₦airaland Forum

garyarnold:
I don't want to mislead anyone.

You damn well should not have tried to do so in the first place. I was concerned after a recent incident in another forum: someone who argued so passionately that you held a 'doctor of divinity' degree as part of your Christian Education was so thoroughly embarrassed when he was set right. I had warned him not to put so much faith in his arguing for your title as such, but he didn't listen. I just thought to warn you that the 'D.D.' was misleading a lot of folks.

I am in the process of revising my website and book to reflect the following:

Bless God! I really didn't think you would be moved to do so; but it's a step in the right direction.

Zikkyy:
What are you saying? is the chap a giver or a receiver? If he is a receiver, maybe he is not receiving enough, that's why he is broke He needs to work on his begging skillz.

Hahaha!! You are one very funny fellow!!

Zikkyy:
If my understanding of the above quote is wrong, then my apologies. Maybe you can clarify.

^^Thank you Zikkky, for the quote. I was just wondering if indeed I asserted anywhere the things you had implied from reading me earlier.

1. No, I did not imply or assert that we give "only when" there is reward.

2. And no, I did not assert or imply anywhere that anyone's act of love should be 'dependent' on any rewards.


That conclusion drawn by you somewhat seems to have implied that belivers cannot give until ONLY WHEN rewards are attached. That was not what I said anywhere, nor was it implied at all in any line of my previous comments. Rather, while observing that giving is underscored by love, it does not therefore mean that the giver expects nothing. He or she does not give "ONLY WHEN" or "just because" there must be rewards or expectation attached. No. Rather, we cannot deny that giving is reciprocal in both the OT and NT.

The point here is this: should reciprocal giving mean therefore that the giver "MUST" demand rewards in expectation from the beneficiaries? No; otherwise that is lending for usury (Exodus 22:25 and Leviticus 25:37). The Lord Jesus instructs us in Luke 6:35 in line with those OT verses just cited.

However, even though the giver does not have any expectations, assurances or trusts in God to reward him/her for giving, that is the giver's personal choice - which again does not deny or negate the fact that giving also includes reciprocality. It does not mean that the giver has to "demand" this reciprocality or make it the foundation of the giving - No. It simply means that God has promised that giving will be blessed, and it is God's promise of blessing that expresses the so-called "expectation" or "assurance" or "trust" in God to 'reward' the giving.

And because the expectation is not the sole-determining factor, a giver should not assume he or she is cursed just because no blessings follow his or her giving. God's promises are not rigid and fixed in stone in a legalistic manner. This is why even those of the OT who had the promises of God are said yet to have "received not the promise" (Heb. 11:39). It does not mean that God never made any promises of blessings - but it does mean that while all the promises of God are "Yes" in Christ, He will fulfil them in the way He determines (2 Cor. 1:20).

Zikkyy:
LOL You want to know why his anti-tithing activities did not better his life? it's because his anti-tithing arguments (& love driven giving) is not a 'get rich scheme'. it's not a money making venture, that's why

Lol. Yeah, right. In just the same way, you can derive your answer to your question posed earlier. Whatever adjectives you want to use to qualify that, he remains broke today. You missed that, didn't you?

Let me elaborate. The guy is often borrowing from the very people he has been preaching his anti-tithing arguments to. With all his "freewill offerings" (sorry, 'love-driven' so-and-so), he is reduced to begging borrowing. Worse yet, he has three kids to feed daily. . . and his favourite text of the NT? Luke 6:35 - "give LEND, hoping for nothing again" - he claims it is his Christian right to ask others to give LEND him whatever he needs and expect nothing in return.


So, in a way, I guess you're right. Just as his "anti-tithing arguments" have failed, so also his "love driven giving" have also failed to better his life, so that he remains perpetually broke and goes begging borrowing.

@lucabrasi,

There are very good points you raised, and the calm attitude intoned in your comments is exemplary. Thanks.

But I have a problem with this:

lucabrasi:
1.if you are getting tithes and offerings from the congregation,they should not be kept in the account to gather interests because there is a ready need for it,follow what the lord said in the scriptures and what is in the acts of the apostles use the money to feed the widow,the poor,the vulnerable if after this you have money left then you can keep it in the bank.

Re: the highlighted. I don't want to risk misreading what you said, but my comments are informed by the "you" in red quoted above.

You may not be wrong, but then I don't think money or financial contributions in churches should be controlled by one man or group of men - simply because they money does not belong to them but rather to the church/churches that made the contribution. The church in such a case is to decide what they would like the money to be used for, besides care for the poor, needy, vulnerable. If a church decides it wants to keep the money in the bank (which suggests that it accrues interests), then so be it. But such things would often open doors to those who write the cheques.

frosbel:
Owning a Jet bought with the sweat of church members who can barely make two ends meet is a SIN.

Oh, really? And your categorically false accusation is not a SIN?

BTW, I asked you what makes someone a FALSE PROPHET, not whether they sin or not. We know that many Christians sin - and in the sence of moral judgement, one could even have viewed Paul's taking wages of other churches "sin" - (2 Cor. 11:8 - 'I robbed other churches, taking wages of them, to do you service.').

But it is not the "sin" of an apostle (so to speak) that I asked about. I asked more about what qualified someone to be a false prophet. Is it just owning a private jet?

Living in opulence, while the vast majority of Christendom is struggling to cobble together a meal is a SIN.

That "sin" is not I asked about. WHAT exactly made them false prophets?

Why can you not travel via normal transportation, what is the essence of a JET that costs so much money

A second class air ticket costs "so much money" to many folks; and because they cannot afford it, they would rather risk travelling by "normal transportation" - which, for many, is not "normal". If you sense of "norma transportation" is defined only in terms of cost, please choose any below for your own transportation - or you're living in sin as well:

[img]http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRvTSENyIknus0Tck0er_4egTo4GsHvCar8RGgI13cobwBTvSIZeQ[/img]  https://www.adamlilith.net/adam/personal/africa_drcongo_transport.jpg

frosbel:
Give me a break, stop deceiving yourself.

Please answer your false accusation and get your break.

Truth mixed with Error is dangerous.

And you're not aware that is what you've been doing in so many cases? Example: accusing those men that they do not preach salvation by repentance and faith? Is that factual or a false accusation? If you don't know, ask - and people who have heard them preach such messages will tell and inform you. But to excuse your false accusation is not going to break anyone than the very same person who accuses falsely.

Preaching salvation and then alluring the young converts through the lust of the flesh and pride of life is madness.

It is not only madness, it is wrong. I agree that the alluring people with clandestine methods is wrong. But that is not the same as falsely accusing them of not preaching salvation through repentance and faith - that accusation is wrong, and to excuse and maintain that false accusation is beyond madness.

I have no disdain for them whatsoever , just exposing heresy.

I deeply hope that you have no disdain for them . . . I beg God that He does not find such disdain in you.

Again you misconstrue this to be ' I am more spiritual than you, sort of article.

As long as you accuse them falsely, you're passing off yourself as their religious police. That is why I wanted you to play it down and contectualize your concerns.

This is simply a shedding of light in the dark world of heretical Christian teachings.

You can do that without falsely accusing them.

If the bible is littered with prophecy to this regard , such that even the faith of the elect will be shaken, i wonder what you are on about.

What I have said is plain enough.

Yes , because according to Jewish tradition, the TORAH was read aloud in the Synagogues not the personal teachings of MEN.

It was not just the reading of the TORAH - go and read that verse Matthew 23:3 again. It was what the Pharisees bid them to do - it is not just the reading of the TORAH.

Which is why Pastor Adeboye in my opinion, though he does have some recent actions that have perturbed me is still a pastor I refuse to make any remarks against.

When you make the issue of provate jets the basis of calling them false prophet, why single out Adeboye as if his own private jet is a jelly? Why are you propounding a select and choose hypocrisy? I asked you what exactly it is that should qualify those men in that vid as false prophets - you're excusing the issue under normal transport, sin, and all sorts of jelly beans. What is wrong with you?

The rest of your MOG, I have heard them many times preach heresy.

Thank you. Is your life now better?

Improving one's life in what sense and for what purpose /

1. In the sense of achieving good living standards.
2. For the purpose of furthering godly living.

What is your first duty as a Christian ?

Commitment to Christ.

Many of these men are WOF preachers who teach HERESY !

Ok, so it is not the issue of the private jets anymore?

Ah , okay , so what is the tithe and offering meant for /

Which one?

To make pastors rich , buy jets and live in opulent houses while their members languish in squalor.

I have said repeatedly that I do not favour opulence and excesses. Did you not read that?

You are totally deceived.

Thank you again. I usually avoid insults as a rule of engagement. But if you make it a duty-stamp of your christianity, I have plenty in store for you.

Orikinla:
I am a Christian and by the grace of God I shall own more than 4 private jets, IN FACT an airline.
My dream is to have a fleet of emergency rescue jets and helicopters to rescue patients and others in critical conditions.

May God, according to His will and mercies, grant your desire.

Anyways, I think there is a very important issue that should have been addressed so that the underlying issues can better be understood within the context of the suggested topic. I have earlier wondered what exactly makes the folks in the vid to be named as false prophets - and Orinkinla has again highlighted the same point:

Orikinla:
So owing a private jet makes one a false prophet?

You see why many of our school leavers and graduates are intellectual morons?
No wonder you have an incompetent President with a PhD.
Nigerian I-D-I-O-T-S!

Is it actually the owning of a private jet that qualifies someone to be a false prophets? What exactly is it?

frosbel:
They are not preaching the gospel of salvation through REPENTANCE, faith and denying yourself to follow JESUS.

This is a very expensive false accusation to make. if it were true, I would second your claim, but I have heard most of those men preach salvation through REPENTANCE, FAITH and DENYING the self to follow Jesus. What they mean by that may be read differently by the hearers - but it is factually dubious and a brazen lie to accuse that they are not preaching salvation by those elements.

Perhaps, you may have a certain disdain for these men and many more - not because they do not preach salvation as you highlighted, but because you do not agree with their worldview or religious outlook. No problem - I do not agree with some of them in MANY things, but I don't think it would be intelligent to go all out to accuse them falsely. For example, I do not agree with Adeboye of RCCG on the way he teaches tithing; but my disagreeing with him does not make me a more spiritual Christian so that I should falsely accuse him.

In the same manner, Jesus did not agree with the doctrines of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matt. 16:12); but yet He urged His disciples to obey what the same Pharisees taught from Scripture: "whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do" - BUT, (and here is the essential thing) "do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not" (Matt. 23:3). He may not even like the opulence of the Pharisees (verse 6), but He was clear that what these folks taught from Scripture should be well worth the attention and obedience of the followers of Christ.

Today, if people like Oyedopo or Adeboye preach salvation by REPENTANCE and FAITH and commitment to Christ by denying myself so I can take up my cross (and yes, I have heard them preach such) - then what benefit do I derive from accusing them falsely that they do not preach what I have heard them preach? I may not agree with their opulence, but does my disagreement or your false accusation save me or anyone else for that matter. Does God pat me with a divine 'well done' because of such false accusations? More important, HOW MUCH OF such preaching are we doing to reach other souls by our own efforts?

They preach mostly on how you can make it in this life, self improvement programmes, self confidence boosters, how to earn self-respect, how to make it big. This is heresy.

The preaching on improving one's life is not necessarily heresy. It is when a preaching categorically denies Jesus Christ and His vicarious work that we can call such things heresy. Quite often, many pretentious 'holiness preachers' have ruined the lives of their own church members through their 'isolation revelation' - it still damages many today, and I wish that some of you folks would highlight the heresies of those holiness churches as well.

There is nothing wrong with riches if acquired by hard work and God's blessings but it is not for SHOW but for the service of GOD.

Just out of curiosity, please show me the majority of your own preachers and ministers and men of God who have acquired riches by hard work and God's blessings for the service of God. Where are they?

I'm not asking that we follow the excesses of many leaders; but these abuses should not give us any rights to make categorical false accusations such as you made.

Let us compare your so called MOG to the true Apostles in the Bible and even JESUS himself.

Oh, really? Do you suppose for one instance that the apostles such as Paul lived all his spiritual life in penury and never enjoyed the honours of diginitaries? Oh pu-leeeaase! Let me remind you of one - just one case - that some of you folks often forget to highlight when you talk about the lives of the apostles -


[list]Acts 28:7-10

Near the shore where we landed was an estate belonging to Publius, the chief official of the island. He welcomed us and treated us kindly for three days. As it happened, Publius’s father was ill with fever and dysentery. Paul went in and prayed for him, and laying his hands on him, he healed him. Then all the other sick people on the island came and were healed.

[size=14pt]As a result we were showered with honors, and when the time came to sail, people supplied us with everything we would need for the trip.[/size][/list]


Now again, I do not mean here that we should take just about any event as the basis for self-indulgence and opulence and excesses and the like. No. But i do urge that we should be careful when speaking about wealthy Christians and how they have met dignitaries, government officials, presidents, VIPs, etc. It is even striking that Acts 28 does not mention Paul preaching salvation by repentance and faith and denying self, etc. to Publius, the chief official or any indigene of that island (this does not mean that he categorically did not preach the Gospel there).

Please, people take it easy. Falsely accusing men with obvious lies is not befitting for Christians who follow Jesus. You may not agree with many things these men do, but you cannot throw a wicked lie upon them and claim to be led by the Holy Spirit.

ieutuio:
WORKING PERMIT.Into Malaysia,Singapore with ease our connections are

100% guarantee.

There's nothing guaranteed 100%. Try 10% guarantee.

garyarnold:
I have given my arguments that God does NOT require Christians to tithe today,

Does God "REQUIRE" giving?

. . and believe I have shown that no one can possibly tithe as God had instructed in the Old Testament.

Nobody during Paul's time argued with that he could not use the Law of Moses or any other part of the Old Testament to teach Christian doctrine on the matter in the same way as you legalstically argue. On the contrary, Paul used the same Law of Moses in 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 to instruct the Church, did he not? Is the Law of Moses not part of the "Old Testament"? And did Paul condemn anyone using the Old Testament to derive practical guidelines for how they are led to give?

All the anti-tithing arguments that no one can do this or that "as God had instructed in the Old Testament" shows how illiterate the one making the argument actually is. It is bereft of sound hermeneutics (not even where you claim a doctor of divinity that conveys no academic standing or achievement). There are many doctrines for the Church taught by the apostles which are directly drawn from Judaism and the Law of Moses and even the prophets. Anti-tithers are happy to 'carry over' those other doctrines from the Mosaic Law without arguing that no one can do so "as God had instructed in the Old Testament".

Although not ALL tithing in the Old Testament came from the Holy land, ALL of the tithing COMMANDED BY GOD in the scriptures, did come from the Holy land.

So where does Paul expect your own gifts/giving to come from when he used the Law of Moses and instructed Christians to give "in the same way"? If you want to follow precisely "as God had instructed in the Old Testament", you cannot have a claim on 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 as Christians do today.

Christians recognize that "the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof" (1 Corinthians 10:26). Even Moses in the Law declared that "Behold, to the LORD your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it" (Deut. 10:14). Those anti-tithers who quote Numbers 31 to claim that Israel gave 'tithe' from the spoils often forget that what they gave to God came from Moab, and what they gave was also 'holy', no?

What makes a gift 'holy'? It was not the land or place from which it came, but that which signifies God's presence - the altar - that makes a gift or giving 'holy'. That is why the offerings derived from Moab were also 'holy'. And that is why God gave instruction that Israel should bring their offerings to a specified place where God had chosen for that purpose (Deut. 12:5-6).

Christian giving comes from all places and not only from the land of Israel. Paul used the Law of Moses to teach Christians to give "in the same manner" without asking them to go fetch their offerings from a so-called 'holy land'. Christians who understand that practical living is not a question of legalism do not wait for your anti-tithing legalism before they can express their giving in the form of tithe.

garyarnold:
For those following this blog, you should be able to see the tricks and scam-artist tactics of wordtalk.

Yawn. What tricks? You've been passing off yourself as a D.D. to gullible folks around the world as part of your Christian EDUCATION. Is that not the supreme fraud by someone who claims to have the Holy Spirit, knowing fully well what the ULC disclaimer says? Did the Holy Spirit inspire such fraud in your own tactics?

Wordtalk, not me, brought up the DD degree.  I didn't claim ANY of my degrees on this blog UNTIL wordtalk started condemning me for using them on my own webpages.

I did not condemn you but rather asked that you go and review your PDF paper and remove the misleading title instead of waiting for a gullible soul to email you so that you can "immediately correct" him or her. You know it is scam and fraud, but you wait until they email you so that you can take off the blinds and let them know you were lying through your yellow retired teeth that the D.D. was part of your Christian "Education". Lie again about the California Courts validating such professional scam.

Instead of sticking with the issues of this blog, DOES GOD REQUIRE TITHES, wordtalk tries to turn the blog into a condemning exercise against those who don't agree with him.

My comments in post #7 actually addresses the topic of the thread, so your whining is no water off duck's back. How many people have you not condemned simply because they do not agree with you? Oh, now a small matter about your scam and you're blue in the face? Well done. When you condemn others and accuse them, you should not cry like a puppy when your own scam is being examined.

It was in small print I first warned you to review your paper - 'small print' because I did not consider it the bigger issue of this thread. But as is typical of fraud and sham brigadiers like you, rather than take the warning to mind with its consequences, you came on board and started bragging and boasting to claim it is 'a right' for you to keep perpetrating that fraud to the unsuspecting public.

In my opinion, wordtalk is nothing but talk, and is driven by the devil.

Nice - and your insolence was inspired by the 'holy spirit' you've got inside you? My reaction to that is this: HAHAHAHAHA!! I'm used to your gutter talk, so I won't lose sleep on such.

Pastor Kun and obowunmi,

Thanks for your observation.

I'm not directing insults at others but at the very same troll who thinks it is his birthright to insult me for the sake of his anti-tithing brigade. As far back as post#7 I made my comments in relation to the thread as to the reason why many Christians choose to express their giving in the form of tithes. I don't see where he tried to discuss my comments directly other than starting out with insolence. I have often made it clear to him that if he wishes to discuss, he could do so and leave out his insolence. If he would rather choose otherwise, I would treat his manner of arguments in the way he wants to be served. Proverbs 26:5.

Again, wordtalk criticizes my degrees and certificates but refuses to disclose his own education.

Degrees and certificates? Are you for real? I am going to repeat just this once:

(a) I'm particular about your 'Doctor of Divinity' which you claimed on your paper as part of your Christian "EDUCATION".

(b) as well, I am particular about your claim that theCalifornia Courts have ruled that degrees issued by the ULC are as valid as any degrees given by any other Christian school.

These two simple requests do not translate to throwing all your degrees and certificates in chaos.

What a joke.

Oh, dude. . . the joke is on you!

Always wants to take the focus off of his own education while condemning others!

I didn't condemn you or anyone else. I noted that you cannot pass off the D.D. issued by the ULC as part of your Christian EDUCATION when in very fact the ULC itself said that the degree does not convey academic standing or achievement.

If it doesn't make you ill, wordtalk, look at yourself for a change.

Look at myself - for not passing off a sham of a D.D. for my "education" to gull the public?

While I actually have a ministry, and actually have many teaching from my material, wordtalk is a wannabe that has nothing to do but condemn others.  I feel sorry for wordtalk.

Hahaha! You don't get it, do you? I don't boast of what I have or don't have, so you can feel sorry all you want.

garyarnold:
Apparently wordtalk doesn't know the difference between a "degree" and ordination.

Stop bleating. I know the difference and never for once spoke about your ordination. I was more concerned with your claim of D.D. as part of your Christian "EDUCATION". Using this mechanical device to shift focus is quite lame.

I was ordained by a pastor of a church not far from where I grew up.  That ordination gives me the right to perform marriages, etc.

You're more of a jerk than I supposed. Did I ask about your "ordination"? Are you such a twerp even at the doctorate level? Have you lost your sense of understanding simple issues or you're just talented at being st[color=Black]upi[/color]d altogether?

Please leave your 'ordination' aside - nobody's advertising for marriage or wedding bells here. Focus on the issue of your acclaimed D.D. as part of your Christian "EDUCATION". I want to know where the California Courts ruled that "degrees issued by the ULC are as valid as any degrees given by any other Christian school". I want to see that ruling, not your lame tales.

You are stuck on ULC.  ALL of my degrees and certificates didn't come from them.

Dunce. I never asked you to stand up for ALL of your degrees. I'm particular about your 'Doctor of Divinity' which you claimed on your paper as part of your Christian "EDUCATION".

However, ULC is, in fact, a local non-denomination church in Modesto, California, which holds services every Sunday.

I know what ULC is, no thanks for the lecture on their services and Modesto. Your excuses are graciously aging, look for something more duplicitous to cover up.

And they teach, as I do, that there is NO tithing in the Christian Church.

So, your anti-tithing hangs on what the ULC teaches, yes? Well, school up, Fresno boy. The ULC also ordains atheists as ministers - the athiest and US attorney Michael Newdow is an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church. I'm sure you also will embrace the ULC's platitude for the teaching that there is no God, not so? St[color=Black]upi[/color]d.

Every church I have belonged to recognizes my ordination.

Every fraud you have belonged to recognizes your 'D.D.' sham. That is why you can't find where the California Courts claimed the validity you asserted earlier. I'm waiting.

Zikkyy:
There was this fraudster in a church I was attending; he was quite active in the giving department. Always willing to play his part (by giving generously) in any request to give. But that did not stop him from ending up broke. The question I want to ask is this; how come this rule or principle did not apply in his case?

I also know of another anti-tither who tried all his best to stop others from giving. In all his arguments about 'love-driven giving', he remains broke today. Could I also ask you: how come his anti-tithing arguments and rule did not better his life?

But does that imply that our act of charity or display of love neighbor should dependent on the resulting reward?

Did I assert anywhere that anyone's act of love should be 'dependent' on any rewards? What I tried to say was that giving is taught as reciprocal in both the OT and NT. 'Reciprocal' does not run contrary to acts driven by love.

Is the act of charity/love conditional? Is that the message from the Luke chapter? That we give only when there is a reward?

I think you're trying hard to read what does not appear in my posts. Did I argue anywhere that we give only when there is reward? Did I? If I did not, what is bringing you to such a conclusion?

My understanding of charity differs. Christ talked about the reward resulting from our act of Christian acts, but he did not command us to love for the reward.

Again, please show me where I said that Christ commanded anyone to love for the reward. If you can show me, I will gladly consider it. If I did not argue such, then why draw such conclusions?

Giving in anticipation of reward implies that one will not give if there is no reward attached.

Not necessarily. The one who does not want to give will not give even where you qualify it with whatever adjective you please. People give not because they must first attach a reward - whatever such would be. It is just as well for someone to argue that people give in "anticipation" of God to reward the giving as He sees fit based on the giver's so-called "assurance". What is 'assurance' doing in the equation if truly the giver is not expecting anything as a reward?

This type of giving is definitely not driven by love.

No, if you set up a strawman argument to knock down on your own, then your idea is definitely not driven by love.

There is more to giving than just dropping that 10% in the offering box.

There is more to giving than all the cliches that people are manufacturing up and down the street. It is not about 10% or the anti-tithers mantra of 'love-driven' and whatever.

I think you are pushing it too far. I hope you don’t mind zikkyy asking; what exactly is the message in the Luke verse? Was Christ talking about the act of lending or was it a message on charity?

I did not push it too far. I explained in very simple terms what that verse says. It is the tired old song of folks who do not read their Bibles that we hear often misquoting Christ and assuming he said that we should "give, hoping for nothing in return", when actually that verse says "lend, hoping for nothing". There's no confusing between "lend" and "give" - and both occur on the basis of love in His teaching.

garyarnold:
Ordination is what gives me the AUTHORITY to perform marriages, not degrees.

Dunce. The ULC clearly says that their degree "does not give you ANY authority".
Their degree also "does not convey academic standing or achievement".

It is only on the web you can foist your sham on others and use the decorated ULC cardboard "degree" to pass off as part of your "Christian EDUCATION".

In addition to the degrees I have that you call a sham, I ALSO have my Bachelor of Science Degree from a California State College (now called California State University).  You still keep a secret what degree(s) you have and from where as well as what subject the degree is for.  I ALSO have the full training from Prison Fellowship Ministries.  I also have the full training from One By One Leadership.  I ALSO taught part-time at a Christian School for a year.  I ALSO taught classes in finance at two churches.  I ALSO have taught many pastors and ministers both in a class format and on a one-on-one basis.  But even more important, I ALSO have THE HOLY SPIRIT WITHIN ME that has taught me well.  So call SOME of my degrees and/or certificates a sham if you wish, but you can't call them all a sham.  I studied long hours to get my so-called sham degrees/certificates.

The Holy Spirit within a Christian believer does not sell nor buy decorated cardboard "degrees" from ULC and "similar institutions". More importantly, the Holy Spirit does not encourage your duplicity of passing such a "degree" off as part of your "Christian Education". So, what is all your blabbing about?

If you are incapable of research the California court cases, I suggest you find someone willing to do it for you.  I am not willing to do anything for you.  You are a jerk.

What research? Hahaha!!   I smelt another doctorate lie in your claim about the California Courts. I was waiting for you to lie again, because I actually know what the ULC's about. The web is not a place where you can just hoodwink the public on your fiction, you know. I know you've been hanging out with Fresno dropouts for so long you think the rest of the world are as gullible as your retired dupes. Practise your D.D. fraud on them - it's cheap anyways.

^^Repeating your misrepresentations does not add anything to your previous posts.

It is okay to explain (or argue or debate if you wish) whatever you want to pass across. I don't know anyone who has posted to argue that Christian giving must be selfish in order for it to qualify as giving. We know that giving among believers is selfless, but that does not mean therefore that it has to be misrepresented the way you keep repeating your fallacy.

There is a clear difference between verses 35 and 38 of Luke 6. To "lend" is not the same as to "give".

Giving in a selfless manner does not negate or contradict the fact that it is reciprocal.

If a believer truly wants to give WITHOUT expecting anything in return, he or she should clearly be willing to shun all dubious claims to "assurances" and "trust" in God for "rewards", however pretentiously worded. To have assurance or trust in God for His reward at any time is the same as expecting something in return for giving. All the sweet-talking, paraphrasing and re-phrasing with qualifying adjectives of 'love-driven', 'selfless giving', etc. are lame attempts to deny the obvious.

It is a sanctimonious fallacy often repeated that giving is 'WITHOUT' expecting anything in return from God or man. To maintain that fallacy is to ignore the clear teaching of Scripture.

^^ Don't tire yourself on voluntary tithing. There's nothing you gain personally to enrich your own spiritual life when you repeat false teaching because you can't see anything else. Just saying.

Luke 6:35 is clear - "lend, hoping for nothing again" underscores what we find in Leviticus 25:37. It does not mean that Christian giving is to be WITHOUT expecting anything in return.

Giving is reciprocal - three verses after Luke 6:35 is verse 38 - "Give, and it shall be given unto you".

There is a difference between those verses:

[list][li]LEND, hoping for nothing again - v. 35[/li]
[li]GIVE, and it shall be given unto you - v.38[/li][/list]

They are not confused or mixed up at all.

garyarnold:
Laugh all you want, wordtalk.  You still haven't told us YOUR qualifications and education.

Although I have an accredited University degree, I do not parade it online for just about any cause. Yet, for folks like you who wave a D.D. bought on the cheap, it's quite a laugh indeed that you would pass that off as part of your "Christian Education".

The Universal Life Church Doctor of Biblical Studies degree was not an easy course to take.  I had to answer just under 1,000 questions dealing with Genesis through Revelation, and my score was 99%.

What arrant crap! The ULC degrees DO NOT convey academic standing or achievement - a fact that is not rocket science to grasp. What does the ULC say further about its degrees? Quoted from their website concerning the "UNIVERSAL LIFE CHURCH HONORARY DOCTOR OF DIVINITY":

"This degree does not give you any authority, such as marrying people, or anything else having to do with the state. It is strictly a religious degree. However, it does allow you to use the title of ‘Doctor’."

What is the value of a 'doctorate' that DOES NOT give you ANY AUTHORITY other than merely waving the title of 'doctor' around? You tell people that a 'Doctor or Divinity' (D.D.) is part of your "Christian EDUCATION", and yet the ULC tells the world that such a degree DOES NOT convey academic standing or achievement, and also DOES NOT give you any authority! Dear me - is this what "Christian Education" has turned into in the United States?

Many pastors have degrees from similar institutions.  But we still don't know where YOU got your degrees, if any.  Wanna tell us, or are you embarrassed that you don't have any degrees??

'Similar institutions'? What degrees? No, thank you - I do not have such decorated fraudulent papers bought on the internet for less than fifty dollars ($50). I would indeed be embarrassed to put such a cheap ".D." against my name as part of my "Christian Education" after reading the ULC disclaimers!

I do not claim to have a Ph.D. in theology, and whenever anyone emails me and calls me by the tithe Dr. (which has happened only once or twice), I immediately correct them.

Nobody asked you whether or not you have a Ph.D - you're not Ph.D material (except, of course, those 'Ph.Ds' that cost a few bucks off the ULC website).

I wonder why you would feel the need to "immediately correct" those who are gulled by your claim of a 'D.D.' If the degree you bought from the ULC entitles you to use 'Dr.' against your name, why try to yet correct anyone who assumes you actually earned an authentic doctorate that conveys academic standing and achievement? You only correct them because you know you're waving fraud to unsuspecting folks, no?

But many pastors go by Dr. when their Ph.D. is in a subject that has nothing to do with the Bible or religion.

As long as they did not buy their Ph.Ds on the net from one of those "similar insitutions" that dish out degrees that give you no authority where it matters. Any pastor who parades such cheap degrees as titles of their "Christian EDUCATION" is also a fraud. Period.

Laugh all you want.  The California Courts have ruled that degrees issued by the ULC are as valid as any degrees given by any other Christian school.

Where did the California Courts rule the validity of the ULC degrees at par with those of any other Christian school? Where did the Court make such a ruling? I really want to see that ruling, please.

What I have is better than nothing.  It at least shows I try to better myself with more education.

Yea, what you have is better than nothing - even if the D.D. is tantamount to a fraud with no academic standing or achievement and gives you no authority? Nice.

Many pastors recognize my expertise in the area of tithing and giving.  Any use your material to teach from?

There are those who have requested my material be put in PDF for downloads, which I have not as yet done. If and when I oblige their request, I won't go about boasting about how many pastors use my materials. I do feel sorry for those who are gulled by your misleading titles - which is why your sham is quite a laugh.

I just think you are jealous that I get so much recognition and you don't.  That makes you want to criticize everything I say.

Hahahahaha!!
Me? Jealous? Are you so miserable? What would make me be jealous of a 'recognition' that amounts to your sham? Oh dear, if you want self-praise, look for folks around Fresno - they can be bought as cheaply as they come!

garyarnold:
D.D stands for Doctor of Divinity.  I was awarded an honorary Doctor of Divinity Degree on February 2, 1980 and have every right to use the D.D. after my name.  I was ordained on April 18, 1979.  I got my Doctor of Biblical Studies Degree on April 10.2008.  [s]And on May 1, 2008, the Trinity Institute of Christian Counseling Board of Academic Review in consortium with the American Theological Education Association acknowledged that I, having met stringent training, education, professional experience and all ethical requirements is found to be qualified and has fully earned the tithe of Certified Professional Money and Finance Minister with all the honors and privileges pertaining thereto.[/s]

Dear Gary Arnold,

I'm only interested in your claim to the D.D. (Doctor of Divinity) and Doctor of Biblical Studies. The rest of the claims are crossed out as that can be claimed by any troll on the web.

I start with quoting my small print friendly warning:

wordtalk:
BTW, please go and review your paper by removing the ".D." title - it is misleading some gullible folks to take that as a qualified theological degree when it clearly is NOT. Just a friendly warning.

You may argue you have a right to use the D.D. after your name, but would that be the same as using it to mislead gullible folks who take it as a qualified theological degree?

In your paper, you stated the following as your 'Christian Education:

[list][li]Doctor of Biblical Studies - ULC Modesto[/li]
[li]Doctor of Divinity[/li][/list]

With the 'Doctor of Divinity', there is no named university or date where you were awarded that degree as part of your 'Christian Education'. Typically, that was suspect and is tantamount to a sham - I'll get to that in a moment. Those who earn such a coveted degree by academic training and Christian education will not be so careless as to leave inportant info as awarding University and date of their degrees.

With the 'Doctor of Biblical Studies', you named the awarding institute as "ULC Modesto". Are you for real? A 'Doctor of Biblical Studies' from ULC Modesto? Oh, c'mon dude . . . if you take that as a title awarded for "Christian Education", would that not be tantamount to fraud and deliberate attempt to mislead the gullible?

What exactly is the value of the ULC Modesto "degrees"? In reference to the D.D. issued by the ULC (Universal Life Church) Modesto, it is just a piece of coloured paper anyone can get for less than $50. Yes, you read that right: less than fifty dollars - and without any academic or theological training at University level.

This is from the ULC website:

Doctor of Divinity - $29.95

This is the most often requested degree.   It is accredited as stated above, and is held by many people around the world.   Includes an introduction to the principles and procedures of the Universal Life Church.  No test required for this course.

Enter the name and address of the person this degree is for. It will be shipped to the "ship to" address provided as checkout, however we need the name and address of the recipient so that it can be properly recorded in the church records.

How does the ULC accredit their degrees? Read it from them here:

�Q:� I understand that the ULC degrees are accredited.� By whom are they accredited, and what can I do with one?


The Universal Life Church issues several degrees, and all degrees issued by the church are recorded in the permanent church records. The church has been in existence since 1959, retaining records of all ordinations and degrees issued since then.

The degrees convey rank, title, or status within the church. They do not convey academic standing or achievement. They are accredited by the International Accrediting Association (I.A.A.), which is the accreditation arm of the church. This means that the course, degree, or title has been approved and endorsed by the I.A.A. by authority of the Board of Directors. If you have questions related to the issuance of church degrees and titles, you should direct them to generalcontact@ulchq.com.

Would I place a ULC title on a resume, application for employment or academic standing? In most cases, I would not. It would not be ethical to represent a degree as something other than what it is in order to obtain something to which you are not otherwise entitled.

For example, if someone with a Doctor of Divinity were to don a white lab coat over surgical scrubs, drape a stethescope around his neck, calling himself "Doctor So-and-So"�while�offering health screenings, he would be engaging in fraud, contrary to the Universal Doctrine. He'd also be at risk of finding himself engaged in a full-time prison ministry!

. . .

Enough said, garyarnold. It's laughable that you would here want to hide behind a so-called "honorary" D.D. The point is that it is NOT an academic standing or achievement - and passing that off as part of your "Christian Education" is quite plainly FRAUD!

Just for the laughs, a few of my friends have between 5 and 7 of the ULC "degrees". They know it has no academic value other than the laugh it begets in waving it in the face of di[color=Black]re fo[/color]ols! There are so many websites where just ANYBODY can pay a few bucks to be awarded such - check:

[list]
[li]First Church of the Gospel Ministry[/li]
[li]Esoteric Theological Seminary[/li]
[/list]

If you wanted more doctorates and Ph.D "degrees" for cheap, contact them. Then go right ahead and claim it as a title under your "Christian Education" - its value would just be the laugh of the fraud by those who parade them in full knowledge of the fact that even the ULC Modesto warns about the disclaimer.

I said earlier it was a friendly warning. Now enjoy your fraud of a "Christian Education".

In as much as many people are concerned about false and misleading assertions, those who accuse others of false teaching should be very careful in what they themselves teach.

Enigma:
The New Testament recognises just giving  ---- WITHOUT expecting anything in return whether from God or from man but in the assurance that God sees the giving and will reward it as He sees fit.

I know I've said this before, but the idea that the NT recognises just giving 'WITHOUT expecting anything in return' is patently FALSE. On the contrary, both the OT and NT affirm that giving in many instances includes the expectation of receiving in return - it is reciprocal. It is rather in such cases as LENDING that usury (expecting interest on loans/lending/debts among believers) is not encouraged.

However, your statement is self-contradictory. The second part of that quote ('the assurance that God sees the giving and will reward it as He sees fit') is quite contradicting the first statement that NT giving is 'WITHOUT expecting anything in return from God or man'.

If giving in the NT is WITHOUT expecting anything in return (whether from God or man), why do you recommend that the giver should have an "assurance"? Assurance of what? What is this assurance of "reward" from God if truly the giver is to give WITHOUT expecting anything in return? It is like making two directly opposite statements in one breath - like saying someone is to expect nothing while at the same time encouraging them to expect a reward!

Simply, this line: 'the assurance that God sees the giving and will reward it as He sees fit' is nothing short of the same thing as EXPECTING SOMETHING IN RETURN. If a giver truly wants to give without expecting anything in return from God or man, then such a giver should not have any "assurance" of God rewarding him or her in the first place.

Bottom line: giving in the NT is reciprocal - that is, those who give would expect to receive. Giving in the NT is not a one-sided issue, and both aspects are underscored in Philippians 4:5 - "giving and receiving".

garyarnold:
I won't reply to wordtalk's reply to my comments because they insult my intelligence.

You have no intelligence in the first place, and I'm not going to miss anything in your non-reply. If you wanted to discuss you would do so without trying to bore and insult us at the same time in calling my comments "pure nonsense".


BTW, please go and review your paper by removing the ".D." title - it is misleading some gullible folks to take that as a qualified theological degree when it clearly is NOT. Just a friendly warning.

garyarnold:
@wordtalk said, "Those who want to express their giving in the form of tithes TODAY are absolutely free to do so."

In other words, "Those who want to express their giving in the form of tenths TODAY are absolutely free to do so."

And what's wrong with that?

WHY would anyone want to express their giving in the form of tenths? Why not express your giving in the form of the whole thing rather than tenths?

What exactly is "the whole thing"? Do YOU express your giving in the form of "the whole thing"? Why do you have such a nightmare with people expressing their giving in the form of tithes/tenths if they so choose to do so, when in very fact you earlier said that "To say we can express our giving today by giving a tenth of our income is fine"?? Are you never tired of making your illiterate arguments and littering the web with such cacophony?

EVERY amount anyone gives is a tenth (tithe) of something. Without SPECIFYING what the tenth is on, it is meaningless.

I'm sure this is not the first time I have said that Christians are free to express their giving in the form of tithes from their RESOURCES. I also wonder why you have said it is FINE for Christians to express their giving today "by giving a TENTH OF OUR INCOME" if you're going to keep convoluting your own arguments.

Why would I want to say I gave a tenth (tithe) of $1,000? Why not just say I gave $100?

Why should it bother you if others express their giving in tithes if you don't want to have any meaning to your giving? What do you call yours - a robbery? a bribe? a kickback? a bailout? or spending cut? Why do you worry so much about what others call their giving when your anti-tithing arguments are not inspiring healthy or increased giving among Christians?

If I just say I gave a tithe it doesn't tell anyone what the tenth was on. Maybe I gave a tithe (tenth) of the change that was in my pocket.

If that is want YOU want to do, you're absolutely free to do so. That is not what others may want to do, and nobody is going to hang you for what you attached to your own worldview.

Above are reasons to NOT use the words tithe or tithing UNLESS you complete the sentence and tell WHAT the tenth is on.

This is simply what it is: "To say we can express our giving today by giving a tenth of our income is fine", not so?

God always specified what the tenth was to be on; therefore, when you also specify what the tenth is on, one can see that what you are "tithing" has no relation to what God said to tithe on.

In the same way, when Paul says that we should give "in the same way" as is found in the Levitical system (1 Corinthians 9:13), you have a heart attack contradicting yourself while boring the web with your noise? Please.

garyarnold:
The following are the ONLY tithes that God required:

Arguments like this are quite dense. It is like arguing that the only prayers that God requires are those found in the Old Testament Law of Moses - and one has to ask if prayer is not prayer until it is "required" by the Mosaic law.  Often times you fail to use your head and heart when making assertions.

In all three cases, the tithe had to come from crops and/or animals raised on the Holy land.

Not true. Anti-tithers like yourself who sometimes quote Numbers 31 often FAIL massively to note that what Israel offered to God as "heave offering" came from OUTSIDE the so-called 'holy land'. The 'heave offering' in verses 29 and 41 came from Moab, not from within Israel.

In Numbers 18:24, God Himself referred to the tithes of Israel as their 'heave offering' to HIM. This does not negate the fact that tithes in Genesis came from outside the land of Israel.

If you want to argue this 'holy land' arrant nonsense, then we can be sure that your own offerings to God are UNHOLY as long as they do not come from within the land of Israel! Paul used the Law of Moses in 1 Corinthians 9:13-14 to teach Christian giving in the new testament without arguing that Christian giving should come from the 'holy land'.

Can anyone voluntarily pay or give the tithe(s) today that God required?

Yes. Christians can indeed voluntarily give tithes today without waiting for a "requirement" written on stone. If a believer is led to express their giving in the form of tithes as God puts into their hearts to do so, they do not have to wait for legalistic arguments about crops and animals before they can use the Law of Moses for valid reasons in the same way that Paul used the same Law of Moses.

To say we can "express our giving by tithing today" is pure nonsense and shows lack of Biblical understanding.

Because you fail to do basic Biblical hermeneutics does not mean whatever you read from others is pure nonsense. Only those who parade fraudulent theological degrees conclude that what they cannot understand is pure nonsense.

To say we can express our giving today by giving a tenth of our income is fine.

Isn't this just pla[color=Black]in stup[/color]idity on your part? The word 'tithe' is defined as 'tenth' - then you argue that Christians cannot tithe but it is fine for them to express their giving as a 'tenth' of their income? That, my friend, is the reason why I'm no longer surprised at your sham.

But to infer it has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with God's tithing commands is nothing but a lie.

If your giving has anything to do with the devil, stop worrying over those who express their giving as tithes to GOD.

iheanyi4u:
YOOKOS means Your OWN Kosmos

-- from Yookos website:

[list]"Hello everyone. There is a new micro blogging community online. The name is Yookos. The meaning is: YOu-Own-KOS (Kosmos – translated: the world)."[/list]

chinedumo:
i find this very doubtful

So what does it mean to you?

^^ One may argue that God does not "require" tithes, but the question yet would be: does the same God "require" giving?

frosbel:
I was not going to post this because I am still not totally convinced that Pastor Adeboye is a false prophet.

But the rest are proven false teachers.

On what basis have you "proven" others to be false teachers while leaving out Adegboye? On the basis of acquiring jets? On the basis of your own personal cherry-picking and taste? On what basis exactly?

However, the main message of the vid should not be ignored. I'm particularly shocked at the 'wealth' of those featured in the vid while there does not appear to be corresponding developments in their home towns. As well as those who ride four jets while their church members walk on weather-beaten roads to their cathedrals and 'holy enclaves'. What staggers the mind is the comic of some of these 'gawds' (like Oyedepo) to accuse the political government of Nigeria of insensitivity to the plight of the masses!

obowunmi:
I'm starting to like him,  More clerics need to take this approach, to lead a massive coup against government, since they have lots of blind followers.

Just wondering: who has lots of blind followers - the 'cleric' or the 'government'?

As for this line - "The cleric lamented the gross insensitivity of the government to the plight of the masses, describing most people in government as illiterates", I'm also wondering who's actually insensitive to the masses' plight. I see how 'sensitive' the cleric is, judging from his numerous PJP projects, sorry, I mean his very sensitive numerous jets (see pic below, where he relaxes in one of them):

https://saharareporters.com/sites/default/files/page_images/news/2011/David_Oyedepo_jet.jpg?1305749673  https://saharareporters.com/sites/default/files/page_images/news/2011/global-express-second-cabin.jpg?1305750023

^^ did you say that al lot of clerics need to take his approach? Are you not the same poster who decried donations or contributions in the church for pastor's jets? Here is what you said moments ago:

obowunmi:
If ure going to give, give to the poor directly. Never surplus the pocked of a deluded man of God who will rather invest in a private jet than in the needs of the people.

. . . and yet, you're starting to like him and urge more clerics to take his approach? 

^^ I think when the Bible speaks about perilous times, it goes beyond people finding it difficult to lending a helping hand to other folks.

The point, I think, that the OP wanted to highlight is that men would be lovers of themselves (2 Timothy 3:2). In a nutshell, even those who claim to be working for the Lord are too preoccupied with loving themselves - and the parody tries to highlight the issue with an unspoken question: should genuinely called servants of Christ focus so much on themslves? Is there not something wrong with the phenomenon of ministers competing to show off themselves in massive billboards and other media as if that is the message itself of Christ?

Riff-Raff:
It’s funny that I have always accepted people for who they are (irrespective of their religious belief) but most religious people won’t do the same for atheist. In fact, they prefer a stone worshipping fellow to an atheist.

It's funny that you fancy yourself as someone who had "always accepted people for who they are"; but comparing theists to "a stone worshipping fellow" tells how much your claim to accept people goes.

And yes, I have had a bit of an issue with an atheist - not my girlfriend, though; rather, with my atheist boss at the firm where I worked in Glasgow.

obowunmi:
The point of giving to a local church or local religious organization is to take care of the poor, widowed, and the needs of people who are in dire circumstances,  Anything else such as building luxurious churches, or anything else is uncalled for.

While frivolously extravagant expenses/spending are uncalled for, you're wrong in the highlighted part of your quote. The whole point of giving to a local church or local religious organization does not begin and end with taking care of the poor. There are other concerns besides those, and a minister of the Gospel (for example) does not need to first come under "dire circumstances" before receiving sustenance for his/her called service - 1 Corinthians 9:14; 1 Timothy 5:17.

^^,
Re: John 4:19-21. Lol, I don't think that could be considered "insult". He made His point that the Samaritans worship what they did not know - just as Paul in Acts 17:23 would say to the Athenians: "Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you."

Anyways, that's just on the lighter side.

On a more serious note, perhaps it is 'human' for people to want to insult others - and it doesn't matter one way or the other whether the subject is religion, politics, sports, education, romance, culture, family, travel, etc. Not saying that it is vogue or trendy to do so at any time, though.

What amazes me is that insults take very many different forms. Perhaps one of the funniest and most common is the form that goes something like. . . "I'm not saying you're a thief, but as soon as you passed by that table, my trinkets disappeared!", or "I never called you a fool; it's just that I used another word or a synonym!"