tithe is just manipulation....

[Graybeard]

If you are going to tax anyone, it should be on "disposable income" only, not gross or net income.

Tithe is not a tax.

This is the difference between being hanged by an old rope and a new one. It is not for nothing that the Churches guilt-trip people into paying tithes[1]. You may see it as "a Christian Duty", but then on the other hand I see taxes as a duty for us all. If you wish, you can see tax as ensuring, in line with God's Wishes, that the poor are cared for and that life for all improves with the general growth in national wealth.

  But yes, it would be nice if the government only taxed my disposable income.

It probably does. You probably have a tax allowance.

As an atheist, I have no objections to charity per se, although, in this day and age, charity should not be needed, as laws and the welfare state should cover the needs of the people and justice for all.

How's that working out at present?

1.	Here is the Manipulation that is in the thread title

Frankly, under the present UK government, (Republican) not well. 10 years or so ago, it was quite good. The essence is to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. This government is doing the opposite. The rich cannot conceive of the life and struggles of the poor and the poor have no idea what it is like to be rich. Without taxation, that gap grows and two nations arise out of what was one: and only one nation is represented.

If you are willing to give, say, 10% to the Church, why not give it to government (local or central)?

However, I prefer government taxes as they don't come with any dogma attached, neither do they perpetuate myths and you have one day every 4 or five years when you can vote.

Apples and oranges.

If that is so, then why base charity on undemocratic religion?

[wolfunchained]

hi there mooby

the whole point of this topic is to lay out the fact that you do not need tithe to have a "blessed and forfilling life"

you pointed out that 33% of children have inadequate housing and 20% of children have no water.  WHY?
i know of families who would pay thier tithe out of faith before they buy clothes or food for thier children.
i know you are referring to poverty stricken countries so lets take a look at that then...

if God is so amazing and provides for his children which he loves unconditionally, why are his children suffering?
why are people starving? why would God knowingly let a child be born into harsh conditions with no food or a maximum wage of $2.50 per day?
Is God impotant? Does he not care about the suffering that people go through? Why does he not bless people in 3rd world countries that suffer from aids and disease as far as the eye can see, starvation and malnutrition. Its crazy to think God can create a whole universe but not fix a simple little Global hunger epidemic?

all you are doing is further proving that you are randomly placed in the world. Or if you are a Christian you are telling me God created a person in his/her mothers womb full well knowing he/she would be born into poverty and live a much harder life than somebody born in a western country.

i feel i got lucky living in NZ. i have an education and i have skills which i went and got on my own merrit with my own money, its called a student loan in nz and you have to pay back every dam dollar you borrow. I decided what i wanted to study, i got a loan to study it, i got a job, paid back the money + intrest and furthered myself with education.

i have rejected my upbringing of chirstianity (seventhday adventist) i dont beleive in God or heaven or hell, and i have blatently made that clear. I do not pay tithe to Give back to the creator in thanks.

So why do i still get the "blessings" of a good life with kids and a wife and a house and just normal things that most people want?

What makes me more special than someone who lives in war, poverty, hunger, sickness and thier freedoms taken away from them?  Surely im not anymore worthy than someone who works 18 hours a day and gets a bowl of rice at the end of it if they are lucky?

Tithe is unnecessary, you dont have to pay money to a church to gain "blessings" or so that god can "fill your storehouse tenfold till it is overflowing"


As for your comment about getting $10,000 from my grandmother, I just got lucky...
if you and every other chirstian became an atheist you certainly wouldnt just get given $10,000. because atheist dont belive that a god or a spirit or anything creates your good luck. you simply had good luck on that given day.

its just they way it is. its the same as getting a discount on a loaf of your favourtie bread or the price of gasoline going down for a change or a 2 for 1 bargain or getting all green traffic lights on the way to work when you are running late....

Good stuff happens and bad stuff happens. you can control your destiny to a certain degree depending on where you live and what you have to work with. im simply making the best of what i have to work with and i dont need god to help me.

[harbinger77]

to the OP...
Tithe on harvest is twisted to mean income because "at the time the harvest was the income" I can't speak to the why of it past this though.
I can say tithe played a very important role in the temple. We no longer have a temple and the levitical priesthood has been gone since at least 70AD.

We should take care of the teachers and preachers. We should give in love. These I can support in the scripture. A walk through the old testament simply studying the word "tithe" will tell you tithe is not money. A walk through the new testament tells us clearly to give.
 Let each one do just as he has purposed in his heart; not grudgingly or under compulsion; for God loves a cheerful giver.

I guess the promise of reward or the threat of curse is motivation to believe what the preacher says. They always use Malachi3:8-12 . I don't know why the preachers twist the word other than greed? Maybe traditions? The Lord will judge. I don't believe looking at the full council of The Word one can make a case for new covenant tithing. Before someone wants to take a stand against me... better read this at least.
http://www.solidrock.net/library/anderson/sermons/ot.tithing.vs.nt.giving.php

The Cain and Able thing. God rejected Cain's offering because it had no blood. Only blood can forgive sins. This has nothing to do with tithe at all.

[Boots]

The Cain and Able thing. God rejected Cain's offering because it had no blood. Only blood can forgive sins. This has nothing to do with tithe at all.

why is your god so bloodthirsty???

[harbinger77]

The Cain and Able thing. God rejected Cain's offering because it had no blood. Only blood can forgive sins. This has nothing to do with tithe at all.

why is your god so bloodthirsty???

As stated only blood can forgive sins.. why because it's the best way to do it of course...

[Boots]

The Cain and Able thing. God rejected Cain's offering because it had no blood. Only blood can forgive sins. This has nothing to do with tithe at all.

why is your god so bloodthirsty???

As stated only blood can forgive sins.. why because it's the best way to do it of course...

that is a non-answer.  WHY is that the best way to do it "of course??"

[harbinger77]

The Cain and Able thing. God rejected Cain's offering because it had no blood. Only blood can forgive sins. This has nothing to do with tithe at all.

why is your god so bloodthirsty???

As stated only blood can forgive sins.. why because it's the best way to do it of course...

that is a non-answer.  WHY is that the best way to do it "of course??"

I was Just thinking I should have given a better response. The sacrificial system was a precursor to Christ. That's why it's no longer done. Sin has been forgiven once and for all His elect by the blood of Christ. As for why Blood. I know I've seen people suggest it wasn't much of a sacrifice to give the very best and first born lamb of your flock considering you get to eat it. I beg to differ as this ignored the fact that some animals can give you other items wool, eggs, milk. Even If you sold the animal you could still buy another plus some food. The goods provided far out weigh the blessing of one meal. I'm from TX a good adult bull or cow can sale for 3 times what a calf would cost. I could sale a cow and then, depending on the blood line, buy groceries for a month for my 9 member family.

Anyway, giving your very best animals to God was obedient to God and trusting He would provide for your needs even without the very best of your flock or heard.
And cause it's the best way cause it's the way God set it up... of course

[wheels5894]

I was Just thinking I should have given a better response. The sacrificial system was a precursor to Christ. That's why it's no longer done. Sin has been forgiven once and for all His elect by the blood of Christ. As for why Blood. I know I've seen people suggest it wasn't much of a sacrifice to give the very best and first born lamb of your flock considering you get to eat it. I beg to differ as this ignored the fact that some animals can give you other items wool, eggs, milk. Even If you sold the animal you could still buy another plus some food. The goods provided far out weigh the blessing of one meal. I'm from TX a good adult bull or cow can sale for 3 times what a calf would cost. I could sale a cow and then, depending on the blood line, buy groceries for a month for my 9 member family.

Anyway, giving your very best animals to God was obedient to God and trusting He would provide for your needs even without the very best of your flock or heard.
And cause it's the best way cause it's the way God set it up... of course

Except that isn't really the case, is it? A supernatural, non-material god neither needs anything nor to eat anything. The sacrifice of anything is for human benefit only - feeding the priests and the people - and can have no impact on the non-material god. Sacrifice has been going on for millennia  - so far back that we will never know its origin - but we can be certain that it was an invention of men not of gods.

So why do you think your god liked all the blood - given it was the loss of life of his creatures? Why do you think this was the way he wanted things and not human sacrifices as has been done for gods at various times?

[Boots]

And cause it's the best way cause it's the way God set it up... of course

so, then, why is your god so bloodthirsty to have set it up this way?

[Hatter23]

And cause it's the best way cause it's the way God set it up... of course

so, then, why is your god so bloodthirsty to have set it up this way?

Because all male gods the develop in desert regions end up being blood gods? Water is a precious resource and the source of life, living things have blood, and sympatheitic magic is not an uncommon human tendency.

[wheels5894]

And cause it's the best way cause it's the way God set it up... of course

so, then, why is your god so bloodthirsty to have set it up this way?

...and how do we know it was a god's idea? The only thing we have is an ancient book with unknown authors and redactors and we have, realistically, no chance of ever finding out more about how it came to be written and by whom. Thus we have no chance of being able to show it was written down by a seriously inspired person or by priests after setting up laws to keep the people under the thumb and ensure their own living.

[harbinger77]

I already speculated the "why he liked it" question. It was The precueser to Jesus. An action of obedience, submission, dependence It was a sacrifice to cleans them of their sins just as Jesus has come to be. Jesus was pure and spotless, without blemish and was the final sacrifice for us.

I suppose some priestly dudes could have made the system. I am perfectly willing to admit the possibility would exist. I have one question though.
If the Bible is so offensive to man's natural inclination, as even I can tell it is from the outside looking in. Why is it written that way? If the desired result was not only to keep people under thumb, but to hopefully gain a few converts as well. wouldn't this be a bit counter productive?

[Foxy Freedom]

I already speculated the "why he liked it" question. It was The precueser to Jesus. An action of obedience, submission, dependence It was a sacrifice to cleans them of their sins just as Jesus has come to be. Jesus was pure and spotless, without blemish and was the final sacrifice for us.

I suppose some priestly dudes could have made the system. I am perfectly willing to admit the possibility would exist. I have one question though.
If the Bible is so offensive to man's natural inclination, as even I can tell it is from the outside looking in. Why is it written that way? If the desired result was not only to keep people under thumb, but to hopefully gain a few converts as well. wouldn't this be a bit counter productive?

They wrote the bible like that because it was their culture. They believed every single word of it, even the bits which you don't. They did not write the bible for the future or for anyone but themselves at that time and that place. If the bible is against your natural inclination, that is because culture has moved on. If you want to attempt to follow the customs of a dead culture, that is your problem.

[harbinger77]

I already speculated the "why he liked it" question. It was The precueser to Jesus. An action of obedience, submission, dependence It was a sacrifice to cleans them of their sins just as Jesus has come to be. Jesus was pure and spotless, without blemish and was the final sacrifice for us.

I suppose some priestly dudes could have made the system. I am perfectly willing to admit the possibility would exist. I have one question though.
If the Bible is so offensive to man's natural inclination, as even I can tell it is from the outside looking in. Why is it written that way? If the desired result was not only to keep people under thumb, but to hopefully gain a few converts as well. wouldn't this be a bit counter productive?

They wrote the bible like that because it was their culture. They believed every single word of it, even the bits which you don't. They did not write the bible for the future or for anyone but themselves at that time and that place. If the bible is against your natural inclination, that is because culture has moved on. If you want to attempt to follow the customs of a dead culture, that is your problem.

what parts do I not believe?

At least an answer was attempted...
I think I can point to quite a few passages that may tell a different story... The Hebrew people were in Egypt for 400 Years. Not as slaves mind you. workers yes, but not slaves. At first they were even friends. close to the exodus they had grown to a large number and fearing rebellion they were re-classed as a common worker. no longer autonomous and no longer able to posses weapons and such. Wouldn't their culture had been more egyptian?
Why all the cryptic writing? Would it not be better to just state exactly what you meant If you want people to believe it that is?

You only speak of the old testament anyway. What about the new? Do you find nothing offensive there?
who wrote it? Jews under Roman rule... yes. Why is it not more like muslim faith where they should be committed to overthrowing an oppressive (or rather non-muslim) government? Would that not be a bit more productive? for the times?

[Foxy Freedom]

what parts do I not believe?

At least an answer was attempted...
I think I can point to quite a few passages that may tell a different story... The Hebrew people were in Egypt for 400 Years. Not as slaves mind you. workers yes, but not slaves. At first they were even friends. close to the exodus they had grown to a large number and fearing rebellion they were re-classed as a common worker. no longer autonomous and no longer able to posses weapons and such. Wouldn't their culture had been more egyptian?
Why all the cryptic writing? Would it not be better to just state exactly what you meant If you want people to believe it that is?

You only speak of the old testament anyway. What about the new? Do you find nothing offensive there?
who wrote it? Jews under Roman rule... yes. Why is it not more like muslim faith where they should be committed to overthrowing an oppressive (or rather non-muslim) government? Would that not be a bit more productive? for the times?

I was not speaking only of the Old Testament. I was speaking of the whole bible.

Which parts do you not believe? You have just shown that you do not believe in slavery for a start.

And what about this? Does that still look reasonable to you?

[harbinger77]

what parts do I not believe?

At least an answer was attempted...
I think I can point to quite a few passages that may tell a different story... The Hebrew people were in Egypt for 400 Years. Not as slaves mind you. workers yes, but not slaves. At first they were even friends. close to the exodus they had grown to a large number and fearing rebellion they were re-classed as a common worker. no longer autonomous and no longer able to posses weapons and such. Wouldn't their culture had been more egyptian?
Why all the cryptic writing? Would it not be better to just state exactly what you meant If you want people to believe it that is?

You only speak of the old testament anyway. What about the new? Do you find nothing offensive there?
who wrote it? Jews under Roman rule... yes. Why is it not more like muslim faith where they should be committed to overthrowing an oppressive (or rather non-muslim) government? Would that not be a bit more productive? for the times?

I was not speaking only of the Old Testament. I was speaking of the whole bible.

Which parts do you not believe? You have just shown that you do not believe in slavery for a start.

And what about this? Does that still look reasonable to you?

The Bible doesn't say the hebrew people were slaves. That's a popular interpretation though.

as for your diagram. Can you provide the chapters and verses that support it... cause it's very wrong and very unsupported.

Why do you comment on a txt you have apparently never read?

You shouldn't take the word of another for things.  Read for yourself. unwilling to be a sheep you have become exactly that.. a blind follower of some dude... How can you de content with such things?

perhaps you would like to try again. with things I don't believe?

[Boots]

The Bible doesn't say the hebrew people were slaves. That's a popular interpretation though.

Hogwash.

1:11 Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses. 1:12 But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were grieved because of the children of Israel. 1:13 And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour: 1:14 And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in mortar, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field: all their service, wherein they made them serve, was with rigour." (Exodus 1:11-14 KJV)

I don't know what bible you're reading, but setting over taskmasters to afflict them with burdens...afflicted...made them serve with rigor...made their lives bitter with hard bondage...all manner of service in the field...how do you interpret this as anything but slavery?

[Ivellios]

As stated only blood can forgive sins.. why because it's the best way to do it of course...

I think you took this out of context. There is nothing in the passage that states it was for the forgiveness of sins. Only that they were offering God a portion of thier bounty[1]. God liked Abel's and didn't like Cain's. Gen 4:2-5

At Church it was asked, "Why did God not accept Cain's offering, when he accepts grain offerings in Leviticus?" After all, God's suppossed to be "the same: yesterday, today and forever." The response from church leaders? "I don't know."

1.

tithe

[harbinger77]

As stated only blood can forgive sins.. why because it's the best way to do it of course...

I think you took this out of context. There is nothing in the passage that states it was for the forgiveness of sins. Only that they were offering God a portion of thier bounty[1]. God liked Abel's and didn't like Cain's. Gen 4:2-5

At Church it was asked, "Why did God not accept Cain's offering, when he accepts grain offerings in Leviticus?" After all, God's suppossed to be "the same: yesterday, today and forever." The response from church leaders? "I don't know."

1.

tithe

The Bible doesn't say the hebrew people were slaves. That's a popular interpretation though.

Hogwash.

1:11 Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses. 1:12 But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew. And they were grieved because of the children of Israel. 1:13 And the Egyptians made the children of Israel to serve with rigour: 1:14 And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in mortar, and in brick, and in all manner of service in the field: all their service, wherein they made them serve, was with rigour." (Exodus 1:11-14 KJV)

I don't know what bible you're reading, but setting over taskmasters to afflict them with burdens...afflicted...made them serve with rigor...made their lives bitter with hard bondage...all manner of service in the field...how do you interpret this as anything but slavery?

I'll tell you how I got there. First go to the original language define the words there. Then you can determine if slavery, the popular interpretation, is meant or if it's something else. Also I'll add archaeologists support my view, not the slavery view.

[wheels5894]

Harbinger, please quote your sources for the archaeology. I'll come back with the Hebrew later.

[harbinger77]

As stated only blood can forgive sins.. why because it's the best way to do it of course...

I think you took this out of context. There is nothing in the passage that states it was for the forgiveness of sins. Only that they were offering God a portion of thier bounty[1]. God liked Abel's and didn't like Cain's. Gen 4:2-5

At Church it was asked, "Why did God not accept Cain's offering, when he accepts grain offerings in Leviticus?" After all, God's suppossed to be "the same: yesterday, today and forever." The response from church leaders? "I don't know."

1.

tithe

I don't know is not a good answer here. If we read laviticus we can see what Cain and able were trying to do. They were making a sin offering. That's why Able's was in blood. They knew the right way to do it. That's what God meant in Gen4:7

7If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?...

"For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to
make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for
the soul." —Leviticus 17:11
"...without SHEDDING OF BLOOD is no remission." —Hebrews 9:22

So as stated.. without blood there is no forgiveness of sin. The grain offerings were never meant to forgive sins. Your church leaders should at least have known that much.

[Boots]

I'll tell you how I got there. First go to the original language define the words there. Then you can determine if slavery, the popular interpretation, is meant or if it's something else. Also I'll add archaeologists support my view, not the slavery view.

Since you are talking about quoting the bible, I'll presume your view is that exodus acutally happened.

archaeologists do NOT support that view.
http://www.exitmundi.nl/bible/web-content/mos_exodus.html
http://extremethinking.net/exodusdidnthappen.html
http://thechurchoftruth.wordpress.com/95-2/

please correct me if I'm misinterpreting your view that the events of exodus actually occurred.

[wheels5894]

I'll tell you how I got there. First go to the original language define the words there. Then you can determine if slavery, the popular interpretation, is meant or if it's something else. Also I'll add archaeologists support my view, not the slavery view.

OK, let's look at what the word might mean by looking only at the English translations. I will allow you to pace any meaning you like on the word slave for now but what do the texts say?

1. Exodus 21:20-21

20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money[1].

1.	Quoted from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+21%3A20-21&version=KJV[/i]

Now, if anyone treat anyone at all like this, are we talking bout a servant as the translation says? We are talking about a slave here - person who does not count for anything.

2. Leviticus 25:44-46

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.

45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.[2]

2.	http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2025:44-46&version=KJV

Look here - servants, slaves, whatever, they become property that can be sold  or bequeathed. So we can beat the c--p out of one's servants and then sell them! Heck, this doesn't sound so good for the people concerned.

3. Exodus 21:7-11

7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.

8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.

10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.

11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

So, daughters get sold into slavery - could help- a poor dad I suppose - and can easily get stuck as slaves for every; with the beatings etc.

4. Luke 12:47-48

47 And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

48 But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

Jesus still enforces the idea of slavery - even to making sure servants / slaves are beaten. Jesus could easily have sorted this out - tellling the people to stop having slaves and to treat each other with respect but, no, slavery continues.

OK, Harbinger, there's a few texts for you to look at. Despite how you decide to translate the Hebrew, the fact is that the fact of the poor 'servants' is much the same beating and life in servitude and misery. basically like the slaves in the USA; or worse.

Comments, Harbinger? Does 'deep study' help at all?

[Ivellios]

Nah, 'servant' means servant, just as 'wife' means wife. If you kill a woman's entire village and 'take her as your wife' clearly she wanted to spend the rest of her life with you as thanks for killing off her all her family and friends. Such a thing just makes a woman feel all lovey-dovey warm-and-fuzzy.

Just as a man that sells his daughter as a servant, to betroth her to another man. It's not like he sold her specifically for sex. She's betrothed, which means 'wife.' Women provide two purposes for thier jewish husbands, servant so he can beat her whenever he wants but she's not a slave, and for sex but since she's a 'wife' she's not a sex slave.

Bah, I cannot simulate mental gymnastics any further. All that to justify why the lovey-dovey hippie Jesus, would support human slavery.

[harbinger77]

Boots and Wheels...

Boots is making a case for the hebrew people BEING slaves in egypt. A challenge of my own exegesis. Not doing a good Job of it I may add. Now misdirecting to something else.

Wheels chimed in but has now misdirected to introduce the new topic of slavery BY the Hebrew people and the law concerning those slaves.
The Hebrew people did indeed own slaves. I do not dispute that in the least.

You both argue as though you are on the same point yet you're not. I just thought I may want to point that out.

Bond servant is the word to consider. Just what is a bond servant?
A bond servant is a willing slave. They serve their whole life by choice.
http://www.gotquestions.org/bondservant.html

This does not negate the fact that Hebrew people did own slaves in the strictest form of the word.

[harbinger77]

I'll tell you how I got there. First go to the original language define the words there. Then you can determine if slavery, the popular interpretation, is meant or if it's something else. Also I'll add archaeologists support my view, not the slavery view.

Since you are talking about quoting the bible, I'll presume your view is that exodus acutally happened.

archaeologists do NOT support that view.
http://www.exitmundi.nl/bible/web-content/mos_exodus.html
http://extremethinking.net/exodusdidnthappen.html
http://thechurchoftruth.wordpress.com/95-2/

please correct me if I'm misinterpreting your view that the events of exodus actually occurred.

You present evidence thank you.
The quality is a bit lack luster though. For example I couldn't pull a quote like this from yours...

Dayan presented her research to an audience of more than 200 at Sinai Temple. Dayan, who earned her Ph.D. in Egyptology from Hebrew University in Jerusalem and is the wife of Jacob Dayan, Consul General of Israel in Los Angeles, told the group that linguistic evidence reveals an ancient and deeply involved Jewish presence in Egypt that eventually disappears.

http://www.jewishjournal.com/passover/article/passover_proof_lies_in_egyptian_hieroglyphs_20100324/

[harbinger77]

Change the search criteria. Maybe if you were searching for evidence in favor you would find things like these. Or search for something unbiased read both sides before you determine anything. I would think (hope) that's what a learned man of science may do. Of course why would anyone want to be objective with an issue they already decided on?

http://www.explorationfilms.com/article-14-discoveries.html

I have studied the other side most often lack of evidence is the answer. So not much to study there.