₦airaland Forum

g1:
nope it aint the same, we cant careless if anyone left his so called faith to become an atheist,

I see. It so happens that when banom on Nairaland disavowed atheism, your comrades were very disturbed, no? I don't see them reacting the way you're now apologising for here - at the very least, they ought to have shown indifference - did they? No. And that was prolly why you came to Nairaland to seek out fellow atheists in Abuja: not that I could care two scoobies about that - it just shows your cognitive dissonance well at work.

people usually find atheism on their own, after realizing that religion is a sham, u dont see any atheist knocking on your door telling you he wants to evangelise atheism, do you?

No - you want to know why no thinking atheist would dare my door? They just have to see the name "viaro" and they won't think twice! But that does not mean that atheists never try to convert religious people - they do. Please pretend you're the only atheist who is very oblivious of this fact, and we shall help point out a few.

and please stop saying "join atheism" as if atheism has a belief system like islam and christianity, if atheism is a belief then not collecting stamps is a hobby

I understand your atheism is a mile off from the atheism bandied about by many atheists. The phrase "Join Atheists of Florida" as an example did not come from me - it came from those who advertise their own form of atheism - go figure.

But there's more -

       *   Join American Atheists (here)

       *   '8.  Join Atheism and make a stand to help all atheists have their voices heard.' (here)

There are more than 200 different examples I could rapidly post by atheists all over the world campaigning and soliciting people to "JOIN ATHEISM" - that is something your own cognitive dissonant folks have been doing and you are here complaining and asking me to stop saying the fact? Not that i could care any less, I just rather wonder why you are happier ignoring the very thing that springs from your own quarters while you go about complaining against others. Enjoy.

uplawal:
the christian follow their dirty mind and not the laws of God

That's okay. But pray tell: whose mind was resorting to 72 virgins as reward for allah's projects?

ymdo:
the only reason why Islam is surviving is because Allah promised to protect His religion.

How does he do that - by the examples of the pictures in the OP of this thread, no?

Abu Zola:
@viaro- what a waste, a lifestyle and not a religion. Hahahaha

Did I say they are the same?

g1:
@topic, the level of cognitive dissonance that goes on in the gullible minds of christians and muslims is really amazing,
everyday here on nairaland a deluded christian comes here with news bragging about how a muslim has converted to christianity and likewise a deluded muslim comes here bragging about how a christian has converted to islam, as if that gives any sort of credibility to the rubbish in the bible and quran,

What do atheists do when people leave any of the faiths to join 'atheism'? Is it not the same level of cognitive dissonance that prevails in yours?

uplawal:
our own hellfire is real and yours is just imagination

Have you thought carefully how you will survive that "real" hellfire that allah promised you? Or have you thought about your place in jannah and which of the harem of 72 virgins you will belong to (that is, if one of 'em bombers is not already signing your name as his prize for a job well done)??

Abu Zola:
@uplawal- The funny thing about christian is that they don't have religion. Christianity is a lifestyle like that spirit worshipper said. And yet in embassy, airport, office etc they tick christianity as their religion, so much confussion

If there was a box for 'lifestyle', Chrsitians would prefer ticking that one instead. However, which box do your brothers tick in order to wear bombs in their underwears?

@Traugott, Zikkyy and all who visit this thread (including my anti-tithing friends ),

Once again I apologise to you all for the way things have turned out. It started simply, progressed with a rumbling, and now seems to have spiralled into a hurricane! Such is the way debates between people on this subject tend to pan out, and I'm not glorying over it - which is why I won't go so far as to lay blame on anyone. On my part, I simply apologise and hope to move on.

____________________

Zikkyy:
@Viaro

viaro: Those who receive the office of the priesthood have a commandment to take tithes of their own brethren - but verse 6 shows that even where someone (Melchizedek) was not counted from their pedigree, he also received tithes from the Levites! He would not have been able to do so if and only if (iff) the PRIESTHOOD was a less important issue in the faith of God's people - and it is the priesthood that makes all the difference

The post above was what got me confused as I believed that verse was trying to emphasize the superiority of the Melchizedek priesthood over that of the Levites and nothing more. The comment above appears to see Abraham’s action as an actual tithing activity by the descendants of Abrahams.

I understand where you're coming from and regret any confusion that might seemingly have risen from that section of my post - it was not intended, and I trust that you could understand it was not encouraging coercive giving at any instance.

Reading through Hebrews 7:1 to verse 8, I would say the writer was still referring to Melchizedek and again the emphasis on the superiority of the priesthood. I am having difficulty interpreting it to imply a continuity of the tithing practice.

Again, there's nobody I know of who does not have difficulties with these things. I acknowledged several times that the thrust of the book of Hebrews was the superiority of the work, the Person and the Priesthood of the Lord Jesus Christ; but particularly with reference to chapter 7 there is no sound theological scholarship arguing that either verse 5 or 8 or 18 "abolishes" tithe. Rather, I have agreed with a few here and elsewhere that these things are not pictured for us in a sense of literalism, but rather showing us principles - the same thing that, at least, TV01 has come back to agree to.

I have made this point clear as simply as I could, excerpting examples from various sources to show the same thing, and noting that my convictions are not to be regarded as 'law' or 'binding' on anyone else who disagrees. The One Person there who lives perpetually is Christ, and I showed verses that led me to that persuasion. The persuasion I argued was not meant to be regarded as a "mandate", and I do hope that that point is always kept in view.

Regards.

KunleOshob:
on the contrary you aree the one who is a pathological and chronic liar as i never denied that tithing starte from mesopotamia even in that link that you posted. I now understand why they say that common sense is not common.

Liars will always come back to show their inconsistency - and I've understood you to be captain of anti-tithing liars, no big deal. The record still stands, and there's nothing you can do to wipe it clean other than admit your error. I shall leave it again and let it be -

(a) Kunle said: {"Tithing started in mesopotamia"}

(b) viaro asked: {Please, could you show us your source for that statement - that tithing started in Mesopotamia?}

(c)  Kunle replies: {I won't bother answering these question}

I understand why you won't answer the question - you saw your falsehood being exposed and you panicked. But as regards the direct denials you're waving here and there and saying two directly opposite things, here it is:

(a1) Kunle in the other thread: {"I never said tithing originated from mesopotamia"}

(a2) Kunle in this thread: {"Tithing started in mesopotamia"}


(b1)  my observation in this thread:
         Kunle denied saying that tithing originated from Mesopotamia:
        {Besides all this, I saw the thread last night where she kept asking you again
         and again about that same question and you dribbled tight here and there and
         categorically DENIED asserting that tithing began in Mesopotamia}
         ~~ see (a1) above: {"I never said tithing originated from mesopotamia"}

(b2)  my observation in this thread:
       Kunle in this threads shows up asserting what he denied earlier:
       {only to show up here again making the same assertion
       {"Tithing started in mesopotamia"} which you once denied.}


So, please tell me the difference in your lying spree between these two:

         (a) "I never said tithing originated from mesopotamia"

         (b) "Tithing started in mesopotamia"

You can keep your gutless hypocrisy and slow poison, KunleOshob - that's what plays out many times in the way you argue. Never consistent, hastily jumping to conclusions, and then brazenly lying on top of everything. Well done!

The first documented case of tithing was done by a man from mesopotamia [abraham] centuries before Israel came into existence, there are also independent records of pagan tithing traditions in the mesopotamia area at that time yet someone in her right senses is trying to deny the origins of tithing.

How does that show that "TITHING STARTED IN MESOPOTAMIA" which you asserted here but deny in the other thread?

It is clear that the baylonian civilization predates the jewish, it is also clear that they were practising tithing centuries before the Israelites even existed and we know for a fact that the Israelites roots through Abraham is also from babylon. does common sense not dictate that that they learnt tithing from their pagan babylonian ancestors

Common sense helps us see that lying between two posts is unhealthy - in the first you claimed never to have said tithing began in mesopotamia, now in this thread you asserted the very thing you once denied! What common sense is there in this cacophony?

That apart archaeological sources provides evidence that the summerian civilization [also from mesopotamia area] is the world oldest civilization and they practised tithing so common sense dictates that they must have originated it being the world's oldest civilization

Where do those evidence lead to your assertion that denies one thing and then acclaims the same thing in another as regards the origin of tithes?

ogajim:
You can't get anywhere with these guys, we ought to keep them in our prayers though.

Lol, did you notice your mob-gang is getting closer to what we have been saying all along on principles and not literalism? No, you didn't? Maybe we should hold you up in your own prayers.

A Christian is supposed to keep Babylonian tradition?

There again - is that precisely what I or any other said?

There must be something I am missing here if tithe originated from that empire and we still practice is while calling our selves saved by the blood of Jesus Christ.

That was what I asked you mentor and he denied what he already asserted. It wasn't a big deal and I didn't post that question as a trick-question to catch him out. But he showed clearly that he is quite at home to lie between two posts, and that sums it all up for me. I thank you guys very much for convincing me of your hallmark to deliberate falsehood - if it helps your Christian testimony, that's okay.

Giving is a Christian requirement and the mode of giving seems to be the point of contention

Oh shooks! There goes another "requirement" flagged as "Christian" in the subject of "giving". Please be consistent and don't try to resurrect what we already have trashed out: giving (in any form or type) is NOT a requirement, NOT compulsory - but rather VOLUNTARY and comes from the heart. Let it remain as simple as that and don't confuse it with an appeal to REQUIREMENT!

KunleOshob:
I won't bother answering these question as i remember vividly well that we already discussed it thouroughly when you were still using your pilgrim.1 I.D and you agreed with me from scriptures that Abraham the first recorded tither in the bible is from mesopotamia. [the land of your in babylonia]

It is okay if you won't answer the question - honestly, I didn't think you would, as I already know that anti-tithers are never open to discussions and never would answer simple questions. I don't remember discussing the origin of tithes with you even if you confuse me with pilgrim.1, but that's okay.

Besides all this, I saw the thread last night where she kept asking you again and again about that same question and you dribbled tight here and there and categorically DENIED asserting that tithing began in Mesopotamia - only to show up here again making the same assertion {"Tithing started in mesopotamia"} which you once denied. Why are you anti-tithers never consistent and LIE all through your Nairaland careers? Why is it that the only things that mark the way you discuss is shameless, gutless falsehood??  

Any one hat needs more info on the true origin of tithes hould just do a google search on "babylonian tithe". Kindly note that the babylonian civilization predates the jewish civilization and infact the Progenitor of the Jews Abraham was actually from babylonia

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe#The_Esretu_.E2.80.94_the_standard_Babylonian_one-tenth_tax

Does that link tell you that tithing STARTED IN Mesopotamia?

It's not a big deal, really. I just wanted to know the sort of person you truly are, since I had hopes of thinking you had been possibly misrepresented. But lying through your teeth again just deflates that hope - so you can keep confirming your falsehood and double-standards, for there's nothing further for me to add!  

uplawal:
viaro,black stone cannot save us,neither does it benefit us but ALLAH(God of all creation) we worship day and night, get that into your skull

I never said black stone saves you - in fact, I said: "bowing to a black stone at kabba is not salvation", did I not say so? And if it does not benefit or save you, why are you Muslims still enjoying that idolatry?

uplawal:
yes Abuzola's profile picture spoke volumes,

Huh?

thats exactly what is gonna happen anyways,we are planning it already

Huh-huh??
Did I just read you say you're "planning it" - already?

just save yourself of all those shrines(churches)that youre building or else its just a waste of time and energy,

I remember you said you're "planning it", so no worries.

very soon,expect transformation in the whole world and nigeria particularly

The way you guys go about your "transformation", do you ever think of the lives you waste even among your own people?

uplawal:
@viaro,kai some people are born Amebo,

What's that?

are u Ayusman or Ayusman area,freedom or church fighter?

None of the above.

anyways av a blessed day

And you too.

OLAADEGBU:
Masons, witches, occultists and evolutionists all believe in reincarnation so it must be true, trust me

Are you serious? I never heard of evolutionists who believe in reincarnation - care to share some source?

uplawal:
@Ayusman,WHY DNT U PUT your OWN PICTURE IN THE PROFILE PAGE or are u gay?

I just checked yours and your picture is not there. Are you lesbian?

uplawal:
mr nuella, can u ever find salvation from your idolatory(christianity)no no no,dnt waste your time and energy its the fact we wrote.

You asked a question - at the very least, allow for an answer. If you are not willing to listen, something is troubling you. And no, bowing to a black stone at kabba is not salvation - so you can suck up your own idolatry and be filled.

KunleOshob:
Tithing started in mesopotamia {mordern day Iraq} were abraham was from.

Please, could you show us your source for that statement - that tithing started in Mesopotamia?

It was a part of their traditions and customs and that was probably why he gave a tithe of his war loot to the King of Salem

Could you show us where the Bible teaches your probability on that statement?

____________________

KunleOshob:

who gives tithe

People that have been deceived into believing that tithing is a part of the christian faith rather than a twisted version of an obsolete jewish practise that as been outlawed with the anullment of the Jewish laws.

I know that Pastor Tunde Bakare says he gives tithes - has he been deceived as well?

KunleOshob:
I have read the posts you referred me to and not one single one of them answers my question. All i saw was long vain and meaningless attempts to say that heb 7:18 doesn't anull tithing when it clearly does.

That shows that you did not read them at all. I clearly put what those excerpts were pointing to before quoting them, If you are convinced that after reading them you want to write them off as "meaningless", it does not show me that you're out for a discussion - and rather than start all over again with long arguments to no import, I would not be going down that path with you, sorry.

When you honestly can read and draw out from those excerpts the very things that are unmistaken, we can discuss further, thank you.

My question remains can you in[b] one simple sentence [/b] state which commandment was anulled in verse 18 considering the fact that the only commandement previously mentioned in that passage was the commandment to tithe inverse 5 from the KJV

That question has been answered already, please see post referred above.

KunleOshob:
@viaro
I would like to humour your ignorance a bit here, can you tell us which comandment was anulled in Heb7:18 considering the only mention of commandent in the passage prior to that was the "commandement to tithe" earlier mentioned in verse 5 of the passage in the KJV.

Hello KunleOshob,

If I am ignorant, it is all well - so I could learn what I don't know by seeking knowledge from experienced teachers of God's Word. That is what I did when anti-tithers started arguing that Hebrews 7:18 "abolishes" tithe. If that were so, I wanted to see the theological basis that sustains that argument, and I found none. There could possibly be some, but honest to God, the only source that came to hand in my search theologically arguing such was a treatise from the Quackers, which was consequently soundly refutted. Yet, the overwhelming theological scholarship across all evangelical quarters that I'm aware of, INCLUDING MAJOR ANTI-TITHING THEOLOGIANS, all agree that Hebrews 7:18 was not abolishing tithes but rather something else.

This 'something else' is what I have excerpted and further discussed in posts #242, particularly #243, and #244.

I have sought to approach this subject as I have often tended to do - and that is, follow the basic principle of Biblical exegesis and not violate that by giving a private interpretation to any verse of the Bible (2 Peter 1:20 - "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation".

If you carefully go through the posts where I discussed this very issue (unless you want me to repost them here), then I reckon you will find your answers there. Cheers.

TV01:
For the avoidance of doubt and to clarify some of the deceitful sleight of hand labelling that some insist on employing let me state simply as follows;

You started the deceitful sleight of hand in this thread with your sanctimony. If you wanted a discussion, you would have avoided that sad path and sought a dialogue - Zikkyy did, and you won't find me replying him in the tone you received from me.

1. Tithing under the law has been abolished along with the law of which it was part.

Tithing has not been abolished, I have dealt extensively with it, and shown that no sound theologian uses hebrews 7 to abolish tithes. Please show beyond this illiterate assertion that you have substance to your arguments - show us the theology that goes beyond your mere noise on Nairaland and let's see who makes that same arguments in which theological scholarship.

2. There is nothing to suggest that Abrahams tithe to Melchizidek constituted a practice - mandatory or otherwise that Christians are to follow.

Hebrews 7:8 is your answer - it was not mandatory, it was voluntary - and even anti-tithers cannot refute that! The many anti-tithers who have been falling all over themselves against Abraham's tithes are now repenting and turning round to agree that Abraham's tithes are voluntary rather than mandated - and that is what God has sought from His people all through the ages, both OT and NT.

3. Tithing as a notion is superceeded by the Christian imperative of needs based or Spirit-led giving

Which one is it - needs based or Spirit-led? Scripture does not confuse the two, and neither should you - because to do so shows you're rather confused in what you assert. Christian giving DOES NOT "supercede" tithing, because to play the game of "needs" is to place it right below the glory of the old covenant. The giving in the old covenant also served various needs, as well was brought about by the willingness of the heart (see Exodus 25:2 for example) - the same thing is reiterated in the new covenant (2 Cor. 9:7). The result of giving in either cases should cause rejoicing and not tears. So what pretence are you whipping up here as if "needs" made the giving of the new covenant to be superlative?

4. If anyone wishes to tithe or is led to do so, no problem, but there is no "Body binding" tithe.

I have not been arguing a coercive tithing for anyone, as it is clear in most of my post that tithing is NOT compulsory or mandatory to us. I also showed from my sources that teachers of tithes who know what they are talking about do not make it a law upon any other Christian to compel them to tithe. Since you guys are the celebrated anti-tithers that can't see that and you whip up all sorts of excuses, it is little wonder that to see you can't miss this pitiful compromise.

5. There are no tithe specific blessings that are withheld from those who simply give, nor curses for non-tithers.

As you can see, I did not mention any curse on anyone who chooses to not tithe. That was why I took time to make sure I was not putting everyone in a box as anti-tithers often do, because I recognise there are people who are non-tithers but stand opposed to the illiterate arguments of anti-tithers. However, the NT shows that those who give would be blessed in one way or the other - which blessings non-givers would not stand to claim. That is an irrefutable fact, unless your own giving is meaningless and you don't know why you give in the first place.

The principles and spirit of Gods laws are eternal and unchanging. The way of fulfilling their demands is not and has. Please note point one above. Justice, mercy and faith will always be in view, however Gods righteous requirements are spelt out or satisfied.

Thank God for this. Did God rule out the principle and spirit of tithing in His Word as well? I guess you missed the fact that some of us here have been talking about "principles" as opposed to literalism? Go back and see the literalism that your friends have been arguing up and down the street on this issue. .  until now you guys are coming closer home to the very same thing that we have been saying for eons! Well done.

Does that mean that the "weightier matters" are indivisable from the way of fulfilment given in previous dispensations as some claim in order to imply that The Lord taught tithing? No.

I don't know about those "some" who claim the above, but I have never at anytime in my discourses on tithe made allusions to literalism as my anchor. You should be singing to your anti-tithing choir who never saw the "principles" but argued literalism all day long and only turned round to amuse us with excuses of their own semantic pedantry. You should see that you're dancing over to our point and fast abandoning the arguments of your camp.

Hebrews 7 clearly shows the annulling of "written-law" based righteousness.

Hebrews 7 does not show the annulling of tithes - again and again, we have argued this and I'm still waiting for your guys to show which theologian of repute would contradict the fact! There is not a single verse in the entire Bible that teaches that tithes are "weak and unprofitable", and we have seen that neither the levitical priesthood nor the Mosaic Law were predicated on tithes. Tithes were not the foundation of the old covenant, that is why NOT A SINGLE VERSE in the entire Bible "abolishes" tithes in one instance! It is because your foundation is misplaced that is why you throw out everything and then further confuse the true import of new covenant giving as "superceding" that of the old covenant on the same premises as we find in the Old Testament!

However the principles and spirit  behind them remain, there's just a more excellent, more glorious way of fulfilling them.

Hahahaha!!!  I find a convert already!! So, okay - the "principles and spirit behind them remain", and could we also say that the principles and spirit behind tithes remain?? - and yet you guys have been tripping all over yourselves to ABOLISH tithes? Oh pleeaase!!

What then has been all the argument back and forth on tithing? If we could all agree on this point as our second common ground (the first being that it is not compulsory), then what the heck have we been arguing all this time about the subject in the first place?!?  It just seems all meaningless garboil to have started out trying to abolish what indeed remained in principle - while yet we have argued again and again that tithing for Christians is NOT a matter of literalism!! Haha.

So there you have it. The headline news about tithing in a few short and simple sentences.

Stop patting yourself on the back, bro - we made the headlines long before now, and what you're doing is stale news.

With no need for multiple id's, lying in Hebrew, foul mothed vituperation, co-opting some religious leaders & theologians and castigating others.

No, we should have no need of anti-tithing mob-gang lying about Hebrews 7, unable to show their own theology for what they assert, your sly serpentine forked-tongued sanctimony and false pious hopes that you never see in your own hypocrisy all dressed up with "God bless" at the end. The one thing viaro does not do is pretend not to notice when you guys are playing your games.

No dissertations, treatises, tomes or lengthy turgid pieces of discourse that will make you feel like chewing your own tongue, which you'd pay not to have to read them - which is really what they are after .

You would notice that your own brigade does that same thing - but no, you never see the tomes of treatises that they post to defend their anti-tithing literalism. .  which after wearying themselves out you are now coming here with cosmetic pantomimes to say the same things about "principles" that have long been argued and retired.

Monetizers, religionists oya !

Thanks for your humour - now who's the hypocrite who just complained about "labelling" at the beginning of your treatise? Then, of course, after your hypocrisy, we shall read your usual false spirituality of "God bless" at the end, no?  

TV01:
Now, is that saying that as the High Priesthood of Christ is after the type of Melchizedeks, therefore Christ recieves - or indeed requires or needs - a tithe from believers now?

Can you ever discuss this subject without drawing it down to REQUIRED or NEEDED?? Who has said that Hebrews 7:8 is an argument on what is "required" or "needed"? Did Any verse in that chapter base the tithes of Abraham to Melchizedek on an argument of "required"? Why do anti-tithers bring in all sorts of illations where they are uncalled for?

Or need/requirement apart, is there some other significance? In annuling the old law was a new one introduced that encouraged or mandated tithing?

C'mon TV01, you should know that Hebrews 7 does not abolish tithes. This is one point that seems to have stuck so hard on many people's subconscious that even when we have pointed out that verse 18 does not argue for such (and anti-tithing theologians agree), yet you guys keep making this assertion ad nauseam. Please show us where anyone who is worth his/her mark would use that verse to abolish tithes - I did so to show the contrary in posts #242 to #244. Care to show us? Besides, did you read anywhere in those posts that I ever argued for mandated tithing? Did you see me use Hebrews 7 to encourage such a thing that has become your perennial complaint? I don't think it is sincere for people to be appealing to stuff that do not appear in our discussion to muddy the waters, you know.

Since the Levites forward tithed a tithe of the tithe they recieved to the High Priest, how would we, a nation of priests forward tithe to The Lord under this new law/commandment/dispensation? And what is it to be used for? And by whom?

Did these questions come up when Levi gave tithes through Abraham to Melchizedek? Let's start from there and then work it all up to a logical present.

In my opinion, based on what I believe scripture teaches, no. But if anyone differs no problem. And if anyone can make bold to show differently I am happy to engage.

I have shown differently and repeated the reference too many times already. That does not mean that my views are to be forced on anyone - I made that point clear as well.

Indeed if it can be shown simply and conclusively that I am in error, I am happy to repent, recant and renounce my position.

I'm not so sure that cosmetic talk has substance to it - at least, the manner of your approach earlier does not show this yearning for 'truth'; and the last thing about anyone who seeks truth is to read unwarranted assertions that are not the basis of our argument (such as the idea of a "mandated tithing". When you disabuse your mind from such pretentious talk and throw out that unnecessary illation, we might have a happy occasion to discuss further.

ogajim:
You've got to be sore now from patting your self on the back, " I could be well move if I were as you, if I could pray to move, prayers would move me but I am as constant as the northern star of whose true fixed and resting quality, "

Do I look or sound like your self-celebrating mob-gang who fold their tails between their legs when they've been weather-beaten on their own silly drivel?

You remind me of high school dude, Literature class to be precise hence the Shakespeare quote.

No worries - I just hope you don't have scary dreams on that.

I don't have to prove nothing.

Then stop trying far too hard.

ogajim:
Viaro of course knows where I worship, na wa for waec ooooo


All knowing viaro

I didn't claim to be all-knowing. Just let other Christians be even if you can't afford to be at peace
with your good self.

The back-and-forth wasn't worth it, was it? Did I not warn you in other threads about such? I just keep my fingers crossed that if you guys would ever find the grace to discuss, you would do so and eschew the unnecessary distractions of sly accusations - that never helps, and I don't want to often make you sorry for such banters. Cheers.

ogajim:
Here you go again jumping to conclusions, but let me "educate" you a little bit here, I have been the last two bad weather Sundays and probably would have gone too today if I didn't have so much to dig and could not make their time but that should not be the focus here, Others are FREE to do what they want with what they have, happy now?

Thank you for educating me, but why do you have problems pointing fingers at others and never minding your own business? I could care less whatever you did the last four Sundays, but worrying about churches opening even after a bad weather - did you think of your own case before coming to complain and to 'educate' me of your having been to church the last two topsy Sundays? Why didn't your own church close as well under the excuse of bad weather? You should learn to allow other Christians live and be at peace with yourself without recourse to these unnecessary interjections - it's bad for your health and makes your breath suck! Let others be if that will not be much of a request to make - that was the simple message.

I don't follow follow on anything and I am BLESSED (every way you look at it) as Chinua Achebe put it in things fall apart, "the sun sill shine on those who stand before it shines on those who kneel under them.

Others who don't follow your restlessness are very blessed, dude. You can shout Chinua Achebe or Wole Soyinka all you want (add Yar' Adua if you like), but tripping yourself over what other Christians are doing is not blessing your life.

To each his own, the reference to diaper in my last post was not a name calling routine but rather an age thing, hope this clears it for you.

Funny how you have to dwell on that, lol. Do you need to be told to act your age? Grow up, dude, grow up. . does that help?

Hello Zikkyy,

Zikkyy:
@Viaro, Enigma, Traugott, you guys have hijacked this thread. I am not so keen posting my views on the subject of mandatory tithing here as I think we are deviating from the initial question.

Once again, I apologise - I already did so in post #223 as it was not my intention to highjack this thread, nor is it my habit to do so. Like you, I think the mandatory thing about tithes has been overflogged that it becomes meaningless for people to be using that as the mainstay of further discussion - it is a silly distraction that serves the ill-purpose of those who have nothing fresh to present for a discussion.

@Viaro, I am a bit confused by this talk on levi paying tithe to melchizedek. My understanding of such talk here would amount to saying Zikkyy is a tither because his grandfather paid tithe. Maybe you need to educate me more cos I don’t think that is the message being passed across by Paul here. I think the emphasis here is on the superiority of Christ priesthood over the levitical priesthood (this I have seen in your posts and agree with) and not tithing. Hope you will be able to take some time out to educate me on how verse 8 shows“continuity” to tithing.

Okay, I shall try sometime to do so. .  maybe not here extensively (because you know my style is to present all sides of an argument and leave no one in doubt about anything - to wit, I should like to source a few references as well from sound theologians on the point). Other than that, I shall only reiterate the points I already made.

The thrust of the book of Hebrews itself is the superiority of the work, the Person and  the Priesthood of the Lord Jesus Christ. However, in chapter 7, the author seeks to show that superiority on the covenant which God made on oath (verse 21) on the basis of an enigmatic Biblical character, Melchizedek.

Among other things, he showed the 'greatness' of Melchizedek in the fact that another 'great' man (Abraham) was indeed 'less' by contrast (verse 7). But not only was Melchizedek 'greater' than a person (Abraham), he was indeed greater than the whole system of Judaism. How? Because the Levitical system allowed for only those who were from the Levitical priesthood to take tithes from their own brethren (verse 5); yet, this very point was overruled in the fact that Melchizedek who was not a descendant of the Levites was also qualified to take tithes from Levi (verse 9-10). Qualified on what basis? On the basis of the oath of an endless life (verses 8 and 16).

But your concern is particularly on verse 8 - which highlights a continuity and NOT an 'abolishment' of tithes. The contrast is between what happens "here" and what happens "there" in Hebrews 7:8 -

(a)  here, 'men that die receive tithes' ~ this is not only back then at the time when the book of Hebrews was penned, but shows through history that the Kohen/kohanim (Jewish priests) are in view through all history (see also verse 23)

(b) there, 'he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth' - who is this verse pointing to as the One who lives perpetually? Is this different from Christ who is said to continue forever and has an unchangeable priesthood (verse 24)? In any case, what does it mean that 'he receives them' if indeed Hebrews 7:18 was abolishing tithes?

Now, of course, many people may raise dust against verse 8 - and that is welcome. The one thing I would like for them to do is please show me who is said in that verse or chapter to live perpetually. That does not call for splitting hairs, just calm discussions on that verse will do.

If you do see and respond to my post, i might not be able to see it till about mid-day tomorrow (Nigeria time), then I will be able to clarify my concerns.

That's okay.

P.S. I think your man James Burton Coffman is on his own.

No worries - he also said in his disclaimers that he does not wish to force his understanding upon anyone; although not many theologians have been able to fault his simple points on those verses, even where he allowed for others to hold their contrary views. The same would be for Pastor Tunde Bakare. . . as well Chuck Smith. If you guys have something that has substance to show against what these men teach, without personalising issues, let's read yours whenever you can. Cheers.

ogajim:
Thank you viaro for showing true "meekness" in your posts and rebuttals,

You're very welcome - and I will do it again if you try viaro.

What you twerps ought to understand is that I don't entertain 'Christians' who go about with a holier-than-thou attitude and then come back whining when they are addressed in the same manner that they started out with. That is one thing I will never pretend about - and where people are amicable in their approach, they will find me also in same manner. Sorry, but hideous pretences under 'Christian love and humility' do not exist in my books, and when you go through my replies to others than your anti-tithing mob-gang, you will find that I don't treat everyone with such zero-tolerance to stupidity.

My faith and relationship with God is mine alone to deal with as each one of us will have to "work out his/her own Salvation with fear and trembling", how I give is my business but I will not fail to warn others of the folly of structured giving at any given opportunity no matter what the "Pastors" among us and their "Protocol/security" agents on NL think and post.

have you ever noticed that I don't make it my business to question your relationship with God? Dude, get a grip! What I query is your attitude of shoving your dementia on other people on false pious hopes. If you don't have pastors in the local church where you fellowship (if you even have a fellowship with other Christians in a local church), then your lack of pastors should not be grounds for you to be deriding Pastors who mind their business in other churches. I have made clear one thing: you can damn the pastors in your own church; but why should your troubles be transferred to other pastors in other churches? The NT teaches 'structured giving' as well, and you may have problems with such - should your own problem now become the nightmare of other Christians? What games are you up to with all this silly sanctimony?

I REPEAT my earlier submission that the only Christian activity found in a building is the fellowship with fellow believers and not a place to be blessed because you will be blessed even if you are in your house fellowship and follow Christ with all your heart and might,

Do you have such a fellowship - does the Bible teach you to be lambasting other Pastors as the hallmark of your Christian spirituality? is that what you guys ever concern yourself with in the building where you gather? What nonsensical drivel is whipping you so high this evening?

The fact that I still fellowship in a "Church" don't mean I become indoctrinated to the point of no return, I've been at this for a "minute" now and won't be surprised if viaro was still in diapers when I first set foot in a Pentecostal Church, "test every spirit"

Thank you, but viaro is not a diaper Christian. I have enough common sense to see that your indoctrination is beyond repair (unless something happens to you to knock you off your high horse). I also have enough common sense to know that Christians should not go about putting everyone in a small box of their myopia just because ogajim happens to have set foot in ONE pentecostal church. I have had sad experiences with some churches; but I've grown beyond the mentality you display here to tar everyone with the same brush just because you happen to think you're on a spiritual rodeo. Dude, let others be - they are NOT your problem, you are your own problem.

PS: with the weather being the way it is here now, below freezing, everything closed, trust our Nigerian Churches who decided to open "later", I wonder why that is

Hehehe. .  I guess you're one of those 'fair-weather' Christians, no?

Hello TV01,

If it were some good points you wanted to make and you approached this subject amicably by addressing me directly, I would quite well address you in like manner. But after reading yours and seeing your grouse was on what viaro has posted, I won't let you hang your dirty lies around my posts - because such poison from folks like you have the potency of misrepresenting people you don't agree with.

There is something about the way you anti-tithing zealots go about petty things that poisons your spirituality. If actually people who argue against tithes are seeking 'truth', they would be very open to discussions and not be lying up and down the street - that, unfortunately, is the very essential point that stands out these days in the way you guys approach this subject. Let me quickly run through yours and then come back to this same point.

TV01:
In your sincerity, you may well believe this discussion is merely about the truth of tithing as a Christian practice in regards to it is mandatory or not. Please be mindful that is not the aim of those who are ever so subtly championing the practice.

Please mention them - we have been very open here and not 'subtly championing' anything. The one thing we have come to agree upon here is that those of us who are inclined to tithe and are open to discussions on the subject do not make it a matter of mandatory this and that. This point has been so overflogged that it is shameful you can bring it up once again as if that is the big issue here.

Their aim is to keep it in view, ensure that it remains out there as a notion that Christians ascribe too, on any basis, under whatever terms.

Unless you just woke up from the latrine after a hangover, you will see that your accusation has no basis. Our 'aim' is not to keep it in view of anyone who feels like hooking up with fellow anti-tithers.

At one point or another, they have claimed that it is not based on the law and prophets, not necessarily 10% and not mandatory - essentially ending the debate right there - but they care little about scriptural or moral backing for tithing. They just want to ensure there is modicum of doubt as to its validity and ensure that it remains afloat in believers minds.

Now this is where I have to point out the shamelessness of your lying. Very bold faced lying. Indeed, I happen to be one of those who do not make my discussions on tithing a matter of the old covenant - I don't tithe because i feel that Judaism is my testimony. Rather, I tithe when I do because of the principles taught in the Bible in both the OT and NT. The apostles drew heavily from the Law and prophets for MANY of the NT Christian doctrines, and I have also mentioned a few. Where you have problems with them, point them out and let's discuss rather than creep in here with sly accusations in your sanctimony.

Second, we have argued that among some of us who tithe, it is not mandatory or compulsory. That point has been made again and again and again to a nauseating number of times. I wonder why anti-tithers can never ever see that point and must always use it to save face as if they have anything fresh to bring to the table for discussion.

Third, even though I happen to agree with many people that tithing is NOT restricted to an absolute 10%, we did not end the discussion there. That is why I came back today in post #242 to #244 to discuss verse that anti-tithers use to "abolish" tithes where no sound theologian of repute would ever attempt to maintain such a drivel. In those posts, I went on to show in that same Hebrews 7 that the verse anti-tithers are missing is verse 8 for why Christians tithe. You might have missed it, and that's fine with me - but to allege that we never discussed any verse for backing up why we believe in tithing is quite dense, when in fact that is the very thing I have done (besides others who have shared their own ideas in one way or another)!

You may not agree with what we share; but alleging directly that we don't do this or that when in fact we have done those things (discussed those verses) is to lie without conscience - truly a shame that should come from you a 'Christian'.

They will seek to tire you on the minor, the inconsequential, or artfully employ as Enigma put it, "Semantic Pedantry".

Enigma himself was the one playing games with 'tithes are abolished' - that was artfully dodging the point we have trashed too many times, and which you want to hang your neck upon again. When you guys are sorted out and you have nothing to show for your hollow arguments, then you turn round to complain that others are posting semantic pedantry.

Note the lengthy discourse on "honouring God", based on Malachi 3, but never once discrediting Malachi 3 as a reason for Christians to tithe - which was the thinking of the original posters reference to that portion of scripture. Or skipping around “abolished” or not abolished. Don’t be fooled by talk of “non-tithers, “anti-tithers”, “pro-tithers” or observers. Whatever it takes to keep it out there.

We are not fooled - and unlike you, I don't put everyone in a box of tithers and anti-tithers. If you want to discuss what viaro has posted, be man enough to talk instead of going around with your tail between your legs. Enigma and KunleOshob kept harping on tithes being "abolished" on the basis of Hebrews 7:18 - and that was why I faced up to that verse and showed that NO THEOLOGIAN of repute (including the anti-tithing theologians) can sincerely maintain that argument - that was why I posted just a very few of them in post #243 to help you guys see for yourself that your argument on that verse to abolish tithes is most deceitful.

The one thing you could have done is show how any theologian of repute uses that verse to argue the abolishments of tithes by not violating basic principles of biblical exegesis (2 Peter 1:20). That would have been interesting enough - but instead, you just jump in like a dolt to spread another false statement about who has been yapping on and on about "abolished" or not abolished.  When your friends were making such redundant noise on Hebrews 7:18, where were you?? And after the examples of theologians who can't argue that verse for anti-tithing, what have you said?

Note the cry that "it’s a lie that Jesus did not teach tithing", knowing very well that it was to those under the law, referring to produce and not money and was not intended as a blueprint for Christians. They are not seriously or honestly discussing, just keeping it in view, seeding doubt.

Yes, that again is referring to my post - and I mentioned to KunleOshob that it is not in this thread I would have wanted to argue on that. Be that as it may, instead of complaining, you could have queried me - and then perhaps I would have spent some time to show you why I don't read Matthew 23:23 as an old covenant talk, otherwise Christians would have nothing to do with the weightier matters of the law: judgment, mercy, and faith, in that verse. There are also other things that the Lord Jesus directly addressed to the Jews but were actually lived out in the lives of Christians - why do anti-tithers not complain in the same manner in such? It so happens that many Christian doctrines in the NT are heavily built upon the Old Testament without bending our necks under the old covenant.

They will continue to use it interchangeably or lump it as one with “freewill giving”. They will ally this with their attempts to spiritualise it in reference to Abrahams one off tithe to Melchizedek, which was in its essence to demonstrate the superiority of the Melchizedek priesthood over the Levitical, not to presage tithing as a worship form for Christians. They will mix in anecdotal testimonies of the benefits of tithing – seemingly different to the blessings of freewill giving – they are deepening the impression, if not the understanding.

They will do this, they will do that, they will do the other, they will do thus and thus. . do you ever have a point you want to discuss that makes for any intelligence? Making accusations against others is typical of anti-tithers - and this is not new. But your grumbling about the priesthoods shows how very little you understand about that word. You don't even sound like you understand what "freewill giving", and no thanks: we don't confuse these terms by interchangeably lumping them up. Next time, ask and discuss with people before you accuse them of your own illiteracy.

In all the aim is to enable the practice to be retained whilst transitioning it from a "mandatory" to a seemingly "freewill" practice, thus ensuring their control and source of filthy lucre remains intact.

Lol, I for one did not 'transit' anything from "mandatory" to "freewill" practice, nor have I discussed anything here that encourages the source of filthy lucre. Thanks once again for your accusations, but save it - nobody else needs it as much as you do.

There is a practice whereby animals are chained or tethered within a limited locutory ambit. After a while, when unchained, they still will not move outside this ambit. They are keeping it in view, ensuring it stays afloat.

Sounds like you're describing your habit - well done!

What they won’t do is permit the discussion to venture on to broader theme’s around tithing and money in the body of Christ. To do that would pose too great a risk to their control and source of filthy lucre. As it would also expose many other “commandments of men” that pervade what many mistake for Christianity these days.

Hahaha, I can't laugh enough at your hollow presumption. Dude wake up and smell the coffee - who in this thread has several times made the observation that anti-tithers are never open to a discussion? Yours truly.  And your sneaking in here again to slyly lie up and down is another indication that you won't be open for discussion, trust me. This is why I don't pretend to treat you guys nicely, especially because you creep into threads and complain and then take off and never face up to any discussion. I have noticed it as well in other threads - people like you will ask too many questions and address NONE! You whine, complain, accuse, presume, castigate, and then smack your lips with sanctimonious clichés. . . but when your worries are address with references and help from sound theological sources, you dumbly come back griping with 'semantic pedantry'. You will do every thing and play dirty but never seek an engaging discussion until you turn everyone to your bondage which you mistake for 'freedom'.

Note the introductions as such things as the clergy/laity split, or notions of upkeep for “leaders”, again non-Christian. The tithe underpins the whole thing, if that goes it all collapses.

Now I understand you're such a confirmed twerp. Read your Bible and let me know if the New Testament does not show you a class of leadership in the Body of Christ! This is one point I would so dumb you on Nairaland you won't know what hit you! No wonder you will have nothing positive to say about Christian leaders but go about with your slow poison on what you don't even understand!

Like the missing president saga, be it a case of death, coma, or incapacitation to a degree that renders him physically unfit for office, the cabal behind the throne realise that as long as no one has sight of his true condition just calling him president, will be enough for many to continue to believe that he is and refer to him as such, regardless of the constitutional imperative about length of absence, handover and succession.

Mister TV, I don't know what channels you're on, but please tell us: what has Umaru Yar'Adua got to do with a discussion on TITHES?? This is why I often say that when you guys run out of steam, you fall all over yourselves looking for unrelated illations to save face!

Spiritual deception is real and the physical outworking of this deceit ever more fluid. Please keep contending for the faith.

Yes, we have seen and continue to see how deceptive you guys can be. This is why I don't entertain your hypocrisy, not even when you flavour it with "God bless" as a subscript. If you are actually seeking 'truth', you won't do so by false accusations and lying deceptions, nor yet calling on an unrelated illation to fill the gaps for you! You may disagree with others because you don't want to give and cannot afford to give - but don't dribble in your lies around my posts to pep things up for your false spirituality that poisons everything around you.

Enigma:
Next they might say we should return to burnt offerings; after-all Abel did it; Abel predated the law; heck, Abel even predated Abram/Abraham!

Please choose another excuse - we've heard that one so many times it has become a bore in classic anti-tithers harp. If you want to argue burnt offerings, you're free to do so - don't make excuses upon excuses to cover your non-starters on the abolishments of tithes on Hebrews 7 that no sound theologian worth his mark would attempt.

_____________________

Hello ogajim,

ogajim:
These guys will dance and dance with full honors papa and yet refuse to answer the basic questions,

What is the 'basic question'? I notice you are one of such who never answers questions as well, so what is your complaint about?

Abram ( later named Abraham after his covenant with God) paid a tithe that was more "Customary" than anything else ( much like the one practiced by some African tribes-send your first salary to the family or what have you,

Why is it "customary"? Please show me - I am very, very interested in this one and hope to help you see the hole in that statement. Aside from the fact that such a statement is drawn from the air and not from Scripture, I noticed that you now agree that Abraham indeed gave tithes - you can disparage it for all we care, but we would like to see you deny that is not what Scripture calls it.

We never saw Abraham pay ANOTHER one until his grand son Jacob mentioned it in a conditional sense.

And how does that disqualify Abraham's tithes from being mentioned as TITHES in both the OT and NT?? How many times does someone have to give anything BEFORE people like you can just simply acknowledge the silliness of your complaints? How does the same Hebrews 7:9 say that Levi gave tithes through that one act of Abraham without repetition - and you guys again cannot deny that? The same Levi in Abraham that gave once to Melchizedek also long afterwards came to give tithes under the Jewish covenant, no?

A Christian needs to make up his/her mind on how they want to GIVE and must also pray about it for direction rather than follow the "Pastor's" cookie cutter solution of 10%,

This is where you guys should just shut up and stop acting holier than thou! There are Pastors who have taught their congregations sound principles on tithing - you guys come here with this same silly quips of 'Pastor's cookie' and make it sound like . . what? Those under the pastorship of such likes as Tunde Bakare, James Burton Coffman, Chuck Smith, and several others do not need this pretentious talk from you, ogajim. If you don't have a pastor, little wonder! You can damn the one in your church (if you even have one where you fellowship), but making statements about Pastors is a hallmark of something seriously wrong with your spirituality. Others have pastors they respect - they show that respect by listening to what their pastors teach. . but everytime you make such unwarranted statements, you should check your own heart about the tendency to rebellion that seeks to poison the well! Pastors are not your problem - you are your problem.

These guys remind me of the great K.O Mbadiwe ( institutional caterpillar, political Juggernaut, Ambassador extra ordinary and plenipotentiary, etc) who was noted for flowery speeches with little substance.

Thank you - we do. You can take the time to show others why the "little substance" is irrefutable!

It is more blessed to give than to receive did not say "to a church, mog, etc"

You can damn your church - leave others to choose to give in Church.

This guy asked about his rent or tithe and we have turned it into the beaten path of "to be or not to be"

I don't see how you have helped the thread to focus on its topic. See. .  this is the hypocrisy with you, ogajim. You come in, make such sanctimonious statements, everyone else that is not in your anti-tithing camp reminds you of this and that, then whine and complain about the thread without doing a dot to remedy anything. . at the end of it all, you will subscript your noise with 'God help us'!!

May God help us all as we worship to him in truth and in faith, Shalom.

Just throw you sanctimony in the gutter! The truth that you refuse to acknowledge in the fact that God gave Pastors to churches clearly show the LIE you banter about for "worship". You need help - and may you find it in God before it's late.

Kay 17:
Nature is chaotic and disorganised, and indifferent. The purpose of life is reduced to survival and all life strive for it including man. Diseases are not organisms but effects of parasites who strive for survival also. Mutation always does not occur to exactly fit a particular environment.

I don't know what you mean by nature being 'disorganised'. There could be chaotic systems in nature; but not that nature is therefore chaotic and disorganised. As to whether nature is indifferent, that does not say anything about what 'nature' is, or how you employ that term here.

As regards diseases, I don't think it was used in my comments earlier to mean organisms. If you look again, I first mentioned it (I suppose) as a response to DeepSight's idea of a propelling element for survival (not a propelling organism). As a "factor" in biological systems, I was of the mind that diseases are NOT a propelling factor towards life for the bodies they attack.

KunleOshob:
My dear, we have been through this issue several times andyou nkow my position on it and that is that Jesus was not teaching tithing to christians rather he was commenting on it and saying the pharisees who were under the law should not ignore the weightier matters of the law whilst tithing their mint and cummin [not money or income].

Initially, I didn't want to wade into this. But if Matthew 23:23 does not apply to Christians, you as a Christian have no business with the weightier matters of the law: judgment, mercy, and faith. Were those things just "Jewish" and 'Jewish' only? If you say no, then it is hypocritical to separate between them and say thus and thus is jewish and the other is Christian - NO, Jesus made an equivocal statement there: "these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." There is just no grounds for cherry-picking in that verse, please.

That can never be interpreted to mean new testament christians who are not under the jewish laws should tithe.

That is for you, not for Christians who know what it is saying.

The apostles made it clear in acts 15 that the jewish laws were not applicable to gentile christian converts. So trying to imply that Jesus taught tithing to believers in that over recycled matthew verse is not only mischievious but outrightly dis-honest.

The apostle Paul clearly says that Christians draw their doctrines from the Jewish Law and not from thin air. Read some: Romans 3:31 and 15:4. Even the recommendations on Christian giving are heavily built on the Law (1 Corinthians 9:9-14) - Christian marriage also appeals to the law (1 Corinthians 7:39), and exhortations for children to obey and honour their parents is built upon the Law (Ephesians 6:1-3).

The problem here is simple: while you may be driven by literalism, I am not. Rather, I agree with so many theologians of repute that see the spiritual import of Matthew 23:23 and have never had any problems thereto. We cannot be making these kinds of arguments to seperate issues in the fashion you're doing and then making unjustifiable statements about the Law. Please try and read see the "principles" that are in those verses and not a literalism that the Lord Jesus never intended.

KunleOshob:
It is clear to me that it is actually pastors and preachers who mis-appropriate church collections to finance their vulgar life styles that are robbing God. Also preaching compulsary tithing of congregation's income which is clearly different from biblical tithing is akin to robbing the children of God and can be likened to robbing God as well.

That much I could agree with you, but not in totality. The passages we're studying shows that God addresses the 'whole nation' - both priests (leaders) and people (congregants). In many ways, there are leaders who abuse the Word of God to live off God's people - there are many, many examples of this. However, what about the people themselves. .  don't they 'rob' God in like manner when they deny Him the glory that is due unto His Name??

Indeed, when we treat God's children with impunity, we are directly impugning the glory of God. This is clear in many passages of Scripture:

     *  Matthew 25:40 & 45

     *  Acts 9:4-5

     *  Hebrews 6:10

     *  Proverbs 14:31

However, as Malachi shows us, when the people (the congregants) have warped ideas about worshipping God, they are doing the same thing that some of the leaders stand guilty of - "Ye said also, Behold, what a weariness is it! and ye have snuffed at it, saith the LORD of hosts; and ye brought that which was torn, and the lame, and the sick; thus ye brought an offering: should I accept this of your hand? saith the LORD" (Malachi 1:13)

It is not only leaders that are our problem - we ourselves constitute a more serious problem when we bring Him worship that has ulterior motives (whether that ulterior motive is to castigate all 'pastors' simple because a few other pastors are mishandling the word of God).