₦airaland Forum

Joagbaje:
Must they be poor like you to serve Jesus. If the faith they teach work for others why wont it work for them.

2 Cor. 8:9
For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.

I said redeemable, but surely it will take divine intervention? Spiritual deception is real. May The Lord deliver us all.

For you to wrest the meaning you are alluding out of this scipture, you have to be totally ignorant, utterly decieved or an unabashed servant of Mammon.

~ If it was for physical riches, then He didn't die for the rich
~ If it was for physical riches, then He needn't have died as the gold and the silver are His.

No matter how rich people become unless the riches are absolutely evenly spread, there will always be some who are relatively poor. And the worlds system means that inflation and purchasing power will shift accordingly, not to mention there will always be those, who by one way or another, differentiate themselves in terms of wealth. The system we labour under will also ensure the disparity will always exist. Until His kingdom comes in its fullness.

"The poor" He said "will always be with us". Physical wealth has no bearing  on one's walk with God, but a love of money and covetoussness certainly do.

I beg whoever subscribes to this kind of notion to rethink. Eternity is in view.

God bless
TV

Joagbaje:
This is a demonstration of your miopic knowledge of scripture and the church. The church is not a charity organisation. Whatever the church does is for the purpose of the gospel . charity may be involved. The CHurch calling is to witnes to people the saving grace of Jesus .

As wrong as I believe you are in you conviction and zeal regards the legalistic, OT derived mandatory tithing doctrine, the consequent misunderstanding and hence misapplication of prosperity and wealty to be physical and here an now, your obvious and quite tragic veneration of self-styled MOGS, you are actuall pretty much on point here. I thank God that nobody is beyond His reach, no one is utterly irredeemable.

Pastor AIO:
Kai, if only the taxman could see this. So all those churches that are registered as charities are just lying in order to evade tax. No wonder they came down hard on Ashimolowo. Please go on talking my guy, we are collecting evidence.

@ Pastor AIO, how far? we are thrashing that very point, at this very point on another thread. I have always insisted that regardless of the rights and wrongs of that case, giving the state authority to intervene in church affairs - other than on general point of law - is nothing less than spiritual adultery. Forget the taxman, he knows the score. Those that serve mammon, they will do anything for a few shekels.

God bless
TV

JeSoul:
These quotes TV I found most worthy of being highlighted: I guess when it comes down to the nitty gritty state involvement really isn't about just accountability or oversight, we christians know who really runs the state and not to acknowledge that their ultimate aim is to prevail against the church would be being spiritually shortsighted. You're right TV.

I'm a bit skeptical of that assertion - it doesn't hold true at all times. When the Spirit of the anti-Christ takes over (Now that opens another debate - has it or hasn't it?) then the ultimate aim of the state will be to prevail against the church.

A whole new debate indeed. Again we are agreeing in what, but differing on how. Will it be a "flip of a switch" takeover, or a gradual shift in societal perception, mores, morals, values laws and then like play, like play. The anti-Christ is already in the world. Is it a question of waiting for an opportune moment then striking, or grdually setting the stage? Is the enemy just idling around twiddling his thumbs? or working largely unseen through kingdoms and "false religion" which he both controls?

However, in many jurisdictions today, in certain areas - protection of the family, and improving social conditions of the down trodden - both central church goals are identical with the aims of the state. In that regard, the state even looks up to the church for leadership in these areas.

I could pen a rebuttal to each of these aims for both the state and what obtains in most (mostly false) churches. But not to digress or derail

It has been very beneficial reading both JeSoul and TV01's viewpoints - we enrich each other.

At last. Total agreement !

God bless
TV

debosky:
The mentions of Babylon and the LovePeddler are references to a world system, not the state or government per se - the endless desire for material gain, for 'progress' and the like, not the state which often is acting contrary to those forces.

The beginnings of an answer to my earlier question. Again, I do not see that we that far removed. Allow me to be somewhat pre-emptive and say that Babylon and the LovePeddler (or The Beast and the LovePeddler) to me represent the state and "false religion" respectively. I also feel they will ultimately ally to persecute the true church. A thought just came into my head, "all the worlds authority is pretty much political or religious (and say some corporate muscle)".

The kingdoms of this world are the evil ones to give and under his control. No matter how benign or even "church-friendly" a state or government might appear, we mustn't lose sight of that.

debosky:
While I fully agree that being unequally yoked is completely reprehensible, it now depends on where this 'authority' emanates from. If I, as both a Christian and a taxpayer request my tax funds to be given to my church, I cannot regard my money given directly to the church and my money given through the state as being materially different, as they both originate from me.

That is where I feel we differ fundamentally.

As a Christian and a taxpayer, your taxes go to the state, as the should. Render unto Ceeasar. For the church to take advantage of any refunds, they have to place themselves  under the states jurisdiction. If it could be accomplished without the subjection, I'd have no problem with it. So a part emanates from you unconditionally and a part emanates from you via the state with conditions that make the church obligated to the state (I'm not blaming you 0! )


tbc

Hi debosky and thread,

debosky:
where we disagree is on the role of the state as it were.

Narrowing it down to the states relationship with the church, my position is that the state has no role. Seperation. Even where there stated aims are the same, the motivation and often the means will almost certainly be different.

debosky:
In my view, it is the 'world system' (in which the state may or may not be the prime player).

May I ask what in your view are the main elements or who are the main players in the "world system"? As we both acknowledge it exists, there may ultimately be some convergence in our positions.

debosky:
the government in the sense of seeking probity and accountability.

The church does not need the government to ensure probity within it. When the Lord says He is coming for a bride without spot, blemish or wrinkle and that he will build His church (His bride), I don't believe there was anything to indicate He would use the state to ensure her chastity or moral/spiritual purity.

Indeed, the government is unable to truly do so, as its idea of what probity is differs from the churchs and like I mentioned earlier, whilst the aims may seem identical, motivation and means will differ.


tbc

sonate:
is it necessary for one to go to church to know God intimately?

Absolutely not.

sonate:
with the way churches are this day

You seeking to know God will almost certainly be hindered or compromised by a good many of them.
But if you put your faith & trust in Him, set your heart and desire on Him, you'll get there, as He will draw you to Himself.

sonate:
If so which one do you recommend

Pastor AIO:
I recommend fellowship with other like minded christians. Praying with them and breaking bread with them. Even if there are only 3 of you.

sonate:
and why

It will be a simple gathering consisting of those seeking God and earnestly doing so. Please do try to keep the religious and anything other than pure undefiled religion at bay.

May The Lord grant the righteous desire of your heart.

God bless
TV

JeSoul:
TV and Debosky, very good convo guys. I've picked up a thing or two.

These quotes TV I found most worthy of being highlighted: I guess when it comes down to the nitty gritty state involvement really isn't about just accountability or oversight, we christians know who really runs the state and not to acknowledge that their ultimate aim is to prevail against the church would be being spiritually shortsighted. You're right TV.

Debosky, you make very very good points. I am however afraid you haven't truly attacked it from the spiritual angle as TV hinted in his last post.

The scriptures are deep. Some of the theme's, the nuances, the subtleties once unlocked will truly astound. If you want a plot, if its a storyline you are after, where else you gon' go?

Sometimes you catch a narrative within the narrative and its so crystal clear you think "surely everyone can see this? Sometimes its by revelation, sometimes by knowledge, by understanding, by teaching, even by chance - perhaps? You read, study, search, pray, listen. But when you hear, its simply chilling, when you understand its like wow!

One that runs throught the scriptural writ is the "Bride and the LovePeddler". Its told and retold and is at once ever unfolding. It runs from Genesis to Revelations, it is truly an epic. And I'm pretty convinced I still only see it in part.

"Oh - he cried- the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!"

God bless
TV

JeSoul:
TV, I think a thread for you is a-coming somewhere in the Travel section, I will keep ya posted

Travel section ke? Nairaland has one ! I need to get out the Religion board more. Geek me, lol! Please lemme know.

A gathering of individuals cannot but be under the state in some shape or form - churches are permitted by the state, while other groupings are not, so I don't know if you can avoid being subject to the state in that regard.

I diasgree. And that is anathema to the whole nature of church. Church is not somewhere we go, it is what we are by virtue of our faith. That does not make us subject to anyone or anything other than Him. When it loses its essence and morphs into a religious organisation or a legally incorporated company or a charity, then, oh dear, then.

Not quite - for a while that was true, but the church was effectively promoted when it became the official Roman belief system. There should be clear demarcations and the use of tax returns or any other income (originating from the individual in the end) MUST be managed properly to avoid undue scrutiny from the state, whether friendly or malevolent.

Type II outlined earlier. A state sponsored, neutered church. Not His.

When the believers "had all things in common", what would have been, should have been the states role? In the instance of Ananias and Sapphira, how should the state have intervened to a) judge what they did and b) judge the Holy Spirits sanction?

Debosky its been good discussing this and I don't want to adopt the "spiritualisation" ploy loved by many, but there are real spiritual overtones here. But they also translate practically.

Thanks again.

God bless
TV

I agree, so is ensuring that tax revenue to which all citizens contribute continues to be used in the most judicious way possible - that involves not causing offence.

Not at the expense of - potential and legal - state intervention.

Well maybe, but this 'sovereignty' you are proposing might lead to the same type of mistakes - the church cannot be a law unto itself when it comes to things like finances - the opportunity for abuse is immense. See Nigeria for numerous examples.

The church is not a law unto itself. Its His church. He leads it. I outlined the type of the "true church", "religious church" and the state typified by JTB, the Pharisees and Herod. The numerous examples in Nigeria are not the "true" type. Do they unabashedly rail against the abuse of state? No. And they can't, because thay are corrupt and compromised. John 10 says "they were concerned about losing their place" The status wealth, privilege and influence. God ke. He has nothing to do - for the most part - with what obtains in Nigeria.

Now to the true church. Is anyone sold out to and utterly faithful to God - to the point of death - due to state intervention? If state intervention - even without a yoke - sorted out church finances, would it speak to holiness, purity, faithfulness, zeal, salvation or anything that is at the heart of true church? No. Incorporation, tax credits and silver in any guise is about compromise, subjection and control. A strong unaligned church is too much of a threat to the state .

tbc.

We disagree fundamentally here - it is MY money which I have given to the state to be my custodian. My getting back some of that money is by no means obligating me to the state. Any obligations put on the church or charity body by the state are at MY behest - ostensibly to prevent abuse of MY money, which the state is the custodian of on my behalf.

I appreciate that. And may I also say your position is well thought out and articulated. For an individual charitable giving and tax reclaims in no way change the individual/state dynamic, for a church it does.

I disagree - you might as well argue that the church should keep all of it's money in cash since opening an account in a bank means it is under financial regulation and money laundering laws. There is no yoke to the state - the state is a custodian of the taxpayer and simply acts, as decided by the taxpayer, to ensure judicious use of the funds.

And that is a good thing. The money is subject, not how the church utilises it, or more importantly preaches. The church is subject to some and some are actually beneficial, but not where the church is yoked and compromised.

Even with the 'consensus of the congregation', you cannot act in contravention of the law. As I mentioned, I am yet to come across case where the state has prevented a church from doing something led by the Spirit because of the charitable giving laws.

Again you are right and I am not saying that the church should. I have cited how churches are compromised in their preaching due to charity commission and ultimately government policy.

If they church could not be subject due to being unequally yoked, the government would have to persecute them in order to compromise their message. That would be game on!

JeSoul:
ps. I owe you some pix, lemme think up an expedient solution.

I'm patient, I'm sure you're creative. But don't make me have to pop down during my visit to Toronto later this year .

God bless
TV

JeSoul:
Here there are certain things churches are not allowed to do in order to retain their "tax exempt" status - ranges from politics to social issues. Should a church rather pay taxes and function however they please or work within the limitations imposed on it by the govt? Is it wrong for a church to want to function in a manner that is harmonious with the state?

Close to my position, but I would that churches do not seek any kind of legal incorporation and believers make any church - as opposed to charitable - giving out of after tax income.

The church will of course in some respects be "subject" to general laws. We mentioned zoning, planning etc. But not yoked by specific ones aimed at neutering them.

Do any of the Nigerian MOGS have a record of railing against the abuses Nigerias politicians subject its citizens to? Or are they somehow yoked, acquiescent and really part of the problem? The scriptural narrative is clear. The theme's unmistakable.

tbc

JeSoul:
While this body serves to keep religious bodies/charities accountable - and that is a good thing, but from a spiritual perspective - from a Holy Spirit perspective, I agree with you it amounts to being unequally yoked. But realistically, how many churches would rather be free and independent and not seek extra finances by getting taxes back?

Accountable? For ensuring the faith is contended for? The true gospel is preached? Christians live God gloryfying lives? The state cares less about that. Will the state intervene if a Church leader fornicates his way through the choir? Or preaches or practices anything contrary to the scripture. The states aim is not accountability, its control, or submission. Other than the silver, whats in view here to benefit the church? But the prid pro quo is too great and spiritually dangerous.

The Church in its natural spirit-led state is a threat to the state. I spoke about themes earlier - or maybe it was another thread !

When Herod took his brothers wife? Why was it JTB that spoke out? Why not the Pharisees? Because he was Gods - a type of the true unyoked church - the Pharisees were compromised. Afforded their position by the state to keep the people in check and reek platitudes. So as a church they were ineffectual, neutered, dead. As a charitable religious organisation the state loved them. And I'm sure some silver changed hands. What happened to JTB ? The state persecuted and killed him.

tbc.

JeSoul:
Praise the Lord!  
Lol at the SOS reference . . . glad it is still resonating  

Hi Jesoul, it not only resonates, it quite relevant here.

JeSoul:
Thank you for the above breakdown. I've heard about the UK charities commission but never this clearly and based on that I think I would agree whole heartedly that this is not the ideal situation for the church of Christ to be in. I bolded some parts of your post, and the most disturbing in bold red . . . really? they have/can influence sermon content? really?

Absolutely. The secular government agenda is foisted on the church. Even if only in part. So here, the gay/feminists lobbies are quite powerful and their priorities are high up the state agenda. Hence you'll rarely hear anything those lobbies consider off-message in charitable church sermons. The church is then not just yoked, but used to further the state agenda. The leverage is the states silver and the church wilfully subjecting itself to the states laws to obtain that silver.

tbc.

debosky:
As long as you are on this earth, you will be subject to earthly authority in some shape or form. We can't say because we are 'free' we'll go build a noisy church in a quiet residential area or erect a building in the middle of the freeway.

We must also remember what 'absolute' power did to the Catholic church in the past - their nearly total control of land, money and power led to absolute corruption.

1. That is rendering unto Ceasar. Planning, zoning, noise restictions. It is also not causing offence and being at peace with all.

2. It was precisely because the Catholic Church' interplay with the state and political inclinations that that happened.

The church should not be subject to, yoked with or seek the power of.

One last point. The church/state interplay is a resonating scrpitural theme. And the state has always persecuted the true church.

Thanks for your response.

God bless
TV

debosky:
The money given to the charitable organisation still goes to the organisation, it still impacts the life/lives of the people involved and whatever else the money was intended for.

My personal view is that whatever you get back as a tax return by virtue of your giving, GIVE IT AGAIN and then claim the return and continue the cycle. back tax returns, then give AGAIN and claim back tax returns the more.

Agreed for an individual. I use it to donate to humanitarian crises. Its slightly different in that the money is donated tax free so there's no reclaim, but its essentially the same and I do it. I don't think church should.

debosky:
This talk of being 'subject' to the law is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned - in order to avoid abuse, it is very right to be subject to financial regulation. We have enough people destroying the image of the Church by their wrongdoings that is imperative to have this oversight.

I appreciate your position here. But should the church need to b regulated by the state? It doesn't prevent wrongdoing, only seeks to penalise where it has occured. Who asks an outsider to chasten his wife?

tbc

debosky:
I don't think there's anything wrong in filing tax returns - there's nothing 'charitable' in letting the government keep the money in my opinion!

Give to Ceasar what is Ceasars. It may well be dressed up as a "tax refund" but its essentially state money that comes with obligations to the state.

debosky:
But seriously speaking, the key issue here is the motive. If you are giving simply to dodge the tax man, then it is definitely wrong and not acceptable in God's sight. However, if you give of your own volition and still get a tax return, I don't see the harm.

Its slightly different at an individual level. We are all subject to the laws of the state and our "charitable giving" is tax deductable. Nothing changes if an individual chooses to take advantage of that.

Church funds however, should be distinct and seperate, and not made subject to "charitable giving" laws. Subject to the leading of The Holy Spirit only or the consensus of the congregation. For the Church its different. The church is a body, a bride and she is to be submissive to her own husband. To take advantage of tax breaks a church/organisation/charity has to assume a legal status, which yokes it to the state.

tbc.

Consultant:
The pastor overlooked the context of the instruction in Ezekiel 44. When God divided up the land of Cannan among the tribes of Israel, the Levites were the only tribe that did not receive an inheritance. The Lord required them to keep their focus on serving Him only. They did not work, or make a living, so they were given a portion of the firstfruits and other offerings (not all of it) as their source of income. If we interpret this in today's context, then you can assume that the salary the pastor receives from the church is his portion of the firstfruit - a part of the tithes and offerings paid into the church, that is given to him for his upkeep. See Ezekiel 44:28 for clarification (posted below).

Welcome Consultant, I'm sure I remember you from before, before. But if I'm mistaken, welcome anyway. And if you're not been away, or are new, then, ooops sorry !

I for one see cross testamental references and themes and shadows & types. But I don't agree the we should lift OT practices, laws or dictates and wholesale apply them to NT Chrisitan life. Neither do I think - or more precisely, I do not see the scriptures as teaching - we should somehow re-work or re-interprete OT mores to configure NT practice.

To the detriment of many, the law and prohets are confused and/or mixed with grace. Moses is mistaken for Christ.

There is no distinct or seperate mediatory priesthood in Christianity. To apply Ezekiel 44 as you have, is somehow morphing the levitical/Aaronic priesthood with that of Christ. That priesthood and the law that was structured around it has been done away with.

God bless
TV

I do know that in the US, some churches are incorporated as companies. Same difference. You become a legal entity, subject to the state and its laws. I'm sure the US equivalent of being a charity brings its own yoke.

I understand the charity commission influence is so pervasive here in the UK as to even influence sermon content. But be that the case or not, the relationship IMO is already a spiritually adulterous one. The Church of Christ is a bride betrothed to the one.

So while it looks smart, may even appear wise. I see it as utterly wrong. The church must remain free and subject only to her Beloved. Sorry if I'm waxing a lil' lyrical, blame that SOS thread  !

God bless
TV

contd.

Taxes are levied by the state  - all things being equal - to develop and maintain infrastructure for the good of all. Church goers, Christians, use whatever label you will, utilise the infrastucture and services provided like everyone else. Why would we (the church) claim tax refunds? As I pointed, out tax refunds given by the state are granted in return for control. The Church cannot serve two masters or even afford to be unequally yoked.

Let me make my point with a case known to all of us KICC was involved in a huge imbroglio with the state here about use of its funds. ^{Now please, let me make this clear; I do not discuss, people, personalities, denominations or sects per se. Doctine yes, policy sure, my walk absolutely. This is not an opinion on the church or their leader.} This is merely to illustrate my position.

So my point is that the reason the state could intervene and rule was because of what I see as a adulterous monetary relationship. Like someone said, "he'd rather give cash". If we as say a NL church meet and pool whatever amount of our post tax income and do whatever with it. No one govermental, corporate, legal or whatever has the right to interfere or rule over what we do. Led by the Holy Spirit only. Subject to one Lord only. tbc.

Hallelujah!
I have waited patiently for this day and in truth, I am still somewhat wary. I have always wanted to press the issue of tithing beyond the doctrinal to the practical and further to the spiritual implications. One of the ploys of mandatory tithe proponents - wittingly or unwittingly - has been to keep the conversation revolving around if its an open and shut case of yes or no.

I have longed for us to discuss more expansively and take on the whole of Christian giving, use of money, examples in the scriptural narrative, meaning to the church as a body and as the bride. How, why, what for, when, to whom. The question posed here is but one of the many sub-theme's that should have emanated from that convo, but we simply never got there - or we just hindered from doing so. Whenever there's a crime, the police always look for the money trail. Sometimes, if you follow the money trail, you'll discover the crime.

"Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars"
I am not sure of the details of what obtains in the US, but let me touch on what I am familiar with here in the UK. For a Church to be in a position to claim tax back on charitable giving, they have to "register" as a charity. This leads to what any "smart" thinking person would welcome which is tax relief. Makes sense right? No, because it also brings you under the aegis of the charities commission - the state regulator of charities - and you will recieve your tax refunds on "charitable donations", but you become yoked to the state. Subject to its laws. tbc.

Daa.y.uum!

I'm trying to get my head around someone taking out a mortgage for say £250'000.00 and then giving the prpoerty away as first fruits.

It simply beggars belief. Or maybe I should say you'll be a beggar if you believe that. Ah!

People are wicked. Chei. And there are those that would take it without batting an eyelid. And refuse to give it back even if they knew. Spiritual deception is soooooo real!

But seriously, Christ is the Firstfruits. Think on that.

God bless (with or without a monetary offering)
TV

Mavenb0x:
@TV01: The topic is why they find themselves sinning / feeding the flesh. I suggest you may create a new thread for growing in the Spirit

Thanks bro!

Hmmmm. So because I did'nt proffer a pat on the back or give a resounding thumbs up, I am advised to "waka" in no uncertain terms  . The very merest, non-judgemental of quibbles on what was not even an original piece of work. _{Small mercies I suppose, under a different regime, I'd have had to seek permission to post and then have my submissions vetted .}

I - seemingly mistakenly - assumed starting a thread was to seek/engender dialogue? I suppose there's no point in adding the piece also appears to be incomplete as it doesn't explicitly delineate an end point for this struggle with the flesh. Although it does seem to imply a never ending battle?

Anyway, waka I go. Quietly (I dare say, inroads have been made to "dying to self" ). And I promise I won't make a huge fuss, secretly hoping forumites will laud me, extoll the qualities of my body of work and beseech me to stay. Then stay and post like both the printing press and qwerty are personal patents.

I do apologise - sis'.

God bless
TV

fellabrims:
Please, No ROOM for crticism [/b]O!

Aw shucks. There's usually at least one naysayer and I guess in this instance its going to be me  . Now don't get me wrong. Please, I loved the strip. Simple, informative humourous and to the point.

^{But to allege no room for criticism ke? Are we not on NL? and amongst some of the planets most hardened religionists. Here, there is always room for criticism - and of the harshest kind. Just joshing  !}

But seriously, I quite like the cartoon. And I feel most will be able to correctly extrapolate, but I think it is somewhat incomplete.

[b]Galatians 5:16-17
I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish.

Galatians 6:8
For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.

My point? I don't see the flip side illustrated. Subduing the flesh is only one half of the equation.

God bless
TV

Hi JeSoul,

Please, do go there. I would like as much practical, theoretical and spiritual knowledge and wisdom be gleaned from SOS on this thread. I'd like christians to look beyond the surface and find out how much they can really learn.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll try and explore further if time permits.

Oh wow. You're a proper Boston cat for real lol. I'm pretty much a westside dweller. When I worked in Watertown for 2 yrs I considered moving permanently to the city but it was going to cost an arm and a foot to live in a decent area. I'm back to Worcester now and frequent downtown mostly for concerts and above all to see the Celtics play at tha garden! lol. Beantown is just as vibrant, some major upgrades were done about the Seaport hotel (I forget the name of the street now) and it is so downright gorgeous it should be a crime. I have some pictures if you'd like to see . . .

Yeah lived it, loved it. Fond, fond memories. I was familiar with the 'burbs too. Most of the indigenes lived out of town, so I was always out there for bbq's parties and stuff.


I recieved a really glossy picture book as one of my leaving presies. Hancock Tower - and yes I made it to the top floor restaurant - etc. Love to see some up to date pics, but we mustn't get tagged as derailers 0! But then I guess it is your thread right?



God bless
TV

ttalks:
Anyone who's been following this thread ought to know who this is . . . . .

lol!
Could it be our friendly neighbourhood religionist aka Tonye-Tongue-Twister-The-Tyrannical-Tithe-Teacher?
And could he be Seriously-Seeking-Supporting-Scrolls??

Have a safe journey back to home.

davidylan:
Abstinence is possible but very difficult i must admit.

Quite frankly I disagree. Lots of people abstain for lifestyle or purely religious regions without that much difficulty. How much more those who believe God and avail themselves of the grace available in Christ Jesus, seeing the divine in that state.

I admit the ability to control different carnal desires may vary from individual to individual, but grace is available. Its not so much - IMHO - giving up the desire as it is the "desire to give it up"

I don't want this to be personalised like Sis' Mavens position was, however my personal walk is something I cannot deny. I am not a virgin - I always feel a tinge of regret when saying that - but I have been voluntarily celibate for over a decade. I am a single Christian male. That is just par for the course. I don't feel or assume particular favour, blessing or even "anointing" !

The peace of mind, the strength of purpose and the the clarity of thought it affords me are priceless.

God bless
TV

Tonye-t:
1. I have called KunleOshob to come up and tell everyone here why he feels Tithing isnt relevant today. the last time i beckoned again, he claimed dump

2. I called Zikkyy to tell us too, he resorted to other vocations

3. I called ttalks and till date that dude scampered

4. Chukwudi44 is no where to be found

5. My sister Jesoul could not say anything either about the topic

Ask them they'll say [U] THEY BELIEVE IT ISNT RELEVANT ANYMORE[/U] ok prove it!? they form dump. what sort of folks are these i wonder. If you're bold enuff then dont do any copy and paste from the internet but comeup and give a tentative evidence and case as to your claim. simple!

Quite simply because the only injunction to Christians is to give as you are willing and able and with good cheer. Not by compulsion, not of necessity. And almost always to satisfy real physical need.  

Oya, spiritualise it. "Tithe is the basis of Gods convenant for prosperty" or "if you don't tithe, you'll be tight" or perhaps "you are robbing God".

Or claim it's based on Abraham, but enforce it using Moses. Say its freewill but charge it using the law - the same law he fulfilled and in any event does not engender righteousness. Claim curses if one does not comply - the very curse he died to free us from.

There are only two reasons to preach tithe as binding on Christians. 1. You are misguided 2. You are mischevious. Which one na?

God bless
TV

Tonye-t:
When one say the Law of God, it simply means a written document/ rule that covers all the guidelines, precepts, ordinances, commandments and instructions as given by God. Adam do not eat from this tree, for the day you do you'll die is a Instruction from God thus a LAW from GOD.

Tongue-Twister, ah, ah. You managed to both lie and contradict yourself in the space of one short sentence.

1. The law of God is written in hearts
2. Which written law did God give Adam?
3. Was the Law of Moses not given by God to the Israelites? Or did Moses act as lawgiver?

Tithe-Trumper, abeg now. All this your convoluted reasoning and implausible unscriptural assertions dey give person headache. Surely you occupy the space where religionist and bureaucrat merge in perfect synthesis. Bro' Donnie of CE has been usurped!

Re-interprete, re-word, re-assign, or re-ascribe all you like. Speak Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew and assorted languages of antiquity, you will not prevail. Gods truth on Christ Jesus will keep His people free. 1 Corinthians 7:23 - You are bought with a price; be not you the servants of men.

Take their time by making them attend endless "church" functions and attend to "church" business. Fraudulently take their money with bogus applications of tithing and offering scriptures. Take thier allegiance by making them become "members" and submitting to the MOG, Gods people will be freed from the likes of you.

You've been outed already. Ioften thought you were at least sincere - if misguided - but your sly attempt to buttress your position by wilfully mis-applying Greek/Aramaic leaves you unclothed - and I hope ashamed. You are not the first to attempt that and for almost the same cause if I recall.

God bless & keep His own
TV

JeSoul:
Most preachers do not even preach from it, I guess they are scared of something lol. Personally, I think its a fantastic book with incredibly great poetry.

 Some christians choose to view it as symbolism, God's love to man, others (myself included) as love between a man and woman. I'm curious as to which side of the isle NL christians sit on. Please have your say . . .

Hi JeSoul & discussants,

This poster sits on neither side. Application wise, instuction wise and in other ways, I concur with both. But revelationally, I see Christ and His bride. And more sinisterly, those that could easily be mistaken for her, outnumber her and war against her.

How's Beantown? I have fond memories.

God bless
TV

Mavenb0x:
In my opinion, SeanT21, it's easier for women to abstain only if they are virgins. If men and women ever get disvirgined (some people will argue that men don't get disvirgined. Whatever. I refer to their first experience of a sexual nature, so to speak), I believe in that case it's generally easier for men to abstain than for women to abstain from further sex. But then, it's just my opinion. After all, I'm a virgin 'cos I'm not yet married (Yeah I'm proud of saying that anywhere ).

Hmmmm. I have a friend who makes the same claim. Women "having tasted" he claims are less able to hold themselves. As much as I am loathe to believe this, a lot of what I've seen makes me wonder. In any event my empirical knowledge is at best limited and I would'nt want to make any categorical statements. Is it simply suggesting women are the weaker sex?

And so you should be, in a humble way of couse . Well done, I sincerely applaud you.

God bless

TV