Religion and Money

[Jagella]

Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in my house, and thus put me to the test, says the Lord of hosts; see if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you an overflowing blessing.

Malachi 3:10

Needless to say, the claim above is demonstrably false. Just give your tithe to the huckster synagogue or church of your choice, and the only person(s) blessed will be those you give your money to.

Let's just think about the logic here. We have these self-appointed prophets claiming to speak for an all-powerful invisible man in the sky. This invisible man, we are told, created the entire world. He's all-powerful and all-knowing. Yet, for some strange reason he's hard-up for cash. He cannot provide for himself, and like a beggar in the street, he's got his hand out.

How likely is it that such a being would ask for money? Can any invisible-man-in-the-sky believer here offer any good reason to give money to those who say this invisible man wants that money?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 59 by Realworldjack]

You seem to be insisting that Christians are commanded to tithe, while I am insisting there is no such command.

When I was a Christian I was told I needed to tithe.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 59 by Realworldjack]

You seem to be insisting that Christians are commanded to tithe, while I am insisting there is no such command.

When I was a Christian I was told I needed to tithe.

It depends on the denomination.

Roman Catholics are encouraged to give what they can, not pressured to tithe. By and large I think it's the Evangelical churches who encourage, if not pressure their members to tithe.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 59 by Realworldjack]

You seem to be insisting that Christians are commanded to tithe, while I am insisting there is no such command.

When I was a Christian I was told I needed to tithe.

I think, we both understand that I am talking about Christians being commanded from the Bible to tithe.

I have no doubt that there was those in some Church you attended, who told you that "you needed to tithe", and it is not surprising at all that one would buy into such things, when they have already admitted to not using the mind.

The thing is, I wonder how much more there may be, that such a one, who admits to not thinking. may have been dubbed about, but instead of actually going to the Bible to see what it has to say, they simply continue to leave the mind behind, and continue to assume that what they were taught, must, and has to be correct?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 63 by Realworldjack]

I have no doubt that there was those in some Church you attended, who told you that "you needed to tithe", and it is not surprising at all that one would buy into such things, when they have already admitted to not using the mind.

I was attending an Assembly of God church at the time I was told I needed to tithe. I can't remember the exact circumstances, but the pastor's wife told us church members that we needed to pay our tithe. I also remember seeing two men there handling all the cash from the collection, and I teased them calling them "money changers." The Assembly of God church bases almost everything it does on the Bible, and I'm sure they base their money collection on some Bible passage although I cannot recall any particular passages(s).

Once I was told I needed to pay my tithe, I never paid it again and left the Christian religion.

The thing is, I wonder how much more there may be, that such a one, who admits to not thinking. may have been dubbed about, but instead of actually going to the Bible to see what it has to say, they simply continue to leave the mind behind, and continue to assume that what they were taught, must, and has to be correct?

Actually, I read the Bible all the time when I was a Christian and still do read it. The difference is that I no longer insist that the Bible is inerrant or holy. I'm well aware that the Bible today is being "reinterpreted" to make it appear to be consistent with modern moral sensibilities. I don't necessarily agree that the Bible is consistent with modern morality, obviously, so if it has passages in which people are supposed to give money to Jewish or Christian leaders, then I see such demands for what they are.

Finally, do you tell other Christians that if they leave the faith, then you will tell them they were never Christians and that they were too stupid to understand the Bible when they read it? In other words, will you talk to them like you talk to me?

[bluethread]

I was attending an Assembly of God church at the time I was told I needed to tithe.

AoG is a revivalist denomination founded in the early 19th century in order to organize the converts of the charismatic revivals. They tend to focus on mystical practices and use the Scriptures to support those practices. Mind you, I am not using mystical as a pejorative, but a descriptive. My point is that they approach the Scriptures from that perspective and subjugate their view of the Tanakh(OT) to their interpretation of the Apostolic Writings(NT). I believe that this is an upside down approach to how the Scriptures should be interpreted and results in a lot of picking and choosing of verses from the Tanakh.

The problem with this in the current discussion is that the tithes are Torah principles designed for specific purposes. Many Christian denominations, not just the AoG, like to quote verses out of the Tanakh and ignore the underlying Torah principle.

[Jagella]

I was attending an Assembly of God church at the time I was told I needed to tithe.

AoG is a revivalist denomination founded in the early 19th century in order to organize the converts of the charismatic revivals. They tend to focus on mystical practices and use the Scriptures to support those practices. Mind you, I am not using mystical as a pejorative, but a descriptive. My point is that they approach the Scriptures from that perspective and subjugate their view of the Tanakh(OT) to their interpretation of the Apostolic Writings(NT). I believe that this is an upside down approach to how the Scriptures should be interpreted and results in a lot of picking and choosing of verses from the Tanakh.

The problem with this in the current discussion is that the tithes are Torah principles designed for specific purposes. Many Christian denominations, not just the AoG, like to quote verses out of the Tanakh and ignore the underlying Torah principle.

When I was with the Assembly of God their motto was: "The first-century church in the twentieth century." As such they practiced New-Testament activities like faith healing, speaking in tongues, and prophecy. They were intensely "Bible based" and encouraged Bible study. My pastor gave me a paperback copy of the New King James Version of the Bible, and I read it cover-to-cover in five weeks. I studied it every day and literally wore it out until it fell apart. Their activities were supposed to be approved in "the light of the scriptures."

So I think it's unlikely that the Assembly of God was wrong regarding its way of interpreting the Bible's injunctions to tithe. Frankly, I never heard of anybody denying the Bible's requirement for Jews and Christians to tithe until I started this thread. I think it's an ad hoc attempt to deny the Christian clergy's efforts to get money out of people by implying that people will be hurt by the invisible man in the sky if they don't fork over the dough.

[bluethread]

So I think it's unlikely that the Assembly of God was wrong regarding its way of interpreting the Bible's injunctions to tithe. Frankly, I never heard of anybody denying the Bible's requirement for Jews and Christians to tithe until I started this thread. I think it's an ad hoc attempt to deny the Christian clergy's efforts to get money out of people by implying that people will be hurt by the invisible man in the sky if they don't fork over the dough.

Why do you think it is unlikely? For someone who faults people for taking people's word for things, that seems to be a strange position. Did they ever supply you with bible passages to support that view? If so let's look at those passages and see what they were actually talking about. You began this thread by quoting Mel. 3:10. What tithe was he talking about there? Did he just pull this out of his hat? On what basis would he expect such an argument to be accepted?

[Jagella]

So I think it's unlikely that the Assembly of God was wrong regarding its way of interpreting the Bible's injunctions to tithe. Frankly, I never heard of anybody denying the Bible's requirement for Jews and Christians to tithe until I started this thread. I think it's an ad hoc attempt to deny the Christian clergy's efforts to get money out of people by implying that people will be hurt by the invisible man in the sky if they don't fork over the dough.

Why do you think it is unlikely? For someone who faults people for taking people's word for things, that seems to be a strange position.

Make sure you get that personal stab in there.

Anyway, the Assembly of God, like I have explained, put much emphasis on Bible study. After studying with them, I agree with their interpretation of the Bible. But I obviously disagree with their conclusions regarding the inspiration of the Bible.

Did they ever supply you with bible passages to support that view?

Not that I can recall, but you can check what they have to say here.

You began this thread by quoting Mel. 3:10. What tithe was he talking about there? Did he just pull this out of his hat? On what basis would he expect such an argument to be accepted?

I've already argued my case throughout this thread noting that the Malachi quotation doesn't really affect the main point of what I'm saying: namely, that religion is really about the acquisition of wealth, and it is completely illogical to believe that an all-powerful invisible man would ask for money. He wouldn't need money, obviously, if he really existed.

In any case, I think it's obvious that asking for money saying the invisible man wants it is nothing new. There are many passages in the Bible in addition to Malachi 3 where some self-appointed prophet begs for money and/or goods.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 64 by Jagella]

I was attending an Assembly of God church

This certainly explains a lot! Because, it should not take long for one who uses the mind to come to an understanding that, Pentecostalism does not encourage the use of the mind, and if one were truly reading the Bible, without the lense of Pentecostalism, then they could surely see that it is way off the mark.

Of course I know the next argument will be the same old tired argument, which is, "all Christians believe they have it right, and attend the right Church, and all other Christians, and Churches are wrong." But this would not be correct.

You see, there are many Churches out there, where I may have some small disagreement, but it would not be to the extent that I would say, "they are way off the mark." However, it is certainly different with Pentecostalism.

Lets just take one example of many, which would be, "speaking in tongues." I have done a lot of in depth study on this subject. The thing is, speaking in tongues, was not all that prevalent in the NT, as Penetalcostalism makes out.

A careful reading would certainly demonstrate this to be the case. If you recall, Peter went to the house of a Gentile, which was Cornelius. Of course Peter did not want to go, and only went when he was given a vision. To demonstrate this, when Peter arrived at the house of Cornelius, the first thing he said was, "you know it is unlawful for me to enter the house of a gentile." At any rate, Peter goes in an began to speak, and Luke tells us, "they began to speak in tongues."

However, when Peter arrives back in Jerusalem, he must give an explanation as to why he went against the law, and entered a Gentiles house? Among other things, Peter responds by telling them, "when I had finished speaking, they began to speak in tongues, just as we DID in the beginning."

This would have been some years after the "Day of Pentecost" when the Apostles spoke in tongues, and notice that Peter does not say, "just as we do", but rather, "just as we DID", past tense.

So then, it is not as though the first Christians were all walking around speaking in tongues every time they attended Church, or anywhere else for that matter. This is just the tip of the iceberg, because I could continue on, and on. But allow me to say just one more thing at this point.

I can make a very strong argument that, the speaking in tongues in the NT, did not in any way refer to, speaking in a language that was unknown to the speaker. These would be the things one would know, if they were the type of person to use the mind, which would keep them from being blow, to an fro. You know, easy in, easy out.

Sort of like, "things weren't going my way, and these Christians said, if you will become a Christian, things will go your way. So, I became a Christian, but things didn't go my way, so now I am no longer a Christian."

at the time I was told I needed to tithe

And you were told this by certain people, because you cannot back up the claim from the Bible.

I can't remember the exact circumstances, but the pastor's wife told us church members that we needed to pay our tithe.

Exactly my point! It was not the Bible, rather it was the pastor's wife.

The Assembly of God church bases almost everything it does on the Bible

Oh really? Well then, can you explain why you are having difficulty defending this sort of thing form the Bible they were using? Or, maybe since it was, "ALMOST everything" then maybe this was one of the things that was not? Just asking?

and I'm sure they base their money collection on some Bible passage although I cannot recall any particular passages(s).

I am here to tell you that, the reason you, "cannot recall" is because there is not such command. If there is, it really would not be that difficult to find.

Once I was told I needed to pay my tithe, I never paid it again and left the Christian religion.

WHAT? Wait a minute? You are the one who has been defending the command to Christians to tithe, and you claim it is commanded in the Bible. So then, if you were told to pay your tithe, and it is a command from the Bible, then what in the world is the problem? So then, you are saying here, you, "left Christianity because you were commanded to tithe?" It will sort of be to late now to claim there were other reasons, as well, because you certainly are saying here that you, "left Christianity because you were commanded to tithe", all the while defending the command yourself.

Actually, I read the Bible all the time when I was a Christian and still do read it.

The question is, are you reading it, with the same lense placed upon you by, "Pentecostalism"? Because if you read it in the same way in which they read it, then I can tell you, and have demonstrated to you, they are way off, and the fact that you attempt to defend the command to tithe, but are unable to supply this command, sort of demonstrates, you may still have those blinders on.

The difference is that I no longer insist that the Bible is inerrant

Well guess what? I am a Christian, and I do not claim that the Bible is, "inerrant." You know why? Because I am able to think for myself, and I understand that what is contained in the Bible, need not be inerrant, in order for it to be trustworthy.

Can you see what I am saying here? If you allow others to think for you, then you could very well, place upon what is contained in the Bible, things that never were intended by the authors.

So then, you did not get the idea that the Bible was "inerrant" from what is contained in the Bible, which means you got this idea, from those who taught you when you admit to not using your mind, just like you did not get the idea concerning tithing from the Bible.

Next, you do not demand everything else to be "inerrant" in order for it to be trustworthy, so why would you place this demand upon the Bible?

The thing is, you have admitted to not using the mind, and this sort of thing certainly seems to demonstrate that you are continuing to allow those who thought for you back then, to continue to think for you, otherwise you would not continue to attempt to defend those things that cannot be defended from the teachings of the Biblical writers themselves.

I'm well aware that the Bible today is being "reinterpreted" to make it appear to be consistent with modern moral sensibilities.

The Bible can only mean what the original authors intended, which means it cannot be "reinterpreted" to mean something else. The authors original intent is not that difficult to determine if it is read in the same way in which you were to read any other written material, and an attempt to make it say things that were never intended, would become evident, just like it is evident that you cannot defend your positions from the Bible.

I don't necessarily agree that the Bible is consistent with modern morality

Allow me to give you two reasons why. First, it is because the Bible was never intended to be, "consistent with modern morality", which would demonstrate that it is not. Next, the Bible has nothing to do with teaching us how to be "moral." Rather, the Bible actually teaches us, to give up on the chase after morality, that we could never obtain, and grab a hold of what God has done for us. These two facts would be a good reason for your position.

Finally, do you tell other Christians that if they leave the faith, then you will tell them they were never Christians

I have never told anyone, any such thing.

and that they were too stupid to understand the Bible when they read it?

The only time I have used the word, "stupid" is in reference to your use of the word, and if you go back and read post 55 then I think you will agree that you are the one who comes real close to calling those who are Christians, "stupid." I never come close to referring to anyone as, "stupid."

In other words, will you talk to them like you talk to me?

First, there are certain rules here on this forum, and I believe that I am inside these guidelines, otherwise I believe I would be warned, and even banned, like many others have been.

Next, you act as though you have some sort of sweet tone going on somehow?

I will also point out that you are the one who admits to making such a major life decision, to become, and embrace Christianity, without the use of the mind. I have only acknowledged this admission on your part, but this is a far cry from calling one, "stupid."

[bluethread]

Why do you think it is unlikely? For someone who faults people for taking people's word for things, that seems to be a strange position.

Make sure you get that personal stab in there.

Anyway, the Assembly of God, like I have explained, put much emphasis on Bible study. After studying with them, I agree with their interpretation of the Bible. But I obviously disagree with their conclusions regarding the inspiration of the Bible.

Did they ever supply you with bible passages to support that view?

Not that I can recall, but you can check what they have to say here.

That is not meant to be a personal jab, but an enquiry regarding an apparent inconsistency in one's viewpoint. This is your thread and your point, but you defend that point by referring me to the an article with which you say you agree. So, let me do your work for you and list the passages in that article, so you can explain why you agree with their interpretations of them.

Genesis 14:18-20 - Though Avraham gave a tithe to Melchizedek and was blessed, that does not mean that others are commanded to do the same. Do you disagree? If so, on what grounds?

Numbers 18:21-29 - There are two reasons given for the tithe to the Levite here. "I give to the Levites all the tithes in Israel as their inheritance in return for the work they do while serving at the tent of meeting." This tithe was for the service of the Mishkan and facilitating the sacrifices. Last time I checked, no one in the AoG does either of those things. Also, "They will receive no inheritance among the Israelites. Instead, I give to the Levites as their inheritance the tithes that the Israelites present as an offering to the LORD." This speaks the inheritance in the land. Last I checked, membership in the AoG does not constitute the right to an inheritance in the land of Israel. Do you disagree? If so, on what grounds?


Deuteronomy 14:22-29 - This passage speaks of a different tithe that is not to be turned over to someone else, but is to be used in celebrating the feasts. "Be sure to set aside a tenth of all that your fields produce each year. Eat the tithe of your grain, new wine and olive oil, and the firstborn of your herds and flocks in the presence of the LORD your God at the place he will choose as a dwelling for his Name, so that you may learn to revere the LORD your God always." You are to consume that tithe. The passage does repeat, with more detail, i.e. triannual, the tithe for the Levite. However, it does reaffirm that this is because the Levite is not provided with an inheritance. In the context of the passage, this along with the provision for the foreigners, the fatherless and the widows, is referring to keeping the feasts. Last time I checked the AoG do not encourage the keeping of the feasts. Even if some do, as noted above, this is not about giving to the church, but saving up money to use in celebrating the appointed times. Do you disagree? If so, on what grounds?


2 Corinthians 9:7 - Yes, Adonai does love a cheerful giver. However, this passage is talking about money that people were voluntarily giving to support those who were being persecuted in Yerusalem. They were encouraged to gather it after Shabbat each week as a practical matter, so it would not need to be gathered up on Shabbat, or at the last minute. This has nothing to do with any tithe. Do you disagree? If so, on what grounds?

Malachi 3:10 - As I referred to earlier, Malachi is referring to the triannual tithe to the Levites as their inheritance among the children of Israel, as they maintain the Mishkan and perform the sacrifices. Last time I checked the AoG do not have a right to inherit land in Israel and do not maintain the Mishkan or perform the sacrifices. Do you disagree? If so, on what grounds?

Hebrews 10:25 - Yes, we are to not forsake the Moedim(appointed times), Shabbat and the feasts. In order to do that we should set aside resources to provide for ourselves and others during those times. However, that does not mean that we are to hand that tithe over to some third party. As the passage regarding Sukkot(the feast of tabernacles) says, (Deut. 14:26) "Use the silver to buy whatever you like: cattle, sheep, wine or other fermented drink, or anything you wish. Then you and your household shall eat there in the presence of the LORD your God and rejoice." Do you disagree? If so, on what grounds?

You began this thread by quoting Mal. 3:10. What tithe was he talking about there? Did he just pull this out of his hat? On what basis would he expect such an argument to be accepted?

I've already argued my case throughout this thread noting that the Malachi quotation doesn't really affect the main point of what I'm saying: namely, that religion is really about the acquisition of wealth, and it is completely illogical to believe that an all-powerful invisible man would ask for money. He wouldn't need money, obviously, if he really existed.

In any case, I think it's obvious that asking for money saying the invisible man wants it is nothing new. There are many passages in the Bible in addition to Malachi 3 where some self-appointed prophet begs for money and/or goods.

If it does not effect the point you are making, then there is no reason for it to have been used as the basis for this thread. Well, atheists also ask for money and/or goods all of the time. That does not mean that such a request is always inappropriate or their only purpose in life. Please, provide that passage and we can evaluate whether the request is appropriate or not.