₦airaland Forum

ogajim:
=> Maybe I'll make a snowman and name him viaro

That'll be fun!

Pastor AIO:
All this reminds me of an article I once read by a philosopher who was responding to Dawkins and his ilk.  Unfortunately I can't remember the magazine or the exact statements from the atheists that prompted the article, but the main gist of it was that some people from the Dawkins camp were trying to diss philosophy.  Why?  Because they were getting no support from the philosophy camp and so some comments were made like 'philosophers can continue with their metaphysical speculations while scientists continued to do real science', or something like that. 
This philosopher brought the full brunt of his ire down on these atheist scientists by demonstrating just how philosophically shallow their position was.  Their position can only convince people who have absolutely no idea of what metaphysics is.

PastorAIO, thank you so much for spooning out the very things I had in mind. Please when you find that reference, keep us posted (it might be just about the same things I've perused, but the name of the philosopher eludes me just now. . so hitherto I just lazily resort to Michael Ruse, Lucyle T. Werkmeister Professor of Philosophy who was noted for quipping that Dawkins would fail a beginner's philosophy class - or something to that effect).

In order to be a Dawkins follower you need to be superficial.  You need to be ignorant of the basis philosophical ideas underpinning science.

. . . that was just the point about Ruse's quip (and which incidentally was why I carelessly called Dawkins a dunce in such matters).

This evidence of evidence chat kind of evokes that for me.  Also that nonsense about science starting from zero knowledge:

Hehe. .  I was putting up a small response to that, but you have made a better (and quicker) response!


Edit:

Though I couldn't find the article I mentioned where the philosopher attacked the Dawkins movement, in my attempts to search for it I came across another very interesting one that I read in Standpoint magazine. And lo and behold it can be found online, what a blessing. It's called the Darwinian Delusion and it is quite a gem. . . . .

http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/cosmos-August

The next time you want to stop a conversation among the soi-disant enlightened, ask what has atheism ever done for science.

I haven't read Steve Fuller that much, but he's quite in many thinkers' good books. The first line of the excerpt there is a gem: "next time you want to stop a conversation among the soi-disant enlightened, ask what has atheism ever done for science" - that was what I had in mind in the other thread when I queried agathamari's pictogram on 'Scientific Advancement' - just where is atheism represented in that pictogram?

___________

PS.  I just hope we don't end up hijacking this thread!

KunleOshob:
Viaro no one has claimed on this thread that you are any other person apart from Pilgrim.1 so stop using diversionary tactics. And you are definitely not mavenbox as she is much toodecent to be viaro, neither are you mabell who is a silly illerate child that attends that wrecthecd institution that called CEC plc. Mabell is way to shallow in her posts and is definitely a baby unlike you who is well schooled in the art of manipulation, deception and ochestrated lies.

There's no need to jump in the middle of what your fellows have been falling all over themselves to quote and misquote. No, I'm not the "wife" you miss and both you and TV01 could be sympathised with. . after all your theories, this is what you have reduced yourselves to. And yea, you've been the BOSS of anti-tithing liars on Nairanland, and I'm not competing that title with you. You may use all kinds of caustic language on mabell because she saw the same inconsistencies and lies spewing out of you non-stop, that is why you're still nursing bruises from your lying career when others have moved on.

Traugott:
Viaro: hold your peace, jare baba. Nothin' do you.

Haha. . I will email you later (and maybe both pilgrim.1 and mavebox and mabell would join us too, hahahaha!! )

Pastor AIO:
tee hee hee. That has got me thinking about the word 'evidence'. Is evidence merely something that has been evidenced, ie perceived by the senses?

Or is evidence to be understood in the sense of evidence for something else? eg. a falling apple is evidence for the force of gravity.

Must evidence necessarily point to something else that is not directly evident in order to be evidence, or is evidence just evidence in and of itself. lol! This thread is going to be sweet. Just when I was beginning to give up on Nairaland.

Hehehe. . when you first laughed 'tee hee', I knew sum'fin was up!

Quite an interesting observation, really. I have also wondered about the way people use that word 'evidence'. What does it mean for religiously-inclined folks? What does it mean for scientists in their various disciplines? Do we first think about something and then look for 'evidence'; or we stumble across or find 'evidence' and then begin to seek out what theories lead us to the 'evidence' for that 'evidence' that we have just stumbled across?

In all this, I was saddled with an assignment (which I haven't even looked twice): "what is the 'evidence' that something is 'evidence' in itself for any enquiry?" (Honestly, I take it that our philosophy tutor really doesn't want us to labour over that, but just to get us busy until next month in our next class). Phew! But I would appreciate any help from the philosophers of NL, hehe.

g1:
@viaro, how you dey?

i as an atheist does not agree with all dawkins'points, i do prefer the carl sagan and some of betrand russell type of atheism but to be honest despite his short comings i dont think we can label dawkins a "dunce" afterall you were the one who advised me that insults and namecalling does not help in arguments, hope u r doing good?

@g1, you're absolutely right. . . I should not have made such ungaurded statements, and there's no excuse I offer here for having done so (which is why I have crossed out that word against him).

I'm doing okay. And you?

mantraa:
The article also says "“There are people who say there is no God,” he told a friend. “But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.”
However, there is no evidence that he actually said this. "He told a friend" is not proof that something is true. Who was it that asked him just after his 50th if he was an atheist? I could just as easily write that he told a friend just after his 60th birthday that he is an atheist. Who is this friend? and was the reporter there to hear the conversation?

Yes, we could ask the same thing about all the other quotes you prefer to believe without foundation - the difference between the harvest of quotes earlier and the one I gave is not that significant. Any source could throw quotes in people's mouths, and anyone who wants to feel good about what they would like to believe would actually take any which side to make up his or her mind about Einstein. The one thing we all know was that no credible source shows Einstein claiming to be an atheist.

To me it is not even important whether Einstein was religious or not. I just look at the evidence myself and come to the most rational conclusion.

That's okay, and you should not be worried about that.

mantraa:
From the evidence provided by the two previous posters it seems clear to me that Einstein's quoted views on religion were that of an atheist.

First things first. Albert Einstein was not an atheist. How do I know this? Because when he was asked, shortly after his 50th birthday, whether he believed in God, he replied: “I am not an atheist.”

http://www.thejc.com/comment/columnists/the-atheists-can%E2%80%99t-have-einstein

g1:
@ poster, it depends on which way you look at it, some people dont have a problem with the two coexisting while some others think they work in two different directions i.e: :

Science:

we have observed and tested the evidence and facts before us, lets now reach a conclusion

That's not 'science', please - that's how many atheists claim to do science. Science does not start out by observing and testing 'the evidence' - how does it know that is an "evidence" if that is not a conclusion already? Science, properly speaking, does not use the term 'evidence' in such a careless manner, and that is why your ideas about religion were queried as biased.

while Religion:

we already have the conclusions, lets now look for the evidence and facts to back them up!

That's a narrow way to reason out issues. Religion means many things to many people, and the argument could be made that religion in many instances (and for many people) does not reach all conclusions - it is seeking, continues to seek, and even when it seems to begin to reach its quest, it continues to seek further. Please don't confuse these things and start misrepresenting religion from an atheistic point of reference.

agathamari:
what are you mumbling?  i have said before i am a pantheist/diest not an athiest. very large differnce between the them actually.  and again i have said before if i were to quantify my belief system with an organized religion it would be closest to hindu or budhism.

Okay agathamari, my fault - I misrepresented you and take the blame responsibly. I had no prior knowledge that you're a deist (I was only going by what you had posted on the other thread about atheism). Sorry about my mix up, my apologies again.

again pay attention.  pagan and earthbound religions believe in a god like force therefor they CANNOT be athiest.

I understand that very well, so no need to have repeated that at all. Pagan and earthbound religions are not to be confused as fundamentally same with science, please - that's the point. If you can go beyond lecturing us on paganism and dealing with the topic of the thread, that would be great.

someone who does not believe in the judeo-christian god in this day and age is not an athiest,

I know, thank you. That doesn't make such a person a scientist either.

someone who doesnt believe in any form of god or god like being is an athiest (btw- only ONE form of athiesm).

As above, I know that - yes, it doesn't make sucha  person a scientist. I know you understand what I just said, and the only reason why I reiterate it is so we can focus on the topic of this thread: 'What Is The Fundamental Difference Between Science And Religion?'

And, please: there is not only one form of atheism. Informed atheists know what I'm talking about, so since you're not an atheist, I would rather urge you gather your facts before making such assertions. While you on it, let me leave you an example from a French atheist website - [url=http://]Atheisme.ca[/url] ~~

The underlying principles of this site, its goals, its "raison d'être".
There are many different forms of atheism; many differents atheisms so to speak. The approach adopted by this site is one of those possibilities. The purpose of this section is thus not to present a list of definitive and immutable precepts, but rather to provide a clearly worded summary explaining that approach

I hope that's a good start. Search more - information is all out there.

Let me reply in reverse order:

agathamari:
"My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a "they" as opposed to a "we" can be identified at all." - Richard Dawkins

It were better that you did not cite Dawkins. He's a dunce and will continue to remain so until he educates himself on the fact that his atheistic fundamentalism is one reason why atheists would put him up in a banner labelled "th[color=Black]ese id[/color]iots". There's so much to say that would make you rethink quoting him again, but I often leave my readers with Michael Ruse's apt quip that Dawkins would fail an elementary philosophy class - and I agree. I'm not the one who straightens Dawkins up, but he's had a fair dose of fine critique from both atheist and secular thinkers who are not impressed with his theatrical atheism. So I don't see how your harvest of quotes does anything to justify the claim that Einstein was an atheist - for he was not, and we shall see this shortly.

Next. . .

agathamari:
as for lincoln:
John T. Stuart, Lincoln's first law partner: "He was an avowed and open infidel, and sometimes bordered on Atheism, He went further against Christian beliefs and doctrines and principles than any man I ever heard."

Abraham Lincoln was critical of Christianity, that much we know. But that in itself is not sufficient to claim that he was an atheist - unless your source was again playing crude jokes on you and you didn't notice. There are many sources that avow that Lincoln was a deist rather than atheist - please do a simple search and you may get some interesting results. Even the positive atheism website does not have Lincoln as an atheist, but rather regards him as Deist.


Okay, now on to Einstein:

agathamari:
einstien was raised by jewish parents but he himself didnt believe in that faith that makes him a non practicing jew. these quote by einstien may enlighten you as to why he is considered an athiest:

The quotes actually do not make for sufficiency of any claims to make Einstein an atheist, I'm sorry to say. Yes, he was critical of religion, did not seem to have expressed any inclination to a belief in a personal God; and although he makes allusions to believing in 'Spinoza's God', would we conclude that he was an atheist in consideration of this excerpt below? -

First things first. Albert Einstein was not an atheist. How do I know this? Because when he was asked, shortly after his 50th birthday, whether he believed in God, he replied: “I am not an atheist.”

It made the great man furious to be used in support of atheism: “There are people who say there is no God,” he told a friend. “But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.”

http://www.thejc.com/comment/columnists/the-atheists-can%E2%80%99t-have-einstein

I guess it's about time that we let the gentleman be and refrain from keeping him on the angry edge. Einstein was not an atheist.

agathamari:
science is the observation and understanding of the world around you. many of the "pagan" as well as "earth" religions do the same. thus they are interchangable. thiest religions are bound by dogma and this are wholy different. as science has progress as has the upswing in "neo-pagan" folowers

You're preaching your atheistic dogma once again. Atheism (the many forms of atheism I'm familiar with) is bound by atheistic dogma, so what essentially has that got to do with the 'fundamental difference between science and religion'?

sinequanon:
I think that there is no fundamental difference between science and religion.

If you think there is, please make your case for discussion.

Well, it all depends on what you may mean by the differences or similarities. There are several perspectives to consider that may show that they might be fundamentally different in their outlooks, don't you think?

bawomolo:
being secular doesn't make one atheist either.

Thank you, bawomolo - I didn't know how to present that point as succinctly as you did.


_____________

Pastor AIO:
ah ha!! What Abraham Lincoln an atheist, or is that another desperate humanist lie? I know he questioned christianity, but I didn't know that he was an atheist. Please put me in the know.

Well, I have been reconsidering what I thought I knew about Lincoln in order to understand why any atheist would assume he was one of them. I still haven't found anything new, so I often take that poster/banner as a joke.

woye77:
@traugott and Viaro - i respected you guys so much - particularly traugott - i'm really dissapointed

@woye77, please and please, I apologise. I don't think Traugott has any blame in this. The whole thing should be blamed on viaro - I take it responsibly and don't wish someone else to be blamed for the unfortunate role I played in this thread. Much respects.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=391636.msg5484938#msg5484938 date=1265786442]Viaro I can only laugh when I remember our first encounter and some of your first posts on NL.

I guess you've been initiated. . Welcome to NL bro/sis/?[/quote]Hehehe . . you should have warned me so that I would've walked with caution and not have had to pass through the eye of a needle to get initiated!

Anyhow, how are you doing these days?

ogajim:
Viaro bro, Let's refrain from calling a creation of God a "twerp", thank you.

I would very much like to refrain from such - as long as you guys would make up your minds to stop making unnecessary comments that draw such from me. Should I apologise for all the ones I used in the past? I do - my apologies. Cheers.

Enigma:
Well spotted! True to God I was still coming round to that. Another view that I'm coming round to is that we may be dealing with a pathological/medical case --- things like bipolar etc. (Edit: I have to admit that the Traugott one is one of the cleverer ones!)

[size=14pt]Hahahahaha!![/size]

You guys have a very interesting theory, you know? Wait, let me guess: according to these developments, your theory leads you to believe that -

viaro = pilgrim.1 = mavenbox = Traugott??

Oh boy! [size=14pt]Hahahahaha!![/size] Fascinating!

BTW, what do you guys smoke for leisure? No, honest, guys. . . what brand of harshish have you been peddling around? You're absolutely free to smoke any brand not in the books, but please let us know when to help!

TV01:
Pilly! Pilly!! Pilly!!! This is the second time today you are taking my name in vain.

Eh, dude. .  it's quite late where I live, so if your pajamas are fusty, you don't have to call out for attention. I still pity you the most among the lot pilgrim.1 dealt with, but you must have been dreaming far too much about her to be confusing persons here. Did I take your name in vain? Apologies - but tune in your channels properly so we don't get further entertained by your cacophony. Sorry.

The first time you co-opted my moniker to buttress you deceit about "spiritual principles".

I've got no deceit - none. Principles, yes - and you said so yourself, no? If I quoted you wrong, again I apologise, and then you can right it, no?

Sladerously implying that I considered tithing a "principle". Its not and I don't.

That's fine - you're not under arrest for what you maintain. But whatever did you mean by this: "However the principles and spirit  behind them remain, there's just a more excellent, more glorious way of fulfilling them"?? You may yap all you want, but making statements and then falling all over yourself - where did you crawl out from?

Tithing is a practice, which doctrinally has pretty much zero relevence in Christian life. Practically, some may find it useful in a purely religious sense, but the mature and/or be Spirit-led will really just scratch head at the notion.

Isn't that so cutely showing why you suffer from doublespeak? This is how you guys show you really have 'no problem' with Christians who tithe, no? Bro, your sanctimony is a bit weathered now, so think of another excuse or change your channel any which way you choose.

The only other concession I will give is to the sovereignty of God. He does as He pleases and could indeed ask one of His own to tithe. Once, occassionally, for a period. He is sovreign. But that would not constitute a body-wide re-institution of tithing - unless of course He asked it of each and every believer, and even then it wouldn't be doctrine - that would be to contra.indicate scripture.

huh??  The 'sovereignty of God' - He would could INDEED ASK one of His own to tithe?? Are you out of your mind or you're being remoted from across the hemisphere? I could hardly believe that you would be speaking the language of a tither, if I didn't know you too well! poor dude!

See me bending over backwards to help you cover your unclothedness . Please don't take this and run dat your mouth in contrarily 0! . Nonsense & ingredient!

Hehehe. .  I'm not the exposed one - you can ring up your 'BOSS' who's been lying up and down the street!  If you lost his contact addy, just ask ogajim!

Isn't it funny that I have not had to change anything about what I argue on this subject, and you lot have been knocking yourselves off the cliff for your inconsistencies?

Now to principles, these are essentially derivatives of love. Loving God and your fellow man. Love does no harm to a neighbour. Indeed it makes you willing to act sacrificially on his/her behalf. It means you will render fair justice (equity, judgement), be merciful and have faith in them even in the face of the most appalling behaviour.

Yeah, so how does that make NT giving any "superior" to the love we find among God's people in the OT? You're trying far too hard to impress yourself, TV01. .  far too much. It turns out you're still far too dense to make any sense that would score as fresh point for discussion. Please try again - the lines are still open.

Its on that count that  I have relented this once and address you directly.

Good one! I long expected you'd stop monkeying around in your false pious garb!

As while you have totally discredited yourself and been glaringly exposed thereto - A Pilly word   - having to re-incarnate as Viaro to cover your shame - and unfortunately continue your falsehood

Oh dude - amuse me more. How did I "expose" myself? What? Just because you've been shouting 'pilly! pilly! pilly!' like a[color=Black]n idi[/color]ot with his shorts half done suddenly means viaro = pilgrim.1 = mavenbox (and now 'Traugott'), no? Oh, I get it - if anyone quotes from pilgrim's posts, that person is automatically pilgrim.1, no? You guy's are class when it comes to displaying such empty skulls. Well done.

I wish you well and can still remember that your presence and contributions were in many regards a blessing to many. Why reduce youself to adding only nuisance value?I have long harboured deep suspicions about your motivation and spiritual provenance. Please prove me wrong.

Oh please, amuse me more!  Why would I take honour that is not mine? Is that a nigerian thing?? Sorry, dude. . I empathise with you on your hearthrob. If I were you, I would not have been shouting 'Pilly! Pilly! Pilly!' all over the place - rather, I would have taken her contact address long before now. You have a very twisted matrix for your hypocrisy, though. .  so I don't expect you'd have been smart enough to think like a grown-up. But you know just what to do in simple issues like this, rather than the laughable theory of trying to turn me into pilgrim into mavenbox into now Traugott!

Now, has anyone figured out the alias "Traugott", or do I have to do everything around here  !

Oh, now viaro = Traugott? [size=14pt]Hahahaha!![/size] Tv01, if ever I came across a twerp, you claim the award hands down!

^^Hehehe. . Enigma, you played cheap - far too cheap that it wasn't any trouble wasting you and your folks. You lot were making it far too easy for me to set you straight because it didn't seem you were interested in a genuine discussion. It's no secret that I'd taken the time to follow pilgrim's arguments on tithes . . as well closely tried to follow KunleOshob's. So I understand what that lady did to you and your gang!

The one I pity most is TV01. . goodness! Let me just say I saw things in many threads!! But most of all, I understand why you're driven to jump to conclusions about your theory of making me into either pilgrim.1 or mavenbox (or maybe mabell. . hahaha ). Yep, I also saw the threads where pilgrim almost ripped you and TV01 to shreds until the thread was locked and a new one opened! I saw all these things, but I don't follow people gullibly - that's why I do my checks first before agreeing or disagreeing. Where I agree, it adds to my knowledge, and I expand my notes in further searches.

To me, when people have lost focus and are no longer interested in genuine discussions, they very quickly tend to distractions (mavenbox = viaro, etc., etc., etc.) - these are not necessary. If I played that game I would very quickly lose sight of the subject, that is why I would rather remain focused with the substance of what I hope to present.

But enjoy - it's your call to show me another pair of winks and dark googles, hehehe. I didn't find it funny (pardon me), but don't take any tough replies too personal.

Enigma:
Ain't dat de 'trute'

And Pilgrim.1 very much likes to quote 'comentator this', 'commentator that', 'commentator the other' including (quite respectable people though imperfect as everyone is) such as Coffman, Pink, MacArthur etc. Here is one pilgrim.1 made earlier --- go down to the middle and Coffman, Pink, McArthur quotes will come up.

Funny those quotes were also repeated with others on this thread. Coffman, Pink McArthur start from number 7 on this one.

I see another liar creeping out of his bedbug cublicle. While you're in a hurry to confuse people and quoting those links where pilgrim.1 made those excerpts, did you ever read what I wrote back in the page where I made my excerpts? No, I guess not - but let me oblige you:

viaro:
Could we compare notes from various sources on what some seasoned theologians have said on this very Hebrews 7:18? Did they unanimously argue that it was 'tithes' that were "abolished" in that verse, or rather something else? Let us see [size=14pt](I've had to borrow some notes and sources already posted on this forum)[/size]:

So, if I borrowed some of hers and added mine, that makes viaro = pilgrim.1, no?

When you make such hasty conclusions, be careful to read well - but no, I don't expect you would, that is why you were whining about "scholarship" where you have demonstrated none. I guess that's why you were troubling Traugott earlier about 'pilgrim.1 and mavebox' joining viaro offline when emailing Traugott! Yep, folks like you knock yourselves out making all sorts of warped ideas because you have completely lost sight of what the thread was about in the first place. Fill in the gap with your lies - it's your hallmark.

manmustwac:
Pilgrim1 Oops sorry i mean viaro your so passionate about tithes

Hehehe. . yes, I am - even outside Nairaland. You will notice that for sometime I just ignored a few other threads on NL discussing tithes until this one came up. Our anti-tithing friends are also passionate about tithes, no?

agathamari:
^^^^Einstein was a non practicing jew, so technicaly yes

Oh please! There are "non practising" this and that all over the place, but just because someone is a 'non-practising' whatever does not qualify as "atheist", technically or otherwise.

You know, the poster is a joke. Atheists who use such posters should do their home work thoroughly before waving such around the net. For all we know, Einstein was not an atheist. . . so technically, whoever put him up there among those other guys ("[color=Black]these idio[/color]ts" was indeed an id[color=Black]iot i[/color]n his own world (or a joker with a crude sense of humour).

ogajim:
Viaro, my point (since you avoided it or didn't get it) with the Haitian relief question is this:

Again, apologies. I did not intend to avoid or evade the point - that was why I asked questions and invited you to correct me where I got you wrong.

Since it is not compulsory that our donations to the Haitian relief efforts go through the Red Cross,  it can't be compulsory either that our Christian GIVING be through a Church or Pastor, you can see a need in someone or a group of people and try your best to fulfill it.

Okay, let's not quarrel over that. I did not suggest at any time that people should not support any relief effort, whether Red Cross or Haiti (or even the one Pastor AIO mentioned: 'Medecins San Frontieres'). If I suggested that one way or the other it was compulsory, please show me - I am not above apologising and takeing corrections.

In very simple fact, this was essential my reply to Pastor AIO:

[list](a)

You would notice that my views on these things do not tend to "exclusive divides" (said so in post #14). It is not a question of either this or that between 'better' alternatives, so it's not here a matter of between the church and an organisation. In Scripture there are clear verses pointing particularly to giving in Church, which do not mean that giving through other channels are more or less 'better' or 'efficient'

. . note that his first questions was about "maximizing efficiency" of his gift ('If I want to help the sick children of the world am I better off giving to the church or giving to Medecins San Frontieres', said he).[/list]

[list](b)

I also noted that this principle is "applied in so many instances to other aspects of our lives and faith"; and although it includes the question of using our resources (financial and material) in the Kingdom, it is not necessarily limited to the examples given thus far.

As to how the relationship works, it depends on what exactly the enquirer has in mind. If, for example, it is on the question of using our material resources to reach out to people in the Body of Christ, the relationship works on the basis of 2 Corinthians 8:14 - 'that there may be equality', where our resources help to better the circumstances of believers in the Body of Christ.

[/list]

Now, do my replies to Pastor AIO suggest that I was denying anyone any privilege or calling anyone "stingy" or. . . what exactly did I say before you accused me of sounding like "some of these money mongers fleecing the flock bling in the name of our Lord"?? Again, I still have not got your point where I might have made such a statement that warranted your accusations - please let me know.

Just because others don't share your principle of giving doesn't make them anti this or anti that, we need to learn to control our emotions no matter the situation. Insults are for elementary school or even pre K kids who are still learning the ropes.

You should know you insulted my person with "money mongers", which was rather uncalled for. I had endured such castigations (or in your own words, 'pessimistic or cynical conjecture') coming from you and your friends; and despite my saying repeatedly that I would not be accommodating of such, you guys kept that attitude up until I took a stand to not allow you get away with it.

If on the other hand some of you (especially you ogajim) feel that you're quite at home with your anti-tithing campaign, I don't see how you should come back complaining about being identified as such. It isn't so long ago that you typed in all caps that 'TITHING IS A SCAM' - and if you didn't expect a reaction to that, you would not have been so brazen. Not to mention that when I tried to make clear that it was not my intention to put everyone in a box, TV01 came along mocking what he had no clues about (if he as well was satisfied with being called an anti-tither, what is the complain all about then?).

Confidence doesn't always equal conceit, in one of your quoted responses where I wrote in German that I was no kid, you replied calling me a kid in German, do I follow that up? No way Jose.

I remember the thread. Did you note how caustic your language was to have warranted my reply in German? Oh c'mon, ogajim. .  far earlier than then, did you not call me another term in German? Not that this is a big deal, but I wonder why you reharshing these things from the past? Maybe it's me, but I like to move on and let the past be. If it can't be rested until you draw my ears on it, then please receive my apologies and let's put it behind us.

It might help to get testimony from those who tithe knowingly but I do understand it is not a democracy in here

I could give you so many. I suggested doing so in another thread; but Zikkyy (if I remember well) thought that subjective reports were of little value - and that was why I did not do so.

olowolekan:
The story I narrated happened in my church.I am not a pastor but a believer like you.If you pay tithe, do you pay it to me?But as far as I understand and know,tithe is compulsory.Pastor bakare may not agree with other pastors on the topic and he has not the final say.The Bible is our guide and not pastor Bakare.I just shared someone testimony.Why are there doctrinal diffences since we all use the same Bible.Let's leave the matter to God.As many are led by the spirit of God are the sons of God.Now an assignment.Let us forget all we know about tithe and go to God in prayer for direction.Whatsoever God tells you please mail me and I will do likewise.May the Lord help us.Amen

It is true that Pastor Tunde Bakare is not the final authority on any subject of scripture - and indeed, he himself says that what he teaches about tithing is not a law unto other Christians, and I agree with such a position on spiritual matters.

There are many pastors who teach tithes as a compulsory part of the Christian faith; but there are also many, many more pastors who teach that tithes are voluntary. The reason why I often agree with the latter is because spiritual matters are not to be forced on any believer. God wants His children to be led by His Spirit, that is why He did not make any man the authority of the spirit of His children.

The 'compulsory' and 'voluntary' divides over the subject of tithes (and in fact, any other type of giving) are unnecessary. The Lord Jesus taught us to look out for fruit in our Christian walk. In that regard, I feel that if we take time to look at the result (or fruit) of teaching coercive/compulsory giving, we shall find tears and weeping - just as the prophet Malachi has declared. But when our 'giving' (whether tithes, firstfruit, freewill offerings, or any other thing anyone calls it) comes from the heart willingly without mechanical compulsion of any sort, shall we not find much more rejoicing?

It is because we want to see believers giving joyfully, that is why we take the time to repeatedly and consistently tell the goodnews: tithing is NOT compulsory but VOLUNTARY. How shall we give, or with what attitudes and manners does God expect the Christian to approach Him with his/her gifts (tithes, offerings, etc)? Let's remind ourselves:

[list]Exodus 25:2 - 'Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering: of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart ye shall take my offering'

Exodus 35:5 - 'Take ye from among you an offering unto the LORD: whosoever is of a willing heart, let him bring it, an offering of the LORD; gold, and silver, and brass'

Exodus 35:21 - 'And they came, every one whose heart stirred him up, and every one whom his spirit made willing, and they brought the LORD'S offering to the work of the tabernacle of the congregation, and for all his service, and for the holy garments'

1 Chronicles 29:9 - 'Then the people rejoiced, for that they offered willingly, because with perfect heart they offered willingly to the LORD: and David the king also rejoiced with great joy'

Ezra 2:68 - 'And some of the chief of the fathers, when they came to the house of the LORD which is at Jerusalem, offered freely for the house of God to set it up in his place'

2 Corinthians 8:11 & 12 - 'Now therefore perform the doing of it; that as there was a readiness to will, so there may be a performance also out of that which ye have; For if there be first a willing mind, it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not according to that he hath not'

2 Corinthians 9:7 - 'Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver'[/list]

Now, the last quoted verse is one of my favourites - that is what encourages my heart to know that God is not seeking compulsory offerings or compulsory tithes: "NOT GRUDGINGLY" - "NOT OF NECCESSITY" . .  a cheerful giver is one who understand that he/she is not coerced or forced or threatened in any way to give anything. God's Word also says: "he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity" (Romans 12:8 ).

In very fact, the NASB says in 2 Corinthians 9:7 - "not grudgingly or under compulsion". What does that tell viaro? Simple: when you give, do not do so under compulsion. DON'T!

What more should I say other than that I have now not appealed to Pastor Tunde Bakare? He did not write the Bible; but if the Bible should speak with authority, let all other 'compulsory' pastors listen to that verse again: "DO NOT do so under compulsion".

May God seal His blessings of grace and freedom upon your heart - let Him bless you more than viaro can testify.

ttalks:
But I'm expecting rebutals from those who willingly tithe with the knowledge that tithing isn't compulsory.
Let's go there! ! !

Oh yes, we shall go there - and good point!

We have said it before, and continue to say so - tithing is NOT compulsory. I know how this disheartens some people who so much believe it should be compulsory (our brethren olowolekan, and if I'm not mistaken, Tonye-t. .  etc). It is not that viaro intends to damn anybody, but even when I believe in tithing, I should say again: tithing is NOT compulsory.

Instead of going through another trail of exegesis, perhaps we should just remind others that many people "who support tithing today" do not argue for a compulsory tithe or compulsory giving. Tithing was never taught in the Bible as an element of salvation (another way of saying this is that tithing is not a salvific element of our faith) - no amount of giving, donations, freewill contributions, alms, collections, etc., etc., will ever secure anybody a place in heaven - nor will the opposite of not being able to give send anyone to hell!

An example (there are so many more) that I have referenced about tithers not teaching a compulsory tithe is Pastor Tunde Bakare. I know of many preachers and churches around the world outside Nigeria who don't preach a compulsory or mandated tithe(s), but I have learnt to make reference to local names within Nigeria - since it seems that many Nigerians are more inclined to what obtains in Nigeria than elsewhere.

Pastor Tunde Bakare again he says: ‘Do I pay tithe? Definitely.’ A statement which is that simple could not be clearer; but he went on to state in no uncertain terms: ‘But I don’t make it a law for everybody.’ In fact, he had already declared much earlier that:
[list]

Tithes are to be used to take care of widows, the helpless, and services in the house of God. Why should they come to you to say we want to pay NEPA bills, we want to pay church staff? People that are working in the ministry have to be paid and the organisation has to be run. But it’s never compulsory. If anybody tells you if you don’t pay tithe you  will remain tight, greed in his heart is influencing that because Christ has become the cross for us.

(read it here)[/list]
Does that sound like Pastor Bakare is preaching a ‘compulsory tithe’ - even “today”?


Now to our friend olowolekan, since you left your email address (and supposing you're in Nigeria), you could try and contact Pastor Tunde Bakare to help you understand why tithing is NOT compulsory. It does not mean that some of us don't tithe or that we don't believe in tithing - in fact, viaro does. That is why you will find more help from a respected teacher of the Word who will not make any form of your giving a matter of coerced or compulsory exercise as you live your faith before God.

Traugott:
KunleOshob, what is Enigma talking about? Viaro and Traugott are the discussants here, of what concern is mavenb0x and pilgrim?

Cool down. . cool down! By now you should have decoded the paranoia being played out here. . to these guys, 'viaro = pilgrim.1'; now, 'pilgrim.1 = mavenbox'; and then again, 'mavenbox is viaro'! (and, of course, viaro = pilgrim.1 = mabell) It is all the same thing, no?

Hahahaha!! I can't find enough lungs to laugh at these guys. Traugott, watch out. . soon you will be named the reincarnated DeepSight or Nuclearboy!

ogajim:
Viaro, you're acting very much like Mugabe now

I apologise, ogajim. I did not intend to come across to you that way, and viaro is not above apologising where he has erred.

How could I have lied about the Red Cross question that you couldn't even comprehend? Let's do this again and see if your meds kick in enough for you to grasp the question, If someone decides to give to Haitian relief through a means other than the Red Cross, are they still giving to the cause?

I'm not on meds, dear sir. However, right from the time you made reference to the Red Cross and Haiti relief effort, you sounded like I had suggested that some people were stingy. Please correct me if I'm wrong - but perhaps I should try and show the sequence from here:

(1)  Pastor AIO had asked me two very simple questions, and I gave my answers.

(2)  Consequently, you accused me of sounding like "some of these money mongers fleecing the flock bling in the name of our Lord" (I don't know what brought that about). It was in that same instance that you went on to say to me -

I am practical enough to know how and when I should give and to whom, are you trying to tell me that just because some folks now don't want to give to the Haiti relief through the Red Cross means they are too stingy to give?

(3)   My reply to that, partly quoted below:

Did you read me anywhere denying anyone the privlege of giving to Haiti relief efforts or to the Red Cross? Where? Quote me directly! Are you now so desperate you must LIE on top of everything?

The point was that I did not say anything suggesting what you had made out. If I did, I waited for you to quote me and address that part of any comments I made that might've suggested such. You did not oblige - and the subsequent posts you made were all flavoured with unwelcome innuendoes.

The tendency of these misrepresentations (in my opinion and experience) is that they tend to act like slow poison in the minds of readers who stumble across them and don't have the time to dig for themselves what the actual issues were. Now again, where i might have been mistaken, do you care to show me that I suggested either that:
(a) some people should not give to relief efforts? or that:
(b) I tried to discourage anyone else from giving at all?

Whatever you may arrive upon, it does not mean that people cannot reason with me. I've often said that I'm open to discussion and invited/extended the same to others. Others have pointed out to me that I sounded brash/harsh (ttalks and aletheia) when addressing you, and I acknowledged the fact without trying to pride myself in it. A few examples why I responded to you in such manner:

(a)

ogajim: Viaro dude, slow your roll. You are beginning to sound like some of these money mongers fleecing the flock bling in the name of our Lord
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-388653.32.html#msg5432894

(b)

There is an old Yoruba saying " until the rotten tooth is pulled away, the mouth must chew with caution",  I pray for forgiveness if any of my posts came off as conceited, not my idea or intention
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-388653.0.html#msg5428557

In (b) above, it's like you enjoy insulting your readers and then asking for forgiveness in the same breath! That really does not help a healthy discussion.

Again, I asked you to show me where I denied anyone the privilege of supporting relief efforts - and because you didn't oblige, it made me wonder that you were deliberately misrepresenting me - which was why my no-nonsense replies to you.

KunleOshob:
First fruit = first salary of the year is another false doctrine fast gaining prominence in the mamon worshipping arm of the pentecostal movement.

I agree with you.

ogajim:
Viaro can keep his/her brand of Christianity, name calling out of PMS induced frustration is not enough to make me lose my temper or operate below my usual standards, maybe the little Italian apartment is getting too claustrophobic? get out for some air dude(?)

I enjoy my apartment, thank you. And yes, I always keep my brand of Christianity - it eschews lies from your camp and has no stomach for your LYING BOSS!

You still don't get the Red Cross rhetorical question so just take a pass, I have passed beyond the insults stage, very elementary if you ask me.

You tried to lie there, dude. That was why I asked you to produce where I ever suggested a denial of anyone supporting the Red Cross or Haiti relief efforts. 'Rhetorical question' indeed - please pass, I need fresh air from your lies!

Remember that nothing so quickly kills a man as the publicity he gives himself, there is nothing infallibly prophetic about pessimistic or cynical conjecture.

Have I solicited for your publicity? Dude, please call for a new refill of your meds - you're smoking what's not in the book!

## Wondering when the NL parish/chapel of these Churches will be officially opened and folks not "ashamed" to NAME their denomination

Em, you name yours if it troubles you. It's a free world to damn your pastors from your restlessness.

KunleOshob:
@Pilgrim.1/ trauggot

You don't have to confuse me with pilgrim.1 - if she left you sorry on Nairaland, that is understandable. I hope you're not blind in quoting viaro's posts and mistaking them for pilgrim's? I understand your romance for her and how badly you miss her, but dude - viaro is not a gay and I'm not intending to drop my trousers for you.

Even i have said and i still maintain that tithing the way it is preached, defined and practised in today's churches has no sound biblical basis and by implication a scam since it is the doctrines of men presented as the word of God however i did make concessions that if the tither is told the whole truth about tithing and is made to realize that it is not in anyway a cristian obligation but simply a recommendation of the church to promote the ministry and the tither still purposes in his heart to tithe, then it is absolutely ok since the truth has been told in this case. Instead of my dear pilgrim.1 to admit i made concessions she and the illiterate girl mabell go ahead and accuse me of being inconsistent. And to make matters worse pilgrim.1 now has the presence of mind to accuse me of not proclaiming "tithing is not a scam" after i took pains to explain conditions under which it was ok and acceptable to God

Em, dude - you were too busy lying up and down the street and had no conscience to shape up to consistencies telling the truth. It is simple. I am willing to accept that to err is human - who doesn't err?? And yes, I have erred several times, but I don't try to turn round and use all sorts of cosmetic language to dress up those errors to make them the obvious lies that you manufacture.

If it was only viaro that saw them, cool - no problems. But if someone else (mabell) saw them and pointed them out, why call her illiterate? Just because you can't control your doubletalk and lying serpentine assertions does not make anyone else illiterate simply because they can see for themselves that you are a gutless liar. You can take pains to excuse that one again, and perhaps make provision for us to repeat the lies and doubletalk you are so characteristic of. .  that simpletons like ogajim will be hailing you as 'BOSS'! Yeah, BOSS indeed of Nairaland anti-tithing liars!

ttalks:
So, what would be your suggestion as to dealing with a situation like this?
Direct confrontation with the person that made the comment or a general rebuttal of the comment?
Which do you think it should be?

Both. We have addressed it in a general way, as well directly addressed it to the person or persons who keep repeating such misleading statements.

And for either option, how consistent should it be? Should it be anytime the comment comes up or is indicated, or should it be just a few remarks to refute such a comment?

As consistent as should be. You would notice that initially we tried to reason with these guys - did they show any intention to be reasonable? If the corrections on that same concern have been noted and NOT REPEATED, what would be the reason for any one to repeatedly address it?