₦airaland Forum

nuclearboy:
I ask that last question sincerely because in my estimation, it puts all pro-tithers in a quandary and I wonder if scripture and good sense can get them out of it - I want to know.

This was why I noted that it is unfair for people to generalise or tar everyone with the same brush. This is the same mistake that many people who oppose tithing have made - they assume by default that any pastor who even remotely mentions tithes should be considered as [- - - - - (all sorts)- - - -], and that doesn't make sense in face of the reality on ground. If I stated my case as simply as I could, and there is nothing there that you saw to have put me in the said quandary, should we then assume that you're justified in making that assumption? Would that not be ignoring what has been shown in order to maintain such an unfair assumption?

I don't try to put everyone or anyone in a default position on whatever side they hold on this subject. I don't mind if others want to so earnestly argue their own biases into my position. What would be funny to observe is that they do so by totally ignoring what I have said for myself.

debosky:
I've been absent from this thread, but I have managed to read the last two pages. . . I have to call some of you out though.

There's no need to descend into name calling - both Enigma and wordtalk are guilty of this. We are all supposed to be brethren and creations of God, so no need to demean each other.

Thank you for showing such maturity, and it's true I have been guilty of what I did not want to be drawn into. I apologise.

My personal views on some of the contentions at present:

- It is quite pedantic (and not beneficial) to argue over whether an 'asset' or 'income' was explicitly mentioned in the bible. If you give from what belongs to you, that should be sufficient.

- If you are willing to pose questions, it only follows that you should give responses when questioned in return. While not taking sides, it almost appears as if wordtalk's views are on trial here and the 'judges' have the right to question but not be questioned.

That's precisely what I've been trying to say in so many words! Thanks again.

- As far as I'm concerned, whether you give 10% or 1%, and give it to church or someone in need, as long as your heart is right with God it is recognised by Him, whether you call it tithing, giving or donations is more a matter of semantics than anything else

By all means let the discourse continue, but let's reduce the confrontational/defensive nature so we can learn from each other.

Good reasoning.

@nuclearboy,

Let me explain something to you that you don't seem to get. I have borne with these chaps for so long in the assumption that they would be reasonable. I took time to succinctly explain my position - and you had no problem with that. The problem for them is that they do not believe that 'voluntary' means 'voluntary' unless it must-needs be read in precisely what they hope to see.

So, if I have made my case clear on voluntary tithes, how is that an issue? On the one hand, garyarnold wants to argue long and hard on tithing not based on income; whereas Enigma has been arguing initially on tithing based on income - are they saying the same thing? So much ho air passing here and there, until I felt something was amiss - which was why I felt it was probably best to ask THEM their own question. The evasive swings from them were uncalled for - it is rather an unwillingness to discuss that would make someone ask questions and refuse to oblige answers when questioned!

If this whole drama from them is to try and find a gap where they can hang on to accuse me of arguing for voluntary tithes while actually meaning compulsory tithes, that is simply disingenous! How else do I have to express my position on this matter? Or is it not clear enough?

nuclearboy:
Sorry!

Let me rephrase -> is an "Abram (one time tither who decides he wishes to tithe on one loaf of bread once in his life)" as much a tither as a salary earner who tithes on every dime that gets into his hands?

My question is based on the Abramic example that has us saying tithes came before the law (alluding to him as a tither) in effect, WAS Abram a tither and can people do exactly as he did, decide to pay once (probably on a gift or cash they found by the wayside) and YOU agree they are tithers?

Abraham gave tithes - Israel gave tithes. If that should bring issues about whether one should be called a "tither" and the other not a "tither", the important thing is that what they gave is TITHES.

I am not fixated on just one "example" because I have made this comment when garyarnold raised just about the same question -

Gary:
When you say you aren't paying tithes but rather giving tithes, you infer that you are now voluntarily doing what was mandatory under the Mosaic law, and you are not.

wordtalk:

No sir - a gazillion times NO! I can give tithes VOLUNTARILY even if I derived my Biblical basis for doing so from the Old Testament (including Genesis through the Law and to the prophets). Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 used the Law of Moses to teach on Christian giving without requiring Christians to do so MANDATORILY!

Enigma:
If you read my posts carefully, you will see that I have remained calm --- so it is not about emotions. It is about fighting an insidious technique --- of "we are on the same side" when the person saying so is truly trying to undermine.

Let's just be clear here. Who exactly would you mean by "the person" trying to undermine?

nuclearboy:
@wordtalk:

Look at this matter this way -> Abram did give a tithe of ALL he won from war. That "tithe" was

1. Voluntary as it was his decision
2. But that also meant he chose what to tithe I.e. Spoils of war

He could also thus have chosen to tithe only on "SOME" or to have tithed on othet things

I believe this is what Gary used to deduce : IF Abram is our example of a tither, then someone, say me, could (using the same owner-decision capability) decide (once in my life) to tithe a 20 dollar gift I got yesterday and by above criteria, still be considered a tither as much as any other person who tithes daily and on everything.

The above is so of course, only if Abram is our basis for tithing. If he is not, the allegory does not stand

His question thus is with the stated, do you agree a one time tither (like Father Abram) is as justified (tithe-wise) as an Israeli vineyard owner in the time of King David?.

Thank you, nuclearboy. I don't get what you mean by "justified". I believe I have answered this question and don't see a need to repeat it here. If you still want me to give an answer again, please clarify on "justified".

garyarnold:
@Wordtalk,

I said the KJV of the Bible does not use the word income. I don't care what Hebrew definitions are, words have several meanings and the KJV did NOT choose income. You must think you are smarter than those who translated the KJV.

Please show me your KJV verse for "ASSET". Just that one will do - it's not difficult, unless you just want to cheat in the hope that nobody will notice.

garyarnold:
@wordtalk,

And where did the KJV ever use the word income?

I have shown what Hebrew word conveys several meanings INCLUDING the word INCOME - see it here: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-739830.0.html#msg8970086  

Then I asked you: "what word do you know in the Bible that is used for INCOME and REVENUE?"

You can either argue that there is no Hebrew word used for INCOME - which then would mean that you deny the word in those verses that actually convey the meaning of INCOME. It is not that no such word exists in the Bible - you just don't like to see it used as INCOME.

The word used is not the issue. A duck is a duck whether you call it a duck or not. Income is income whether you call it income or not.

If the word used does not matter or is not the issue, then why have you been hell bent to make that an issue simply because it is not your preferred word? So, indeed there is a Hebrew word IN THE BIBLE that is commonly understood as including the meaning of INCOME - but where is your verse for the Hebrew word for "ASSET"?

An assets is an asset whether you call it an asset or not.

Just show me the verse, please.

When you want to know if something is income or an asset, consult a reliable accountant.

Which accountant - 'Gary Arnold Finances Without Budgeting Inc.'? I'll pass - thanks. Or those "accountants" you can conveniently recruit for your man-made "ASSET" that you haven't been able to show from the Bible? You know how to complain about "man-made dictionaries" - so please give me the Hebrew word for "ASSET" in the BIBLE! Don't even try to cheat or change your goal posts on this one!

garyarnold:
No matter what wordtalk says, there is NO example in the Bible of anyone tithing on income.  Wordtalk obviously doesn't know what income is.

You really should not be sounding so ridiculous at your age! Whatever you can assert, deny, evade, conjure, etc., etc., WHERE is your own verse from the Bible for tithing from "ASSET"? Where do you read of the word "ASSET" in the tithing verses?

Therefore, no point in discussing accounting terms with someone who lacks the knowledge to understand the very basics in accounting.

I feel deeply sorry for you! Who was trying to cheat the public with claims between financial planning and budgeting? Who did you manage to deceive with your claims of teaching finance without budgeting?

Jacob did not vow to tithe on income.  Abram did not tithe on income.  None of the tithing commands was on income.  And I am not saying this because the word income is not used in the KJV, I am saying this because none of those examples meets the definition of income.  But they do meet the definition of assets.

Please show me the VERSE for "ASSET" in the tithing verses that you have been claiming without evidence. Why is that too hard for you to do?

Wordtalk needs another accounting class before he can intelligently discuss income.

No thanks - if that is your style of advertizing your wares, sorry I won't buy!

Enigma:
You think I mind whether you of all people take me seriously? Dream on!

Oh no - my mistake to have even assumed at any time that you were worth more than dust! 

garyarnold:
Does nobody get my point in asking for the difference between voluntary giving and voluntary tithing?

Have you got the point in our answer between voluntary tithing and voluntary giving?

Voluntary giving - I can give what I want to wherever I want.  I can give a loaf of bread to my neighbor.  It is voluntary and not restricted as to what I give or who I give it to.

Has anybody argued against that? Are you saying this because you read somewhere that either myself or nuclearboy has argued to the contrary?

Voluntary tithing - Can I also give a tenth of whatever I want, and to wherever I want?  Can I give a tenth of a loaf of breat to my neighbor as a tithe?  OR is it restricted as to what I can give and who I must give it to?

You should not complicate things for yourself. Give if you want to - don't give if you don't want to: it is not a do-or-die matter! You argued about giving "a loaf of bread", only now to narrow it down to "a tenth of a loaf" - what are you really saying? You will also observe that the question is whether that is your income - but again you don't want it to be based off of your income. This is why you don't seem to reason along with others but pushing just to hear what you want to hear.

Abram did not give a tenth of his wealth nor did he give a tenth of his regular income.  He gave a tenth of a one-time event.  Therefore, am I a tither if I give a tenth of something I earn or receive one time?

What does Genesis 14:20 and Hebrews 7:2 & 4 say Abraham GAVE? I know in other places you have even denied that Abraham gave TITHES - and the people whom you were debating with corrected you. If Abraham did not give tithes, what did he give?

This is why voluntary tithing is a joke.  It is IDENTICAL to voluntary giving, except whatever is given must be a tenth of something.  Therefore, no need to be bothered with voluntary tithing.  Just be a giver and forget it.

Why do you bother to make so much irrational argument only to come to the conclusion that voluntary tithing is identical to voluntary giving? This is why the joke is on you dude - because you seem not to read what others are saying before making ridiculous remarks.

Enigma:
OK Nuke, I will put the test expressly to wordtalk once again so you can see clearly the answers to the following questions yourself.


@ wordtalk

If tithing is "voluntary", then:

1. Can the tither choose to tithe with provisions, food stuff, crops ---- instead of money?

2. Whether with money or with provisions etc --- can the tither give the tithe directly to widows etc instead of in/to church?

@Enigma, I will answer your questions - trust me, I will - BUT ONLY IF you seriously answer this question:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-739830.128.html#msg8975551

IF you will not answer, I will not take you seriously enough in these things.

garyarnold:
On wordtalks website, he defines voluntary tithing as follows:
"the voluntary giving of a tenth of my income"

Not just a tenth of anything, but a tenth of his income.  Therefore, wordtalk is using his own definition, or one he took from man-made dictionaries, or one he heard a pastor use.  Yet, nowhere in the scriptures was tithing commanded on anyone's income.

Now, is everyone here supposed to accept wordtalks definition for tithing?  It's not Biblical.

Someone has asked me what I could possibly mean by tithing from income. I tried to show from the BIBLE what that meant to me - https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-739830.0.html#msg8970086  

I did not use the so-called "man-made dictionaries" in my answer, so where garyarnold is coming up with all this drab is rather funny.

After all this, garyarnold has said several times that tithing was from ASSET. When I asked him where he saw "ASSET" in his beloved KJV Bible, he never once showed me or even attempted to quote any verse. The questions are still the same -

 - (a) where in the Bible (your own favourite KJV) have you read of the word "ASSET"?

 - (b) what word do you know in the Bible that is used for INCOME and REVENUE?

 - (c) what word do you know in the Bible that is used for "ASSET"?

You can accuse me all you want - that's okay, since your accusations can't stand up to be defended with substance. One thing I find rather funny is that you CANNOT SHOW any verse in the same Bible for YOUR OWN assertion. So who are you trying to impress with all your frantic swings?

nuclearboy:
Because "wordtalk" does, I want to believe he is fine and will give him benefit of the doubt! At least I know that if he later says voluntary means compulsory, all of us here will witness it and remind him of his words here!

Superbly put! Thank you. Since I have not argued anywhere to make "voluntary tithes" a matter of "compulsory tithes", I wonder why these guys are frantically trying to read the latter into my posts!

garyarnold:
I am not the dumb one, wordtalk. What Abram did doesn't in any way answer the question:

Okay, fine. I take it back - as long as you would refrain from categorically denying that I answered the question.

What is difference between voluntary giving and voluntary tithing, other than the tenth?

I have said that both words are combined as in the example of Abraham. Following that, nuclearboy's answer clarified even further to show that one is involved in the other - but they are not restricted in only that manner.

If I go on with further clarification for my initial answer, this is why I said that they are combined -

In Genesis 14:20 we read that Abraham GAVE him (Melchizedek) TITHES ("And he gave him tithes of all", KJV). In Hebrews 7:2 the same thing is said - "Abraham gave a tenth part of all", as well in Hebrews 7:4 - "the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils."

The point is that "GIVE" and "TITHES" are used in the same connection in Abraham's example to show that they are used in a combined sense. Tithing is Giving.

The other part of the question is whether GIVING TITHES can be VOLUNTARY. I asked you that question which you did not answer - but that is okay. We all understand that Abraham's giving of tithes to Melchizedek was voluntary - and that is the sense in which "voluntary tithing" and "voluntary giving" could both point to the same thing.

This does not mean that the only type of voluntary giving is voluntary tithes - no; and that is not what I have argued. So, what is the problem?

garyarnold:
Again, wordtalk avoids answering a simple question:

What is difference between voluntary giving and voluntary tithing, other than the tenth?

Dude, are you dumb or what? How is it that when I answer a question the best you can do is be blind and deny that I did?

What did I say here?? ---

wordtalk:
Why all this argument for the sake of arguments? You can use just one example to clarify for your sake -

                        "Abraham gave tithes"

The two words are combined - GIVE and TITHES. What is so hard in that?

Then I asked: "Now, did he give tithes VOLUNTARILY or NOT?"

The reason why you make all these silly denials is so you can cheat by evading answers to the questions I ask. Try harder.

Enigma:
As I said before, the sleight of hand was tried as pilgrim.1, as viaro and now as wordtalk; it doesn't make a difference what the username is, chicanery is still chicanery. That is why pilgrim.1 couldn't answer these same question in "her" days, why viaro couldn't answer these questions in "his" days and now why wordtalk can't answer then in his/her day.  

Please stop making unintelligent excuses. Did YOU answer that question - post #129 or any other post? Did YOU? If you did, show me and I would be thankful. If you did not and try to argue the trash of post #129 as your answer, then I'd call your bluff for what it is.

garyarnold:
What is difference between voluntary giving and voluntary tithing, other than the tenth?

Why all this argument for the sake of arguments? You can use just one example to clarify for your sake -

                        "Abraham gave tithes"

The two words are combined - GIVE and TITHES. What is so hard in that?
Now, did he give tithes VOLUNTARILY or NOT?

nuclearboy:
I do see your point yet would NOT say the Mosaic law understanding comes from man made dictionaries.

He won't ever get that! You can raise the stakes - he won't EVER get that.

Enigma:
^^^ Did you not see post #126 ---- or is this another attempt at sleight of hand?

Your excuses are your "answers"? Are you seriously at odds with understanding simple things? Did I ask you the question before of after #126? (see post #129) How did you ANSWER the question in post #130? You're still hiding behind excuses and celebrating your own sleight of hand, innit?

Enigma:
@ Nuke

The reason why my questions have been difficult for wordtalk to answer is very simple: "voluntary" does not truly mean "voluntary"!

Enigma, your question was not difficult - but nice to see why even you could not answer it when I asked you to.

garyarnold:
OK - here is my question to wordtalk:

You go back and answer my questions and I will deal with yours. That is how to be fair in discussions. I won't put up with your hypocrisy and lies, and that is why I will no longer entertain your pretences.

garyarnold:
Since wordtalk said the tithe didn't have to be money, and that it could be whatever you wanted it to be, that opened the door that the tithe could be anything from food to clothes.

Lol, more lies to appeal to your jingoism? Try harder. At the very least, I know that tithing does not include your trash from your trash can. A little honesty will do.

Since wordtalk said the tithe didn't have to be given in/to church, that opened the door that the tithe could be given to anyone.

Please go back and see what I said rather than conjure your mental gymnastics to force your legalism into my posts.

Since wordtalk insists the word tithe merely means a tenth, then I say if I take $10 to church and give one dollar, I am tithing.  Wordtalk won't acknowledge that I would then be a tither.

Ah, now I know you're just quite dumb. Who is "insisting" on the definition of tithes? The one thing that baffles me in your hypocrisy is the fact that you use that same definition but only complain when you see it in my posts. YET,, you have NEVER defined it differently. You're simply at your best form of hypocrisy!

Wordtalk is totally legalistic, but not Biblically.

Sorry, your lying to impress your crowd is not going to add certification to your retired accounting.

Enigma:
I will say confidently that what you're "missing" is that wordtalk's position and the "lemon"'s position are the same that what is in issue is not tithing ---- except that the "lemon" had the integrity to say so openly.

Oh, really? I wonder that the same 'Nuke' was celebrating that I was one of your camp - which means you're saying the same thing afterall, yes - no? This is why you slid away when I asked you the question directly - it wasn't long before I saw your games.

I will however be quite happy to be proven wrong ----- because that would mean the "antitithers" were correct after all. See, garyarnold has got this figured out correctly!

Please answer the question and surprise yourself in the processs. Be man enough to stand up rather than hiding behind excuses.

garyarnold:
Once wordtalk said that tithing did not have to be money, and that tithing does not have to be given in/to the church, he trapped himself.

Another weakly rehearsed lie. Still counting how many lies you will tell in one day!

Now he won't answer simple questions because of the trap that he set for himself!

I will fall into no trap - I have answered, and then asked you guys to answer that same question. I am still counting your evasive swings at it. When you try to set a trap for someone, please be careful - you might fall into it yourself (Psalm 7:15)

nuclearboy:
I'm totally lost now!

You guys want a yes or no and he refuses, ehn?

@wordtalk:

Is the question so hard?

Or is there something I am missing here with you 3?

The question is dubious - not hard. If they did not find it any difficult, why are they evading answering the question? WHY?

Enigma:
^^^ Of course s/he will not answer the question; I knew that from the beginning.

I answered your question - nuclearboy observed that I did, and he noted it to you. It is either you're simply being mischievous or you don't really stand anywhere at all. Why was it difficult for you to answer the question?

Let me make one point: I do not make the allegation that a person is "playing sleight of hand" lightly! I usually know what I'm talking about before I use that expression. Also, as I suggested before --- does "voluntary" now really mean "voluntary"?

Oh please! You must have missed my observation that the sleight of hand was all yours, thank you very much! And no, that sudden backflip to not answer the question shows how you like to discuss issues.

garyarnold:
If wordtalk agrees that giving a tenth to the poor is considered tithing, it goes against what he thinks should be done with the tithe.

How is that so? Are you rehearsing for more of your lies?

If wordtalk disagrees that giving a tenth to the poor is considered tithing, then he is being legalistic.

Another one of your lies for your strawman argument?

He will never answer your question because he loses no matter what his answer.

I see - so that has been the whole purpose of your redundant and indefensible arguments?  Nice try.
You guys try and answer the question and show your mettle. Since you are playing this evasive swing as your first line of defense, how does that show a readinesss to reason on your part?

garyarnold:
Wordtalk isn't going to answer your question, Enigma.

Just shut up. I don't put up with your crap, lies and deliberate caviling. End of.

Fact is, I don't call any giving today "tithing."

That's fine - call it "50%", since that is the fiction you have claimed for your own campaign.

The question to YOU, Wordtalk, is would YOU call it tithing if one gave a tenth of their income to the poor? YOU are the one who is using the term tithing when giving a tenth of your income in the church. WE don't call giving a tenth of our income in/to the church tithing to begin with.

Nice try. You want to try and wear a jersey to play match after half-time? Look, my dear sir - I don't play to your games of asking questions while you guys will take the liberty to answer NONE. If you will answer, then let me ask you: what would you call the scenario you describe above?

Enigma:
^^^Some of us don't proclaim what we do in public, I'm afraid.

Oh, I see. While you don't proclaim what you do in public, you deem it quite an affair to evade simple questions when they are brought to your doorstep! Nice. Attending to evasive swings is not my forte, I'm afraid .

Enigma:
What is the betting that wordtalk will not answer the question directly ---- not even after you ask it and not even after I have provided sample answers?

I don't think there is any reason to keep pushing on this. I have given answers, explained and expanded on them, and made clear what my views are on this matter. I then asked you to please state for yourself what you believe on the matter - that is the one thing I had silently bet you would not do! Are the stakes still high on that?

Now let me ask you:

See, it is not so difficult afterall to give an honest and straightforward answer to the question

- which makes me wonder: which one of these sample answers applies to YOU?? --

Enigma:
Sample Answer 1.

YES the tither CAN give his tithe directly to widows, orphans etc instead of in/to "church" --- and YES it IS appropriate to call that action tithing.


Sample Answer 2.

YES the tither CAN give his tithe directly to widows, orphans etc instead of in/to "church" --- and YES it IS appropriate to call that action tithing.

Which one applies to you?? Because I have asked you this question earlier: "what would YOU call this?" --

If a person takes a tenth of his income every month and gives it to widows, orphans, other needy people etc, is it appropriate to call the actions of that person "tithing" AND is that portion of income that the person so sets aside a (or even his) "tithe"?"

garyarnold:
Since there was NO tithing in the Bible that went to a church, but there WAS a tithe that went to the widows, orphans, stranger, etc., wordtalk has no basis to say that the tithe SHOULD go to the church other than that is wordtalk's own personal preference.

This bothers you profoundly, so let me help you.

1. It depends on what you mean by 'church'. If your meaning is the place of worship where Christians gather together, the equivalent might be the center of worship where God's people met in the Old Testament. In that sense, we find indeed that tithes were taken to such a center - 2 Chronicles 31 shows where Israel took their tithes and offerings: "into the house of the LORD". To then say that there was NO tithing in the Bible that went to a church is simply over-reaching yourself in denying the fact.

2.  If you're perturbed about my use of 'SHOULD', please understand it is not a question of "obligatory" or "mandatory" idea being expressed. At least, I have made my position absolutely clear about voluntary tithes and offerings. But if you still would like to know, then here are various ways that 'SHOULD' is used -

    -   used to say or ask what is the correct or best thing to do
    -   used to show what is right, appropriate, etc, especially when criticizing somebody's actions
    -   used for giving or asking for advice
    -   used to say that you expect something is true or will happen
    -   used to say that something that was expected has not happened
    -   (British English, formal) used after I or we instead of would for describing what you would do if something else happened first
    -   (formal) used to refer to a possible event or situation
    -   used as the past form of shall when reporting what somebody has said
    -   (British English) used after that when something is suggested or arranged
    -   used after that after many adjectives that describe feelings
    -   (British English, formal) used with I and we in polite requests
    -   used with I and we to give opinions that you are not certain about
    -   used for expressing strong agreement
    -   used to refuse something or to show that you are annoyed at a request; used to express surprise about an event or a situation
    -   used to tell somebody that something would amuse or surprise them if they saw or experienced it

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/should_1?q=should  

http://www.oxfordadvancedlearnersdictionary.com/dictionary/should  

If you were not sure how I used the word 'SHOULD', even without asking for clarification, it should have been clear to you that I was not making a legalistic case that tithes "MUST" be "ONLY" in Church. To ignore what I have been saying and then try several times to advertise your jingoism into my posts is reason why I won't put up with your crap.