fact that the Children of israel were one time believers, and the companions of Jesus were believers, you condemn or claimed the unclaimables about the Israel and his Children. You call Israel a trickster both with his brother and raising of animals in the land that he ran to to escape that certain death from his bother!

What will you say about Taoism and other Asiatic religions and practices that do not even care about Christianity and or jesus? PLease when you give us information, be kind to give us the full garmut. Finally, just because you are being corrected by Islam about your wrong concept about Jesus is not a crime. But something to take to heart by you and heed correction.

The correction given by Islam is the same thing as if a person who is ill is given the appropriate medicine to take. But he or she can refuse it, and the consequence of it is dire! You have refuesd to accept correction so far as a Christian! Don't blame any muslim in the day of Judgement!



You need not correct anyone, since you have brought out the booms, whips, food in one hand and Bible in the other! You only force feed people with your belief and dogma that it entails.

Its interesting to see that you who was a terror in the worst way, against the Christian, while you are lying about the prophet is making the statement above! Allah's messenger stated that those who tell lies about him should take their place in Hellfire. Even lying about an ordinary human being deserves punishment.

And it is interesting that you least church as one of the things you do not fight about. I wonder whta the Catholics will say about you on their belief and sect which has been around, over or close to a thousand years before Protestant's!?[/s]

I knew you would not be able to contain yourself where you see my username. But my points were addressed directly to Chrisbenogor and not an argument for or against Islam. People have formed enough opinions for themselves to know the difference.

@huxley,

I noticed in recent times your entries are simply not seeking to be intelligent but just merely wanting to sound way off rational. Not that I mean that in any derogatory way, but just an observation. I don't remember where anyone made this inference:

huxley:
Is this a fair exchange - money for blood of JC?

Who has been making such an exchange, huxley?

Mystifying, Enigmatic

Some of the baffling experiences linked to genuine crop circle fields include, but not limited to:

Strange Energies

People who have visited genuinely formed crop circles report that they have felt really strange while within the circle fields – as if it put them in altered states of consciousness - and later felt normal after leaving the circle. Also reports of effects on mobile phones were not uncommon as mobile network connections could not be established, or the cell phones as well as wrist watches suddenly stopped working. As well, in a few other cases, compasses taken to the fields shortly after the circles were formed, start spinning uncontrollably. However, some other oddities include vortices, strange sounds or vibrations. Some reports have been made of strange reactions of farm animals and pets, which range from fear to being indocile and aggressive, such as dogs barking at unseen presence – but those pets returned to normal when they left the vicinity of the circles.


Strange Events

How are crop circles formed? There are many theories about this; but no one has been able to say for sure just how precisely these phenomena occur. Some have attribued them mainly to UFO activities, which happen so quickly that the ingenuities of men are unable to produce such intricate designs in as such short time scales. Often there are no footprints where the circles have been created; and in some instances the plant stems are so intricately woven with one another to produce those patterns that it could not be humanly possible to achieve such a feat without breaking a single stem of those plants.


Strange Effects

How does one explain away these phenomena where the strange energy is said in some instances to have had adversely affected farm animals and pets and yet seem to have very little such effect on the plants themselves? While the stems of crops are sometimes charred, the plants remain healthy and grow until they are harvested. However, the animals often are undeniable tellers of these strange presence – for animals, birds, and insects in the areas depressed are often found flattened, fried, or otherwise instantly killed ( reported here,1 ). As can be seen from the pictures below, the stems of plants are bent by the strange energy but remarkably not one of them is found broken.

https://www.cropcirclesecrets.org/ccimages/crop_circles_0306.gif https://www.magickalmind.com/plantnodessm.jpg https://www.cropcirclesecrets.org/ccimages/crop_circles_0304.gif

As another website reports:

‘Whatever process is employed, it actually alters the fundamental
biophysics and biochemistry of the plants. Some have described
the effect as resembling an exposure to intense, but not harmful,
microwave radiation. The entire surface of some formations is glazed
with a layer of minute particles of pure iron, while areas just outside
the effected areas are not. The purity of these particles is not found
in iron produced anywhere on Earth.’ ~ Terrestrial Anomalies

Okay, after the long wait it was just about time that I faced up and devoted some time to grow this thread. The info I browsed through was quite packed and perhaps may intrigue some of us as it did me.


Crop Circles – What Are They?

One succinct definition has it that:

‘Crop circles are organized harmonic forms that manifest around
the world, the result of an energy interacting with the physical world –
in this case plants. This energy is comprised of light, sound and
magnetism. To date, crop circles have been reported in 29 countries,
and have appeared in mediums such as wheat, barley, canola, trees, ice,
rice paddies, even linseed.’  ~~ The Crop Circular

Although it is the typical reaction of many of us to wave away mysterious events with a skeptic shrug, these phenomena are beginning to captivate the attention of many investigators. Albeit there are confirmed hoaxes in these occurences, not every single case can be dismissed summarily as such.

Crop Circles have been reported in so many diverse places, from as far as the British Columbia to Britain and toAustralia, these circles have been noticed since the 17th century; and the recent interest in them is not unconnected with reports of UFO activities.

@Aloy.Emeka,

[quote author=Aloy.Emeka link=topic=182371.msg2931667#msg2931667 date=1223817437]What distracts you in church? What should we do to end the distractions?[/quote]I think you have done the first thing in facing up to this problem: by proffering it for discussion.

People have different perspectives on issues; and believe me - I have actually heard some people in a church say to me directly: "Ol' gyiel, abeg make we hear word! what is distraction to you na enjoyment for us!" They apparently were "enjoying" something I cannot type here. . . but you get my drift?

Anyhow, there are all sorts of distractions. Bit perhaps if you begin by identifying a few of them, it may help us know how to proceed.

Regards.

Interesting comments and quite helpful. In addition to ‘how much’ and the ‘heart intentions’, it goes a long way that we actually give - because God doesn’t want us to take this ministry for granted.

Some are of the idea that it ‘doesn’t matter’ whether we give or not. That should not even be a question at all. To God’s heart, it matters both that we give, how much we give and what the heart’s intentions are about when we give.

With an attitude of gratitude, we give. How much? As much as we value Who God is, and what He has done for us when He gave the greatest Gift – His Son. Does it matter whether we give or not? Perhaps the question is best answered by the believer who should ponder about whether it matters that God has been good to him/her.

True, N20 could be used for so many things – a careless spending on a snack or bottle of drink we don’t even need; or a showoff to someone we have been eyeing to get there attention and affection. And we do these things cheerfully without batting an eyelash. Sunday comes, and the story changes – we rumple the note, look over our shoulders and toss it into the plate and breathe easy now with a sigh of releaf. . . till next Sunday. When was the last time I challenged myself to actually give beyond my ability (2 Cor. 8:3-4)? Could I follow the examples of those who addicted themselves to the help of others (1 Cor. 16:15)?

My prayer in recent times is that God should help me look beyond my own needs and rejoice in giving beyond my present level and attitude.

Hi paulipopo,

paulipopo:
Sorry but Judgement as you claim from Romans 14:4 is not contextually applicable to this case. Please include verses 5 to 10 to get the full grasp of the message paul was passing across.

I could quote the whole of Romans from chapter 1 to 16; but none of the verses would help your portfolio on this issue. Lol, even if one were to add verse 5 to 10 inclusive, how does verse 10 accommodate your pursuit on this matter. Just let's see the verse 10 in question:

Romans 14 v. 10 --

"But why dost thou judge thy brother?
or why dost thou set at nought thy brother?
for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ."

So, what was the "full message" that is anything different from what I had shared about being careful the way we sue our tongues against others?

paulipopo:
As for James 3:8 I don't quite understand what you are trying to state. Are you perhaps saying calling Chris Oyakhilome a Phoney is evil even if there is an obvious truth to it?

It's easy to see what James 3:8 states about the tongue, is it not?

paulipopo:
I am not complaining on the basis of suspicion but like I rightly stated what I observed him to do which is quoting habakkuk 1: 5 out of context for no better reason than trying to dissuade viewers from believing reports about his ministry with the man on the wheel chair story.

Okay, your say. So many people also quote texts out of context for various purposes: if one were to highlight the same thing in your submissions, would it be okay to then refer to you as a "phoney"?

My point was simply: be careful how you use your tongue.

Ndipe:
Well, end the illegal affair, but still accept your kids. They are your flesh and blood

Gbam.