Tithing - The Truth Please

[Simple Mind]

BTW:

It's kind of funny since I started confused and became very clear on this issue. I think I understand your position correctly: you have an issue not with tithing or offering but with organized religion and its prioritities in its use of resources.


However, there are some things in your position that makes it difficult to understand:

While we both agree "meeting of needs" is important, I have defined my meeting of needs, you only gave examples that don't stand up to scrutiny. For example, you claim that one church's delay in meeting one need (the automobile for the lady) is an issue, without knowing or stating what the rest of the offering was being used for and its net impact on meeting spiritual and physical needs. You have no basis for making the judgment about priorities since you don't know what the comparison is. You also don't know what else the brothers and sisters of that church did for that lady day-by-day, so your assumption that the church in question is unspiritual has no real basis. (John 7:24 might help here.) And even when I have those details I cannot tell if it meets your criteria of "meeting needs" since you never defined it clearly.

(I don't want to sidetrack, but even if you did find a case of wrong priorities, it means we should discern case by case about the organization or individual you're giving through, not generalize to all organized religion.)

The second issue with your position is you never propose a clear alternative. What exactly is the alternative to offering through organized religion that you suggest? We all know the visible church is not perfect so you're not saying anything we didn't all already know. If there are clear ways that are better than offering through "organized religion", we should pursue them wholeheartedly! Until then, I'd rather give through organized religion (with discernment) as shown in Acts 4:34-35, rather than to sit on God's given resources like the "wicked, lazy servant" in Matt 25:26. So please do propose a clearly stated alternative.


Peace to you sincerely,
Lou

 

[BeforeThereWas]

If God hasn't revealed to you that you are a selfish giver and your stance on giving stinks, then continue in the manner that you have been, and do not attack others that are giving as they are because they are doing so as unto the Lord. The increase concerns all of ones increase in the manner of the times in the manner of the culture in the manner of one's increase. Simple.

Why not simply answer my question? Ad hominem will never lend either spiritual nor intellectual credibility to your beliefs.

You sound a lot like Judas did when Mary was going to clean his feet and pour expensive perfume on Jesus feet. He thought the perfume would be much better used if sold and the money given to the poor. Jesus rebuked him and continued to allow Mary to use the perfume in the manner that she had first attempted.

So, what your saying is that you don't believe in God's commanded and exemplified priorities in our giving? All you have to do is admit that you do things and believe your own way. This hostility is very unproductive. I could analyze your motives and your character too, but I refuse to stoop down to such levels.

If you have a problem going to Church where God's children worship, study, feed and clothe the needy, counsel the oppressed, organize the spreading of the gospel of Jesus Christ, then don't go.

This sounds so ideal, and it drips with emotion, but falsehood by any other name or label is still falsehood. I've been out there and seem many things. I know how rare the genuine articel really is, so unless you can demonstrate your case from scriptiure, then you are left with nothing but the emotional appeals of your arguments.

I really would rather wait for you to answer my initial questions before I proceed, because if you have a whole different definitions of key words from scripture, then we're not on the same playing field.

If you insist upon character assasination with your worthless appeals to raw emotion and illogical knee-jerk reactionism and analysis of someone you have never taken the time to get to know, neither of which is representative of Christ, then you only reveal the true nature of your own weaknesses. I'm not here to try and cure you of this malady.

BTW

 

[Solo]

If God hasn't revealed to you that you are a selfish giver and your stance on giving stinks, then continue in the manner that you have been, and do not attack others that are giving as they are because they are doing so as unto the Lord. The increase concerns all of ones increase in the manner of the times in the manner of the culture in the manner of one's increase. Simple.

Why not simply answer my question? Ad hominem will never lend either spiritual nor intellectual credibility to your beliefs.

You misunderstood my comment. Continue in the way that you are going until God convicts you of being a selfish giver or your stance on giving stinks. If He doesn't convict you of these areas then you are all right or not saved.

You sound a lot like Judas did when Mary was going to clean his feet and pour expensive perfume on Jesus feet. He thought the perfume would be much better used if sold and the money given to the poor. Jesus rebuked him and continued to allow Mary to use the perfume in the manner that she had first attempted.

So, what your saying is that you don't believe in God's commanded and exemplified priorities in our giving? All you have to do is admit that you do things and believe your own way. This hostility is very unproductive. I could analyze your motives and your character too, but I refuse to stoop down to such levels.

I am sorry if you misunderstood my remark. I was sharing with you how Judas thought that he was correct in his assessment, but was, in fact, wrong in his assumptions. My experience has taught me that tithing is much more than many realize, and it is for their benefit, not others alone.

If you have a problem going to Church where God's children worship, study, feed and clothe the needy, counsel the oppressed, organize the spreading of the gospel of Jesus Christ, then don't go.

This sounds so ideal, and it drips with emotion, but falsehood by any other name or label is still falsehood. I've been out there and seem many things. I know how rare the genuine articel really is, so unless you can demonstrate your case from scriptiure, then you are left with nothing but the emotional appeals of your arguments.

I gave you great scripture, but you twisted it into your own interpretion without substance, and threw it out since it was old testament. What scripture did Jesus quote from? You are making a mistake by throwing out the scriptures that the Lord Jesus Christ quoted from. When you grow up in your spirituality, you will recognize the juvenile way in which you research and debate the issues.

I really would rather wait for you to answer my initial questions before I proceed, because if you have a whole different definitions of key words from scripture, then we're not on the same playing field.

If you insist upon character assasination with your worthless appeals to raw emotion and illogical knee-jerk reactionism and analysis of someone you have never taken the time to get to know, neither of which is representative of Christ, then you only reveal the true nature of your own weaknesses. I'm not here to try and cure you of this malady.

BTW

Don't worry, your preconceived notions have biased your understanding and ability to be aware of the importance of the body of Jesus Christ and his instructions of tithing. You also can overcome your aversion to these matters by praying and meditating on the Word of God more regular, and seeking a Bible believing Church to attend. Your dislike of Church and giving are typical symptoms of a bitter person, and your last post drips of bitterness. I will pray for you and your position.
Thanks,
Solo

 

[Henry]

uhmm going to Church?

If you GO to church, then you do not know what church is about.

 

[Henry]

uhmm going to Church?

If you GO to church, then you do not know what church is about.

 

[Henry]

uhmm going to Church?

If you GO to church, then you do not know what church is about.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

I think I understand your position correctly: you have an issue not with tithing or offering but with organized religion and its prioritities in its use of resources.

As far as tithing itself is concerned, I see it not as a requirement, but as something that is now free choice. If folks want to apply it as a rule or guide for themselves, I have no problem with it. When it's taught as an ongoing requirement under the Headship of Christ, then I would have to call those people to task for something that is nowehre taught as a manditory minimum under the new covenant. That doesn't mean that the OT is relegated to the dustbin, but rather that those portions of the Law dealing with the temple and the appointed places throughout the nation are no longer binding.

As for organized religion, yes. You've pretty much grasped what I was getting at. The idea that it has the right to turn upon its head the biblical priority for the primary portion of believer's giving is found to be indefensible. Attempts have been made to build organized religion upon the foundation of scripture, but such attempts are severely lacking. Our system of institutionalized religion today finds no support as a replacement for the Levites and the priests since we have all been made priests unto the Most High. I don't recall that bestowment ever being placed upon the people of Israel unless they were of a particular bloodline.

While we both agree "meeting of needs" is important, I have defined my meeting of needs, you only gave examples that don't stand up to scrutiny. For example, you claim that one church's delay in meeting one need (the automobile for the lady) is an issue, without knowing or stating what the rest of the offering was being used for and its net impact on meeting spiritual and physical needs.

25% of all the intake is sent in to the headquarters of that sect for its use and support, which is mostly offices full of people maintaining an entire sectarian system that is nationwide.

You have no basis for making the judgment about priorities since you don't know what the comparison is.

If I were to give a list of all possible needs, then these posts would become a droning list of common sense items. The comparison, which in this case is the NT and the OT, isn't laid out in a systematic listing of needs because those things are pretty much left to common sense. So, how far into the realm of common sense do you wish for me to go in order to satisfy your relative standard for the obvious? Needs are many, and they vary from person to person, and family to family; both in each institution and in the surrounding community.

You also don't know what else the brothers and sisters of that church did for that lady day-by-day, so your assumption that the church in question is unspiritual has no real basis. (John 7:24 might help here.) And even when I have those details I cannot tell if it meets your criteria of "meeting needs" since you never defined it clearly.

I don't need to define what is spoken in scripture and is measured by common sense and guidance the Lord gives. I want it to be understood that I will not speak for the Lord as to specifics of what should be done today. I've spoken only of an obvious pattern laid out like a road map. Road maps generally do not show all the specific things one will see along a given road. It only gives direction for the foundational groundwork to be followed with prayer.

As for that lady, because I didn't publish all that I know about that case doesn't mean that I am not well aware of what finally happened in order to satisfy that need, the challenges to that institution's leadership, and their ugly, evil, ungodly response. I will say that it was not that institution nor its members who did anything for her. There is a myriad of other facts about that case and many other situations that I have not published because of space limitations, time limitations, and not letting the left hand know what the right hand is doing (so to speak). So, although you are entitled to your criticisms, I only ask that you remember that you're basing them upon a severe lack of all the specifics in a mere post rather than the reality of an assumed lack of knowledge and action on my part and the part of others who care.

(I don't want to sidetrack, but even if you did find a case of wrong priorities, it means we should discern case by case about the organization or individual you're giving through, not generalize to all organized religion.)

Well, I have based my information on not only my own observations, but the admissions of 10,000 church organizations nationwide in a survey where they openly and unknowingly admitted their impropriety. More than 95% of 10,000 institutions surveyed admitted to absorbing more than 51% of the giving into their coffers. Now, I don't know if you're mathematically challenged or not, but statistically speaking, that gives good indication that there's a problem. I relize there's give and take in any survey, but when something gets up to the level of 70%+, then some good indicators become aparent to any observing eye.

The second issue with your position is you never propose a clear alternative. What exactly is the alternative to offering through organized religion that you suggest?

I wouldn't have a problem with people giving through organized religion if only it would do with their giving what's in keeping with the examples throughout scripture. If that doesn't work, then the people can meet needs through many other means so that they know it's going where it's needed.

(Of course, that would really get the ire running high of those false ministers out there who teach the requirement of tithing.)

I leave much to common sense, discernment of the scriptures, and the Holy Spirit because I don't have the time to lay out all that is obvious, nor will I attempt to usurp Christ's Headship. He will direct that giving if only people would first accept what is written, which is something Jesus hit on often, and additionally remain sensitive to His direct guidance.

We all know the visible church is not perfect so you're not saying anything we didn't all already know.

It sounds like you assume that organized religion is the physical manifestation and/or representation of the Church on this earth. I personally reject such a notion, and for what I consider to be some very good reasons, which I don't have time to cover here.

If there are clear ways that are better than offering through "organized religion", we should pursue them wholeheartedly! Until then, I'd rather give through organized religion (with discernment) as shown in Acts 4:34-35, rather than to sit on God's given resources like the "wicked, lazy servant" in Matt 25:26. So please do propose a clearly stated alternative.

Well, that certainly is the type of thinking that keeps people give to what is, in most cases, abusing their giving. I provided the nudge to the door of understanding in order for it to open wide for you to see. If you want everything to be laid out for you, much of which I have no authority to govern, then I can only say that maybe I have planted a seed that may grow later in your life and understanding.

If the panorama of scripture, in relation to God's priority in our giving, doesn't speak to your understanding right now, then it's beyond my ability to lay it all down for you. If we lived in close proximity, then maybe we could sit down and go through it, but for now my typing time is very limited.

Blessings

 

[Simple Mind]

25% of all the intake is sent in to the headquarters of that sect for its use and support, which is mostly offices full of people maintaining an entire sectarian system that is nationwide.

Two issues with your position.

First, a bunch of people in a building does not necessarily mean they are not "meeting needs". Define what exactly they are doing first, and compare against a definition of "meeting needs", then you have a basis for your claim - neither has been done.

Second, I don't doubt there are organizations that have wrong priorities, even fraudulant, but my issue was your painting all organized religion the same way - you have nowhere near proven that all organized religion is the same. Claiming a few cases isn't conclusive - we all already know there are cases. So don't generalize - that's the definition of prejudice.

[quote:8a347]You have no basis for making the judgment about priorities since you don't know what the comparison is.

If I were to give a list of all possible needs, then these posts would become a droning list of common sense items. The comparison, which in this case is the NT and the OT, isn't laid out in a systematic listing of needs because those things are pretty much left to common sense. So, how far into the realm of common sense do you wish for me to go in order to satisfy your relative standard for the obvious? Needs are many, and they vary from person to person, and family to family; both in each institution and in the surrounding community.[/quote:8a347]
I didn't ask for a list - I asked for a definition. Let me just ask: does your list include spreading the Gospel? What about community food banks? They use buildings - do they qualify as primary places we should give to?

Well, I have based my information on not only my own observations, but the admissions of 10,000 church organizations nationwide in a survey where they openly and unknowingly admitted their impropriety. More than 95% of 10,000 institutions surveyed admitted to absorbing more than 51% of the giving into their coffers. Now, I don't know if you're mathematically challenged or not, but statistically speaking, that gives good indication that there's a problem. I relize there's give and take in any survey, but when something gets up to the level of 70%+, then some good indicators become aparent to any observing eye.

Please cite the source so I can try to get the report. Thanks in advance. But I would reserve judgment until I understand what the report actually says.

And what does "into their coffers" mean? What uses is considered "into their coffers"? Every church I've seen the financials of uses ALL its resources for ministry and none (other than a small amount of cash for operations) for its "coffers". Where I live, the government actually has regulations against charitable organizations carrying more than a few percent of its offerings into the next year. If you include things like buildings as "coffers" that's because you don't acknowledge that buildings can be used directly for meeting needs. In addition, many churches have in their constitution that if the church closes all assets are to be donated to another charitable organization. So until we can see the actual report and how things are defined, your conclusions are questionable.

[quote:8a347]The second issue with your position is you never propose a clear alternative. What exactly is the alternative to offering through organized religion that you suggest?

I wouldn't have a problem with people giving through organized religion if only it would do with their giving what's in keeping with the examples throughout scripture. If that doesn't work, then the people can meet needs through many other means so that they know it's going where it's needed. [/quote:8a347]
Good - as I said, discern case by case which organization we should give to. Don't blindly give, but also don't blindly paint all organized religion as evil or incompetent.

[quote:8a347]If there are clear ways that are better than offering through "organized religion", we should pursue them wholeheartedly! Until then, I'd rather give through organized religion (with discernment) as shown in Acts 4:34-35, rather than to sit on God's given resources like the "wicked, lazy servant" in Matt 25:26. So please do propose a clearly stated alternative.

Well, that certainly is the type of thinking that keeps people give to what is, in most cases, abusing their giving. I provided the nudge to the door of understanding in order for it to open wide for you to see. If you want everything to be laid out for you, much of which I have no authority to govern, then I can only say that maybe I have planted a seed that may grow later in your life and understanding.

If the panorama of scripture, in relation to God's priority in our giving, doesn't speak to your understanding right now, then it's beyond my ability to lay it all down for you. If we lived in close proximity, then maybe we could sit down and go through it, but for now my typing time is very limited.
[/quote:8a347]

Ahhh! The truth finally comes out - you don't have a better alternative outside of organized religion.

I think I understand the Scriptures on this subject enough to be actively engaged in meeting needs (which I clearly defined earlier). But right now, the most effective avenue I see for meeting needs is through the church and parachurch organizations, imperfect as they may be. And I do discern where I give and do my best to influence how resources are used wherever I can.

I hope it's not true, but I'm beginning to think your real purpose is to discourage giving in the churches to hurt Christ's church, not to meet needs. If you goal was to meet needs where you feel the organized church doesn't, you would have very concrete ideas about how to do it. The other possibility is you haven't even thought through the issues yet, but you've posted on this topic for a long time so that would be surprising.

Come up with an alternative, and then we can continue by discussing its merits. Especially if the report you mention is accurate.


In Christ's Name,
Lou

 

[Henry]

Why not just cut the middle man out and give right to the person in need?

Paying a tithe is not biblical anyways. But giving one to another is.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

First, a bunch of people in a building does not necessarily mean they are not "meeting needs".

I agree.

Define what exactly they are doing first, and compare against a definition of "meeting needs", then you have a basis for your claim - neither has been done.

Well, that survey was quite clear about the percentage of intake versus the outflow for for other things, such as meeting needs. Needs are laid out in basic language in scripture when referring to such groups as orphans, widows, and strangers. Additionally, there are needs within our institutions, such as the increasing number of people losing their jobs to outsourcing, etc., otherwise known as corporate greed. Wages are going down, joblessness is going up, and prices are going up. Therefore, needs are on the rise. Will there be an adjustment to what is available to those in need who are fellow believers, and those in need in our immediate community? Well, the inevitable answer is that the balance is shifting in the midst of institutions building bigger and fancier facilities, wich leaves less for the meeting of needs.

I'm somewhat puzzled as to why you cannot understand the general definition of "needs" laid out for you. There are many kinds of needs. A community should know and meet the needs first within its own ranks, and then those about them. What part of the overall picture aren't you grasping? If you want a meticulous list, well, I don't have the typing time to lay down the obvious to you in such detail. Ask specifics, and I will give you specifics.

Second, I don't doubt there are organizations that have wrong priorities, even fraudulant, but my issue was your painting all organized religion the same way - you have nowhere near proven that all organized religion is the same.

I never contended that all organized religion is the same. Please read my posts for what they say. I clearly stated that the survey indicated that more than 95% of organized religion absorbs more than 51% of the intake they collect. What part of what I stated can you not understand? I have said this a number of times now, and you keep missing it. What am I saying that you don't understand, without all the false accusations? If you want to know something of what I mean, then simply ask. There really is no need to accuse me falsely, such as my allegedly painting all institutions the same way. I have done nothing of the kind.

Claiming a few cases isn't conclusive - we all already know there are cases. So don't generalize - that's the definition of prejudice.

How many more than 10,000, chosen at random, nationwide, do you need in order to get the idea that there's a problem? This crusade of yours to belittle such an expansive survey is not at all indicative of any further, superior knowledge on your part of my alleged error. What kinds of surveys have you done that qualify you to engage this level of criticism, other than the fact that this is looking more and more like criticism for its own sake? I already stated that there is always a margin of error in ANY survey, but when the numbers get to 70% PLUS, then there is good indication that something is ranking pretty high overall. No offense, but are you mathematically challenged? I consider those who throw away their money to play the lottery are severely challenged, mathematically speaking. What about you? Do you understand the implications of a figure greater than 95% in a survey of just under 10% of the whole? If not, then I have no time to instruct you in statistical analysis, for which I apologize.

Let me just ask: does your list include spreading the Gospel? What about community food banks? They use buildings - do they qualify as primary places we should give to?

In order to dispatch a couple of false presuppositions, it doesn't require a building to spread the Gospel, or to distribute food. Buildings are a tool, not a necessity. They are a luxury, not something worthy of consuming the majority of believer's giving. Justifications are a dangerous endeavor. Breaking from convention for the sake of tools that are not a necessity is precarious at best.

And what does "into their coffers" mean? What uses is considered "into their coffers"?

That is an expression of the amount used for the mortgage, bills, staffing, expenditures, and expansion projects. There are other specifics, but this should suffice for now.

Every church I've seen the financials of uses ALL its resources for ministry and none (other than a small amount of cash for operations) for its "coffers".

Can you be more specific, like numbers, and how you define "ministry"? I refuse to falsely accuse you, that's why I'm asking. Please follow that example.

Where I live, the government actually has regulations against charitable organizations carrying more than a few percent of its offerings into the next year.

I have yet to observe an organization that can't find ways of bringing the account down to the required minimum level. Besides, what you are describing sounds more like a 501c3. This false assumption by most that a church organization must acquire a 501c3 is just that, patently false. This has been heralded on radio networks such as AFR and BOTT. Financial advisors are trying to get more organizations out from under such contracts with their respective states.

If you include things like buildings as "coffers" that's because you don't acknowledge that buildings can be used directly for meeting needs.

This is a straw man. I said that buildings are nothing else BUT tools. There is a vast difference between a necessity and a tool.

In addition, many churches have in their constitution that if the church closes all assets are to be donated to another charitable organization. So until we can see the actual report and how things are defined, your conclusions are questionable.

I would be lying if I said I understood this. What does this have to do with what I've said? Besides, the numbers speak for themselves, and enough specific information was provided to define the key words. If you disagree for its own sake, that's cool by me. I had no agenda when I read the article and observed the graphs along with a couple of statistical experts at the university. Believe what you wish. I have no qualms with that.

BTW

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Why not just cut the middle man out and give right to the person in need?

Paying a tithe is not biblical anyways. But giving one to another is.

Very well said. I know many people who do this very thing, even though their respective organizations whine constantly about all that cash not being brought to them.

I will, however, state that if one reaps benefit from organized religion, then they should contribute something, if not cash, to help keep it running for the benefit of all.

I, for one, no longer participate in organized religion, therefore my not needing to support them. They tend to see themselves as the rightful benefactors of believer's primary giving.

Good post.

BTW

 

[Henry]

Soory a church building is not a tool, it is an idol, that consumes the money of the church. To call such an ubiblical thing a tool is just sad. Atool for preaching the lie of tithing and rbbing the people of God.

 

[BeforeThereWas]

Soory a church building is not a tool, it is an idol, that consumes the money of the church. To call such an ubiblical thing a tool is just sad. Atool for preaching the lie of tithing and rbbing the people of God.

Anything can be an idol, even the shirt on your back. Do we stop wearing cloths because of that potential? No.

The key is, first of all, recognizing the Lord's preeminance in all things, and finding a healthy balance between gawdy and non-functional. It's not right to say that all believers who have a building in common are guilty of idolatry, just as it isn't fair to say that YOU are guilty of idolotry because you wear cloths. Some groups wear clothing tailored to hide all the buttons and snaps because, to them, that's a display of idolotrous pride for such things to show. They therefore see themselves as being spiritually superior. They see your use of a computer as a form of spiritual pride, bondage and idolatry. Does that make them right? Not for its own sake. It always depends on the heart of each individual.

I agree with you that there is far too much idolatry toward buildings, even if we find one case of such. However, making that a blanket accusation to take away such a freedom is tantamount to pharasaical hard-heartedness.

When it comes to the false doctrine of tithing, a group who has no building, but meets under the trees in the woods can still legalistically preactice that doctrine. A group doesn't necessarily need a building to be guilty of that falsehood. We can pretty much thank roman catholicism for the existence of that false teaching. That doesn't mean that so-called "protestantism" isn't guilty of its own creations of false doctrines and idols, but tithing is a biggie that has an origin older than "protestantism".

Unblanaced cynicism can also be an idol that consumes its victim's ability to see beyond the limited circle of his awareness of the Lord's hand on other people's lives. I have observed Gene Edward's guilt in this area of unbalanced cynicism.

I speak out against the false doctrine of the tithe and the subsequent robbery of God because of the harm it does to the body as a whole. However, blindly painting the entire body of believers with the same brush and coloring speaks of a level of thought that clearly doesn't reflect the mind and heart of Christ.

BTW

 

[Henry]

The church building takes up most the resorces, and it is treated and Holy place. Hush in the sanctuary and don't bring in food or drink, have respect for the "house of God" and on and on.

I am not swayed by the clothing argument, though you are right anything can become an idol. THe church building is an idol to be sure the same as big statue of a goddess would be. Since most call the church a she you know.

There is not place for the church building it is simply unbiblical and can never really be a true meeting place for Christians who want to follow the scriptures as to how we are meet together, and yes there are certainly instructions given to us by the word through Paul.

So the fact is the the church buildings are Idols not can be, or are like, but ARE and sadly most are not even aware of this fact. Never the less that is just what they are and why not they are all pagan anyways, sad most the thing people do in those places is full paganism.

Churchianity is the neopaganism

 

[Henry]

The church building takes up most the resorces, and it is treated and Holy place. Hush in the sanctuary and don't bring in food or drink, have respect for the "house of God" and on and on.

I am not swayed by the clothing argument, though you are right anything can become an idol. THe church building is an idol to be sure the same as big statue of a goddess would be. Since most call the church a she you know.

There is not place for the church building it is simply unbiblical and can never really be a true meeting place for Christians who want to follow the scriptures as to how we are meet together, and yes there are certainly instructions given to us by the word through Paul.

So the fact is the the church buildings are Idols not can be, or are like, but ARE and sadly most are not even aware of this fact. Never the less that is just what they are and why not they are all pagan anyways, sad most the thing people do in those places is full paganism.

Churchianity is the neopaganism

 

[Ryan Collins]

It sounds like alot of people are stingy with what God has blessed with them with.

 

[gingercat]

Ryan,

You never who are truly giving, churchgoers or house churched. I know I am making sure my family won't neglect other brethren in need. We don't restrict to only 10%. I know many people are accusing me of boasting when I protest about it. :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[Ryan Collins]

You see, the probably I find with scholars and people who dive for more knowledge about a certain scholarly subject is that the more we get wordly knowledge about this one subject the farther we get from the main point. The main point is this: God innspired the Bible and in the Bible it tells us to tithe, so what is the big deal? People need to wash their minds clean of the walls that are blocking them from the blatant truth. Seriously, I'm beginning to think that intellect is only a hindrance to what God wants us to see. Geez.

 

[TruthMiner]

In Matthew 5, Jesus contrasts the limitations of the Law versus the way of Christ that has no limitations. Setting laws is about setting limitations, boundaries. But love has no boundaries. The Law said love your neighbor but not your enemy. The Law said only do this much; Christ says go as far as you can go. The Law said 10%; Christ says give up everything.

 

[gingercat]

In Matthew 5, Jesus contrasts the limitations of the Law versus the way of Christ that has no limitations. Setting laws is about setting limitations, boundaries. But love has no boundaries. The Law said love your neighbor but not your enemy. The Law said only do this much; Christ says go as far as you can go. The Law said 10%; Christ says give up everything.

Amen truth. :angel: