₦airaland Forum

nlMediator:
I think I did not make myself clear enough. I'm not focused on percentages the way you are. Setting aside money is what people do with their offerings. I doubt that anybody giving an offering thinks he's setting aside a percentage. But tithers know they're doing that. That's the big difference.

It seems you like to read what you want to read into people's posts - but hey, it's a free world.

nlMediator:
Hasty generalizations and conclusions? Inaccurate? Where is the conclusion or generalization? I said that IF such a preacher exists, I'll like to read from him. How's that a conclusion? A conclusion would be saying there's no such preacher. But I was very careful not to say that, since I do not know.

I'm not going to argue your conclusions here and there about your previous statement; but to make such remarks and then argue that my discussion was out of context is simply erratic an inaccurate. I based my response on your statement that "Not one of them I know or have heard makes any exceptions" - but is that anybody's fault if you don't know even ONE in Nigeria on the things you have read in my discussions? You may not know any - that doesn't make someone else's discussions to be out of context.

On the site being used by non-Nigerians, of course that is common knowledge. It does not change the fact that a lot of the discussion is coming from a Nigerian Christian context. You need not use a 'belief' somewhere to explain a different belief in Nigeria that goes by the same name.

Excuse me, but that is just simply shallow. If you read another Bible different from the one every Christian reads and uses, I would see sense in your arguments; other than that, I find your remarks really funny.

Regarding your claim that evangelical leaders overwhelmingly tithe, you cannot get away from the conclusion by saying that you have other sources, unless those sources have data showing that. I'd like to see such.

Please visit the article - there are links that will take you to the NAE surveys, as well as the bodies involved in the survey.

nlMediator:
Wow! This response takes the cake. They're only the same in the sense that everything we have or do can be reduced to percentages. Otherwise, they're night and day. I can set aside 10% of time  to browse the internet. I can also set aside 24 minutes to browse the internet sometimes and 30 minutes some other time. Of course, 24 minutes is 1% of my time, but percentage was not in the equation when I set aside the 24 minutes. Nor am I violating any rule of mine when I switch to 30 minutes. With tithe, it's a fixed percentage of 10%. Not any amount that can now be categorized as a percentage. In summary, if the government says your tax bracket is 28% of your income and afterwards come up with a different policy that says everybody should pay what they like, you'd still say the guy that pays random amounts of his income is paying taxes based on a percentage and is in the same boat that pays a FIXED percentage?

Please sir, I'm not one of those to argue long and hard on exactitudes, because it is obvious that a closer look at the sources dealing on tithes do not make that kind of fastidious assertion. You will observe that even among anti-tithing theologians, the tithes they argue varying between 1%  to 10%  to  23.3%  to even 40% - and they all calling that "tithe".

Besides that, the source from the Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (several volumes) shows an approximation rather than exactitudes. A few example:

  -  the palace has taken eight garments as your tithe (on 85 garments)

  -  eleven garments as tithe (on 112 garments)

  -  four minas of silver, the tithe of [the gods] Bel, Nabu, and Nergal (no mention of 40 here)

Would you say that 8 is exactly 10% of 85? Would you also argue that 11 is exactly 10% of 112? This is why I don't argue legalistically - and if the person I'm discussing with can't see the simple issue of approximates, then tough luck.

Pastor Kun:
@wordtalk
You also claim there is nowhere in the new testament that tithing was negated. That is far from truth, I know we've been through this before but it is very clear from reading hebrews 7:5-19 that tithing was negated except as usual you want to force your own bias into scripture.

I'm not forcing a bias into Scripture. Hebrews 7:15-19 does not negate tithing in itself, just as it does not negate priesthood in and of itself. The portion you cited is dealing with two different priesthoods and the basis of their establishment. There is no verse in the Bible that teaches that tithes were the foundation for establishing priesthoods.

Joagbaje:
I was making reference to tithing. There is no place in the bible where God spoke against it or give contrary intruction. Jesus spoke against the observation of sababath and some other things which he fulfilled . That's my point.

Okay, I was wrong in misreading you. Sorry.

nlMediator:
Setting aside something and setting aside a percentage are not coterminous. The New Testament talks of the former but not of the latter. Nor does it talk of setting aside the same thing or level every time, which is exactly what tithing of income says.

They actually are. Why? Because anything you set aside from a whole is actually a portion expressed in percentage. The only thing you may observe is that it is not a legalistically fixed or predetermined exactitude. From the sources highlighting the subject of tithes, we find it is only an approximation rather than an exactitude of a figure.

nlMediator:
According to the site you posted, Leigh Anderson gave this closing comment:

“Let’s encourage tithing, and especially encourage generosity. But don’t steal from grandpa’s prescription fund in order to give 10 percent to the church. Sometimes there are emergencies and situations that take a priority like providing for your family. But stick with that guideline. Try to be generous, and 10 percent is a good guideline, but it is not a legal requirement in the New Testament.”

And?

If there’s any tithing preacher on this site or in Nigeria who believes in the above statement, I want to hear or read him say that. Not one of them I know or have heard makes any exceptions. The truth is that your discussion is out of context. When Nigerians are talking of tithes, they’re talking of something very different from what you’re saying. Using the word tithe, which you use in a different context from theirs, is not helpful.

No, I don't think you should make such hasty generalizations and conclude erroneously. For one, there are some who may not be Nigerians nor live in Nigeria, and yet they discuss tithing on this forum. Second, tithing affects us all - and when discussants are on to the subject, they have the whole Church in view and not just the Nigerian scenario. Third, even from within Nigeria I don't think that there's not even a single pastor that does not preach tithes on voluntray basis - so the highlighted part in your comment is inaccurate.

I also have serious doubts about your conclusion that an overwhelming majority of evangelical leaders tithe. What I read is that an overwhelming majority of those who responded tithe. Unless, you’re sure that the survey got a huge response, your conclusion is without basis.

I noted that there are other independent sources and references - if the reader could make a little search rather than stay on the anti-tithing stereotypes. I gave just one of several sources yo capture the reality in brief rather than post encyclopedias of what is actually happening.

Pastor Kun:
@wordtalk
You indicated from your last post that biblical tithe included money, could you show us one clear cut scripture quoted in proper context were biblical tithe was money or better still an example of tithing from monetary income in the bible.

Yes, I noted that 'in some other instances of tithes', they included money as well as were sourced from the tither's income. This is why I'm persuaded about the fact -

1.  'Biblical tithes' would definitely include Abraham's tithes in Genesis 14 - nobody can talk about 'Biblical tithes' by flatly ignoring, denying or rejecting Abraham's tithes in the Bible.

2.  Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek from spoils of war. These spoils of war would have included food as well as money. The reason for supposing money could have been most possibly included is because -

- (a) it was commonly understood that spoils of war in such Biblical times included money and other items/materials, such as we find in the spoils of war in Joshua 7:21 ('I saw among the spoils a goodly Babylonish garment, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight,' etc.). We all understand that "shekels" of silver and gold are describing some form of money in that verse.

- (b) another example where money could most possibly have been included is found in the spoils taken in Numbers 31. Most people read only the earlier verses and then conclude that it was only animals; but verse 52-53 shows how much money they gave from the spoils: "all the gold of the offering that they offered up to the LORD, of the captains of thousands, and of the captains of hundreds, was sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty shekels. (For the men of war had taken spoil, every man for himself)."

I could go on to show more examples; but the point here is that spoils of war actually included more than food - they included money. It is not difficult therefore to understand what was involved in Abraham's tithes to Melchizedek (Gen. 14:20 - "he gave him tithes of all".

3.  As regarding income, we learn first from Jacob's prayer that Biblical tithes could be sourced from the tither's income - "and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee" (Gen. 28:22). Jacob's aspired to obtain his living from God's provision, which is not difficult to see he meant the income from whatever would be his occupation.

4.  But even more is the question of verses that show tithes from income - and there are quite a number of them. Briefly, Deuteronomy 14:22 says, "Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year." The word translated as "increase" is TEBUAH - a common Hebrew word that could mean product, revenue, income, gain or yield. It pointed to the revenue procurred from man's labours or transactions.

5. It is in that sense that we can understand that the tither gave tithes from his or her TEBUAH - their INCOME or REVENUE. The problem is that many often think of 'income' only in terms of "cash" from salaries in their work or business - yet, they do not understand that "income" (tebuah) is defined more broadly in the Bible.

I would like to conclude that there are two important highlights we should never miss in this enquiry:

- the Bible does not show us anywhere that a tither gave tithes from something which did not belong to them in any way

- the underlying principle in tithes and offerings is simply to HONOUR God with the substance of our "INCOME" (tebuah), and this is essentially captured in Proverbs 3:9 - "Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase (tebuah)".

There are many legitimate issues you have raised in your reply - and I share some of them. However, these issues do not apply to every pastor or Christian leader who encourages and teaches tithes in their churches.

Pastor Kun:
If that is the case, don't you think it is better for preachers to preach tithes as voluntary or as they purpose in their heart?

To assure you, there are many pastors I know who teach tithes as voluntary, while others argue that it is mandatory ('mandatory' in the sense of "required" or "obligatory". This is serious enough to have led to a recent survey by the National Evangelical Association (NAE) on whether church leaders feel that tithing is "required" from Christians. The result is that 58% do not teach that tithing is "required" while 42% actually do. The interesting thing is that the President of the NAE, Leith Anderson noted on the whole that "about 95% of those who responded to our survey said that they at least tithed – they give 10% or more. So, they do tithe even though they think that it is not a requirement.” You may want to see the following -

Majority of Evangelicals Still Tithe

Leith Anderson notes that tithing from the OT is ‘the primary giving guide for modern day Christians.’ Responding to Holmes, he noted that while the keyword in the NAE survey was ‘required‘, nonetheless “about 95% of those who responded to our survey said that they at least tithed – they give 10% or more. So, they do tithe even though they think that it is not a requirement.”

http://givingtithes.com/majority-of-evangelicals-still-tithe/

_____________________________________________

Evangelical Leaders and the Language of Tithes

Comments by Alan Robinson of the Brethren in Christ Church sets this concern in context -“Tithing was an Old Testament legal model that ought to lead New Testament Christians to lives of sacrificial generosity. While tithing is not ‘required’ today, it is my view that Christian generosity will, at a minimum, reflect the Old Testament requirements of the law and should, in fact, greatly exceed it.”

http://givingtithes.com/nae-language-of-tithe/

Other independent sources and references are available. The whole point is that there is an overwhelming majority of Christian leaders in Western churches that tithe and teach it on voluntary basis.

Pastor Kun:
Don't you think itself fraudulent, manipulative a sinful for a preacher to preach the unbiblical tithing from monetary income as compulsory and binding on all christians even when it is glaring from scriptures that there is no christian instruction to tithe in the bible neither was it practised by the apostles or the early church.

There is no verse in the New Testament that negates tithing for Christians. Yet, even though the word 'tithe' is not specifically used for Christian giving, the underlying principles of setting aside a percentage from one's income is clearly found in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2.

However, so many people who oppose tithing for Christians have argued that Biblical tithes could not have included money or sourced from one's income. That argument is incorrect and very weak indeed, because Biblical tithes included money as well as were sourced from the tither's income. This may come as a surprise to many, but a little more helpful study reveals that is the case in some other instances of tithes that anti-tithers don't like to talk about.

The one thing I would agree with you here is that tithing (or any other type of giving) should not be made 'compulsory' for Christians - and the one reason I have for that is simple: the New Testament does not teach giving as "compulsory" for Christians (except where it talks about 'taxes' - which is a different thing from giving).

nlMediator:
Are these the new criteria for determining acceptable christian doctrine and practice?

But is that what he meant?

Pastor Kun:
@wordtalk
Forget the diversion and kindly explain to us why christians should tithe today based on Abraham's one off example of tithing war booty. What's the christian 'principle' behind this act?

It's not a diversion, since you were the one who brought it up. However, the question of 'What's the christian 'principle' behind this act?' has been asked so many times and I have tried to give answers already. Please allow me to repeat my answer once again - and then if there's something to discuss about it, I will gladly do so. Here is my answer:

Our giving in worship is quite a different thing from the idea of a tax system or obligation under a custom. The essential principles of worship and priesthood rise above any other consideration for those who walk in faith – and to miss these is to miss everything else.

- so, when the question rises again about what is the christian 'principle' behind this act, or its significance, etc., etc., my answer is: priesthood and worship. This goes far beyond whether the tithe is an exact number of 1%, 10% or 23.3%, etc. If there's something more than this answer to discuss, I am willing to do so.

Pastor Kun:
@Wordtalk
Since you were rather evasive in your response to my query . . .

I was not being evasive - unless you did not understand your own question. The best you could have done was ask where you did not understand, not accuse me of being evasive.

. . .I have decided to put it in bettet perspective with the article below which throws more light on the babylonian/pagan origin of Abram's tithe.

I have background knowledge of the history of tithes and tithing from ancient civilizations and could give you very many sources if you care. However, the simple point here was that Abraham's tithes to Melchizedek was not treated in the Bible as 'pagan'. Anti-tithers often argue that theory into Genesis 14, whereas they cannot show from within the Bible that Abraham's actions were discussed under 'pagan' rites or customs.

Because of this standard one-tenth tax in Babylon, Abraham of the Genesis account was most likely familiar with the concept of giving up ten percent of goods as tax.

Abraham's tithes to Melchizedek were not a 'tax' - please go and find out what they actually were and give me any verse in the Bible where his tithes were called a 'tax'.

dnarowpath:
We are saved to serve, not to sit around and wait for heaven. God has a mission for you in the world.
Many believers have abandoned living for God’s purpose and settled for personal fulfilment.
The mature believer stops asking – ‘who is going to meet my needs and starts asking – ‘whose need can I meet’.

Preach it!

Joagbaje:
^^
I don't get you pls explain

We cannot argue in a general way to say that 'There has never been any place in the bible where God gave contrary instruction against it'. Never? Any place? Not entirely true, if the 'it' you meant was concerning what people offered. Is that what you meant by "it"?

^^@ogoamaka99,
May God bless you more.

---

Joagbaje:
You should also ask yourself why God would want 10% not 20 not 30. For thousands of years this has been on . There has never been any place in the bible where God gave contrary instruction against iT. As he did to other things.

Lol, Joagbaje. Although we all may not know "why" God would want certain things (compare Psalm 50:7-15); yet the highlighted in your comment is certainly not true. There were a few other occasions where giving or offerings were sometimes less or more than 10% - both in the OT and NT. Let's avoid generalizing issues.

dare2think:
@Word talk

Please, what exactly is the purpose and significance of Tithing?

^^

. . . However, the Biblical tithes (Abraham, Jacob and the Levitical system) assume a different character and were connected with priesthood and worship, rather than with political kingship.

When God instituted the tithes into the Levitical system, it was based on the same principle of priesthood and worship. Even though they were received by the priests, Israel’s tithes were given to God Himself (Num. 18:24, KJV – “the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heave offering unto the LORD“). It was God’s sovereignty that underscored Israel’s worship in the tithes.

Our giving in worship is quite a different thing from the idea of a tax system or obligation under a custom. The essential principles of worship and priesthood rise above any other consideration for those who walk in faith – and to miss these is to miss everything else.

http://givingtithes.com/abrahams-tithes-arab-tax/

ogoamaka99:
@wordtalk,
I didn't know that you could live to your I.D. name-"WORDTALK", this is because i can perceive that you are word loaded. I am sorry to say this, but it is the raw truth, it is a waste of precious time when you argue with people with mind set. There is nothing you say they can accept no matter it been a raw BIBLICAL truth. They feel that what they are saying themselves is the truth while they are in error because they lack the HOLY SPIRIT. Assuming they have the HOLY SPIRIT in them they wouldn't say what they are saying. I pray that their eyes of understanding could be opened. It is unfortunate that an unbeliever could choose PASTOR as his I.D. name unless he is a pastor in the church of satan because all his posts are anti christian and he could open his mouth to call a MOG criminal.

Well, I'll not go that far with name-calling or concluding anything about anyone's salvation. We can discuss even when they vehemently disagree. Although many people forget this, yet an accusing tongue employed in accusing other people 'day and night' is not displaying the glory of God (Rev. 12:10) - which is why we should all be careful.

Pastor Kun:
@wordtalk
Kindly explain to us why christians should tithe based on Abrahams one off example of tithing war booty.
I also remember you conceding previously that tithing is an ancient babylonian(pagan) custom were Abram originated from and it was customary to give a tithe to Kings on such occasions. With this in mind can you justify the false teaching that christians must tithe of their regular income. What's the correlation or the 'principle'?

It is not your own preconceived conclusion that you will find in my comments; so if you've made up your mind already on the subject, then there's hardly anything you would be interested in discussing anyways. Sorry.

As regarding the so-called theory of 'babylonian(pagan) custom', I have discussed that with Gary Arnold where I made some observations and asked a few questions which he never answered (reposted below). If you do have answers, I'll be glad to discuss them.

Gary, when you asked this -

“But why do you accept that Arab custom but not accept that Arab custom was to give a tenth of the spoils to the king?”

… my first question to you would be: which king? It is not enough to just say that tithes are given to the king‘ without seeking to understand why it had to be a particular king.

This point is often ignored by those who hastily read the ‘Arab custom’ theory into Genesis 14 as Abraham’s motive. And that was why I posted that article (click here)*, where I made this observation -

“If then it was merely a matter of obeying local customs, then Melchizedek would rather not have been better qualified than would have been the ruler of Hebron at the time for Abraham’s tithes. This only shows that being a ‘king’ of one of the cities in that region was not enough to have qualified the recipient to receive tithes.”

I wonder: on what basis would you have qualified Melchizedek to receive Abraham’s tithes where it is clear that Salem had no jurisdiction over Hebron where Abraham lived? Was Melchizedek the only ‘king’ of that region, and was he ‘king’ also of Hebron? Even if you want to argue on the basis of a ‘local custom’, what is your source that shows that Melchizedek was the ‘local king’ who had jurisdiction over Hebron where Abraham dwelt?

I’m just trying to understand your persuasions on these things – and good references or sources would be appreciated in your answers.

http://givingtithes.com/what-moved-abraham-to-tithe/comment-page-1/#comment-142

* Abraham's Tithes - Why Melchizedek?

http://givingtithes.com/abrahams-tithes-why-melchizedek/

garyarnold:
NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE pays the Biblical tithe today.

That depends on if you understand what the Biblical tithes are.

THE FIRST TITHE
Leviticus 27:30-33 defines this tithe as a tenth of crops and animals in herds and flocks.
Numbers 18 gives the ordinances, or instructions, for this tithe, and commands this tithe be taken to the Levites.
Purpose of this tithe: to support the Levitical Priesthood.

SECOND TITHE
Deuteronomy 14:22-27: aka The Festival Tithe - a tenth of crops, plus add to that the firstborn animals, and take for the yearly feast.
Purpose of this tithe: “that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always”

THIRD TITHE
Deuteronomy 14:28-29: aka The Three-Year Tithe aka The Poor Tithe - a tenth of crops, kept at home, and invite the Levites, widows, orphans, stranger to eat.
Purpose of this tithe: to feed the poor.

Tithing did not begin at Leviticus. Those who oppose tithing often try their hardest to ignore Genesis 14.

Now, tell me. Which of the above three tithes commanded by God does anyone follow today?

Obedience for Christians is not a matter of reading the letters of the Law; rather, it is a matter of practical applications derived from the PRINCIPLES thereof.

The ONLY people in the Old Testament that were commanded to tithe were those who INHERITED THE PROMISED LAND WITH EVERYTHING ON IT. They got the land, house, animals, crops, etc. ALL FREE AND CLEAR. No mortgage payment or rent to pay. And THEY were commanded to tithe on the crops and animals and take it to the Levites who INHERITED the tithe INSTEAD OF the promised land with everything on it. No one else tithed. Wage earners did not tithe. Jesus did not tithe as a carpenter. Paul did not tithe as a tent maker. Peter did not tithe as a fisherman.

We've heard that redundant excuse from anti-tithers before - find a fresh one. Abraham was not a Levite, nor was Melchizedek a descendant of Levi when we read of tithes in Genesis 14. Yet, the fact of Abraham's tithes was not ignored in Hebrews 7 where even Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek.

Tithing today is for sissies.

This is how you start until you're whipped to the point of hiding your tails between your legs.

The New Testament teaches generous, sacrificial giving, from the heart, according to our means.

The OLD Testament also teaches generous, sacrificial giving, from the heart, according to our means - so there's NOTHING "new" about them.

For some, $1 might be a sacrifice, while for others, even giving 50% of their income might not induce a sacrifice.

Please show me where even ONE anti-tither has ever given 50% of his or her income - show me! The hilarious thing about the empty talk of anti-tithers is the fiction in their thesis.

In the Old Testament, ONLY the farmers tithed, and it was equal percentage (a tenth). The New Testament teaches the principle of equal sacrifice instead of equal percentage.

The New Testament does not teach the fallacy of "equal sacrifice" - that anti-tithing anthem has been debunked far too many times it amazes me that you would bring it here again!

Equal sacrifice is much harder to achieve, if not impossible, than giving ten percent.

So, in your theology, your god has demanded what is "much harder to achieve", isn't it? The NT does not present what is 'much harder to achieve' or impossible for the Christian. This is why the anti-tithing campaign is all cheap talk that appeals to those who find it impossible to give anything!

Leave the vote campaigns aside for now. Two important questons that mazaje asked should be considered by those he is inviting to comment on -

mazaje:
He believes as a Christian you are supposed to prosper in all you do. . . .Is prosperity wrong according to the Christian doctrine?

mazaje:
Is there any verse in the bible that states the believers will experience lack, injustice, diseases, suffering and poverty?. . . . . .

divinereal:
Al-Razi denied the Islamic dogma of creation ex nihilo. For him, the world was created at a finite moment in time, but not out of nothing. Al-Razi believed in the existence of the five eternal principles: creator, soul, matter, time, and space.

How did this so-called 'rationalist' account for these principles as ETERNAL?

Snowwy:
@garyarnold,
i think i get your point.
However, you remind me of a doctor trying to 'sell' a bitter pill to a child, you call it it's synonym because it makes it more appealing and magical and this actually takes away the child's fear of this pill.
Many people get turned off by having to budget so you just repackaged it in fanciful wrapping and 'sold' it to them.
You sold them the same budget but gave it a 'fly name'.
It's all good.
Afterall, you removed the 'budget' fear and made it fun, so it worked for them (as you claimed).

In summary, i get the jist. Financial planning is 'sugar-coated' budgeting.

Very well put!

ogajim:
We spend so many pages of budget that even Governments don't follow their own budgets let alone individuals, I would think we have better things to do than fight over whether budget is an essential part of any financial plan or not,

Nobody would have been talking about budget and/or financial planning, etc. if garyarnold did not bring it up. There's nothing wrong with someone expressing an opinion; but to try and embellish intentionally misleading fables in the hope of sounding 'smart' is just plain dumb!

Now it's time for wordtalk to say since you charge nothing, people are getting exactly what they pay for. Kind of remark wordtalk would make.

Don't get all jittery and start putting words in my mouth, since I did not appoint you as my amanuensis or scribe.

garyarnold:
I gave myself to the Lord. I serve the Lord. I don't need to advertise a service that I give FREE. I only give finance classes IN PERSON, not on the internet. And charge NOTHING.

Dude, nobody is subscribing to your brand of 'finance classes' on the internet especially as you can't charge anything for free sham. You made a laughable statement that you have not been able to reconcile with what everyone already knows. The info I've drawn from various sources are FREE, and the best part - I charge NOTHING!

garyarnold:
Maybe pastors and ministers see something in my finance teaching that wordtalk doesn't.  In fact, wordtalk has never taken a finance class from me but is fast to criticize my teaching.

1. I'm not criticizing your 'teaching', since you have not demonstrated such a teaching of finances without involving budget at any level. At least one other person has asked you to show that teaching, but you wooshed it aside with fanciful words.

2.  I can't imagine myself taking a class from someone who's mumbling and prevaricating in the same breath - and since that's what you do, don't expect me to subscribe.

3.  I've actually taken accounting as an elective course during my first degree in the Social Sciences; and all what we're discussing is the very first thing we learnt in financial planning - which is why I have repeatedly noted that 'Budgeting lies at the foundation of every financial plan'. Your task was to show me how that is wrong, and hence prove that people who deal with finances have got it all wrong ever since! The only difference is that I never made any claim of holding an accounting certification (such as Chartered Market Technician (CMT) or Certified Financial Planner (CFP)). However, I know from all this that you're trying to sell snakeoil to the unsuspecting reader with your claims of teaching finances without involving budget.

So whether wordtalk thinks I know what I am doing or not, those who personally know me trust my knowledge and advice.

None of them would have had the common sense to ask you the same question we've been asking you - so that eases things for you. However, we know there's no smart financial plan that can escape involving budget. The one thing that perhaps could be said on your behalf is that you were actually teaching budget even though you avoided using that word! The Investopedia quote earlier highlighted could help explain your plight - "If you are hitting a mental roadblock when you hear the word "budget", just call it by a different name, such as "personal financial planning." That's what budgeting is, after all."

So, you might as well have been calling it by a different name, rather than trying to blow smokescreen in our faces about all this.

I am done talking about finances here.  We are off topic.

That's plain silly! Did anyone ask you about finance before you started all this crap? If you wanted to advertise your trade, look up the relevant section on the forum and post your porridge there!

garyarnold:
There wordtalk goes talking about something he knows so little about.

Without an accounting certification, I know enough to know your claims are nothing short of a sham.

Just because someone says that "Budgeting lies at the foundation of every financial plan" doesn't make it right anymore than if I quote from an article that says "No one can tithe today."

Everyone including Investopedia knows that "Budgeting lies at the foundation of every financial plan" - the only person so far who doesn't know that is YOU! Yet, inspite of your eclat, you're still struggling to show the contrary!

[i]Investopedia explains Financial Plan
While there is no specific template for a financial plan, most licensed professionals will include knowledge and considerations of the client's future life goals, future wealth transfer plans and future expense levels. Extrapolated asset values will determine whether the client has sufficient funds to meet future needs.

Please read my lips: what do the highlighted words mean to you other than a description of 'budget'? Just because that quote does not spell out 'budget' in A-B-C fashion, you seem to be totally at loss of its meaning? How do you "determine whether the client has sufficient funds to meet furture needs"?

Let me help you from the same INVESTOPEDIA site (take note of the emphasis, all mine) -

What is budgeting? Basically, it's making sure that you're spending less than you're bringing in and planning for both the short- and long-term.

Unfortunately, many people think of budgeting as depriving themselves and they avoid it like they do a diet. However, just like a diet is really just a program for eating, budgeting is just a program for spending. If you are hitting a mental roadblock when you hear the word "budget", just call it by a different name, such as "personal financial planning." That's what budgeting is, after all. It's a proactive approach, rather than a reactive approach, to managing your money.

[size=14pt]Budgeting is an important component of financial success[/size]. It's not difficult to implement, and it's not just for people with limited funds. Budgeting makes it easier for people with incomes and expenses of all sizes to make conscious decisions about how they'd prefer to allocate their money. It can also help people save for retirement, emergencies, a new car or just about anything. For many people, having a solid budget in place, knowing how much money they have and knowing exactly where that money is going makes it easier for them to sleep at night.

http://www.investopedia.com/university/budgeting/

Sir, did you get the gist? If you missed them from the highlight, let me tie just two pertinent points for you below -

1. Budgeting is an important component of financial success

2. "personal financial planning" - that's what budgeting is, after all

That is from the same Investopedia site. If personal financial planning is what budgeting is after all, where do you magically get your brand of teaching finances that does not involve 'budget' at any level? If budgeting is AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT of financial success, how come you're making so much noise to exclude the one component that is essential in all this?

This is why I'm still waiting to see what crap you'd come out with at the end. Hit your panic button again.

I DON'T SEE THE WORD BUDGET USED, DO YOU?

That's because you lack reading skills. Again my comment: How do you "determine whether the client has sufficient funds to meet furture needs"? What does that explain and imply to you? Keep searching for what everyone already knows.

garyarnold:
I think wordtalk needs to look up the word budget in the dictionary.  I don't budget.  Period.  Yet I am very successful financially.

I've not questioned your personal financial status; but all your talk about teaching finances to others without involving budget at any level is plain rubbish talk! All you needed to do was show me it was wrong to think that "Budgeting lies at the foundation of every financial plan" - everyone (except you) who has a clue of sound financial principles knows that foundation!

I don't budget x number of dollars for food for the month, or x number of dollars for utilities for the month, etc. etc. etc.  That would be a budget.  The US government has a budget, and look at the mess they are in.  I am not saying that governments don't need a budget.  I am saying individuals don't need a budget.  I used to use budgets until I realized a better way.

My dear sir, please don't be so shallow. A 'budget' is far beyond that, and reaches on to someone's financial goals! That is why budgeting lies at the foundation of every financial plan - and that is what helps anyone to make sense of their finances.

So all the magical gimmicks of your brand of 'finances' that evades the foundation is plain dumb talk - which is why all this time you have not been able to show how finances work without involving budgets at all! You don't have to keep making empty excuses on the issue - but when you try to sell trash in a public forum, expect to be woken up to reality.

garyarnold:
Luke 14:28-32 has NOTHING to do with household budgets.  Of course when you are going to build a house, church, or do any major addition or upgrade, you workout a cost analysis and have to have a way to pay for it.  But you don't need a budget to pay the cost.

Everyone who understands the simplicity of that passage (except you) knows that it underscores the importance of budgets and budgeting. We all know that budgeting is the foundation of every financial plan - so all this talk about 'upgrade' etc., without a foundation is recipe for disaster, no matter how you swivel here and there on the matter.

The fact that I don't budget doesn't mean I don't keep track of all my expenses as well as my income. The fact that I don't budget doesn't mean that I don't occasionally do an analysis of where my money is going.

Perhaps you need to go back and learn the basics, rather than play fast and loose with words. What you're describing is quite simply budgeting - you may avoid the term (since you're desperate to cut corners); but there's no escaping the fact that you're just describing budgeting there while denying that it is so.

I have a problem keeping my weight down where I am comfortable with it.  Unfortunately, I use diets to lose weight.  I haven't reached the point where I have been able to discipline myself when it comes to eating.  I am taking the easy way out.

Equivocation and the fallacy of false analogy.

I don't have a problem with my finances.  I don't need any budget because I have learned how to discipline myself when it comes to finances.  I think smart rather than think budget.  I teach the thinking process one needs to go through rather than developing budgets.

There's nothing 'smart' about finances that have no foundation - talk to smart people who handle finances without the fanciful words you're playing around with.

Budgets don't always expose the problem when someone is having financial problems.  I get to the problem, if there is one, and use a thinking process to solve the problem.  I teach good financial habits.  Budgets can have a major flaw of hiding the problem.

Lol, this is the funniest joke on the planet going. How do you discover financial problems without first evaluating expenditure? Isn't budgeting the core of such evaluations? Call it another name, if you may; but it is not even close to being 'smart' when you want to keep cheating and cutting corners with 'smart' words that only create more problems!

garyarnold:
Budgeting is very compatible with giving a tenth.  VERY compatible.  The tenth would be a part of the budget.  No thinking required.  A robot can do it.

This shows how much you've been hawking your pretentious claims.

You don't need a budget when you learn how to make intelligent financial decisions.

These excuses coming from you rather weaken your claims. There's nothing 'intelligent' about financial plans that do not involve budgeting at some level. Everyone who knows what they're talking about (except you) already understands that "Budgeting lies at the foundation of every financial plan". A financial plan without a 'foundation' would appeal to cheats. End of.

The only reason why you are unable to show me the contrary is because you're looking for another outlet to cheat those who are easily taken by your pretentious eclat.

ogajim:
Meekness not meanness is what we need to present at all times as good Christians.

"There is nothing infallibly prophetic about pessimistic or cynical conjecture, " (little riddle who wrote the line)

You guys make me laugh. Where were you and your riddle when your anti-tithing gang were quite at home with cynicism?

MRbrownJAY:
EVEN WITH JUJU, i dare anyone to stand in front of a bullet and let their body withstand the force of the bullet to not enter their body!!!!!!

Have you watched "The Redemption of General Butt Nak[color=Black]ed[/color]"?

garyarnold:
This is funny.  wordtalk quotes from an article called Budgeting 101.

Are you thick or what? Did you miss what I said or you're just talented at being silly altogether? What does this mean to you: "people who are informed already know this - Budgeting lies at the foundation of every financial plan"? I noted from the start that "A Budget is part of a Financial Plan, and it is hard to see the substance of teaching only one aspect" - as if that is not clear enough, I also remarked that "budgeting is involved in finances".

You talk as if you exclude budgeting altogether from teaching finances - which was why I said it would make no sense if that were the case.

Most finance teachers teach budgeting.  I don't.  I never said budgets were not a part of finances.

You would not be involving budgeting at all while teaching finances - is that it? Isn't that plain silly?

My approach to finances takes a much more mature approach.  My method works.  I am not here to give a class in finances on this blog.

Nobody is asking for classes, which makes one wonder at all that you would go there - sounds like you're advertizng your retired CV for a job nobody wants!

It makes sense that someone who believes that tithing today is good would also think budgets are good.  It simple to use a tenth, and to follow a budget.  It's more complicated and involved to really understand what you are doing.

The complications arise when you magically imagine that budgeting is not compatible with tithing.