BeforeThereWas
Seasoned Warrior
- Mar 14, 2005
- 2,450
- 59
- Faith
- Word of Faith
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Constitution
Agreed.
The main problem today, and historically, is the direction of most people's primary, largest portion giving.
That tends to assume, in many people's minds, the offering plate is the top priority in our giving. That's the paradigm I oppose, based on what the scriptures say and show us through examples.
I agree with being a good steward, but we're also told by Paul that our first priority is toward those of our own households. Preachers the world over demand their man-made organization should be first priority in our "increase."
Well, i've got news for those clowns: Monetary income is NOT a form of increase.
Hello? (for those who had to do a double-take on that one
)Yessirree. Wages are NOT anywhere in scripture classified as a form of INCREASE. Anyone who disagrees, I invite them to show otherwise.
Why?
Simply stated: WAGES are an EXCHANGE of one's labor, time and skills for money, or some other commodity.
If that were not the case, then we would see the Law including any form of conpensation for labor, time and skills as titheable, but that clearly is not the case in relation to the Bible as it is written.
Ah, but many preachers are guilty of lies, lies and more lies when demanding income is a form of increase. Such men fail to uphold the Glory of God in not only being HONEST, but also by giving Him the glory of His own handiwork in creating INCREASE.
INCREASE, boys and girls, is what God designed into creation in the arenas of PRODUCE, such as what comes from the fields, orchards, vineyards, herds and flocks. A man plants each seed, and each seed produces INCREASE because of God's handiwork, not man's. God Himself furnished the increase by His own hand, therefore man enjoyed an increase that, by himself, could NEVER have been accomplished.
Animals multiply by nature, not by any crafty creation of man. It's a mechanism of God's own making. All men have to do is provide food and water, protection, and nature does the rest.
This all is so basic, and yet congregations sit in pews or chairs, nodding their heads in bubble-headed agreement, and rarely allow a critical thought to offer any resistance to their simple-minded acceptance of what they're hearing from the guy up front.
I've even heard churchianity people say that, even though they can see only the backs of other people's heads, they're still enjoying "fellowship."
(rolling eyes to ceiling) Good grief! Where's the desire for TRUTH? Has it been relegated, in most people's minds, to dark recesses of thought that shield them from any concern for TRUTH?
Contextually, however, most people fail to discern the fact that the mention of the tithe in that section was brought out ONLY as a measuring stick (so to speak) of who was greater in teh stepping order of priest. The text fails to uphold any backing for us to legitimately fashion principles in support of tithing, or even routine, systematic giving as it's understood by most today.
Please understand that I have no problem with people supporting their man-made church organization. The problem I have is in relation to people's priorities when it comes to giving. That building, its operations, bills, and professional staffing should be lower priorities, below the needs of fellow believers, and the needy in our local communities.
I flatly reject blind acceptance of statements made by institutional preachers that they were "called by God" to their pulpits. Just because a man lands a job as the centerpiece, keynote speaker for each service held in communcal facilities doesn't mean they were called there by God. Many people enjoy trying to use claims of being on a mission from God, or having heard from God to go a certain direction in their lives, as battering rams to silence questions about the voracity of their claims.
When Paul instructed us to PROVE ALL THINGS, people need to take notice that he said ALL things, but SOME things, or MOST things. He said we should prove ALL things.
I've long since abandoned the practice of being religiously correct in my sensibilities toward simple-minded, pseudo-spiritual accpence of what others claim about themselves in relation to God and what He has allegedly called them to do. When it doesn't line up with scriptures, then I apply copious amounts of acid testing to try and get to the very root of such claims. In most cases, the hollowness becomes abundantly clear.
So, from those texts, you assume money. Ok. I think I could agree with the possibility there was gold and silver in the spoils. However, assuming money in what Jacob vowed is suspect at best.
Where was Jacob going to leave his vow? Who was going to collect it? What assurances were there that it would be something given to God?
Additionally, when you give, do yo do so on the basis of preconditions placed upon God as Jacob had done? Picking and choosing from the examples one cites from scripture does create problems in the credibility of the claims made in relation to those example.
Therein lies one of several reasons behind why I'm forced to question people's use of various examples from the OT; examples used as alleged proof-positive items for principles not at all consistent with the entirety of the portrait painted in the passages cited.
Modern Judaism has very few elements worthy of classifying as honest when one considers they reject the very One to whom it all points.
Again, you're trying to harvest that one principle out from its organic framework, and then give it meaning in relation to something that has no parallel anywhere in scripture.
You see, without qualifying one's teaching with the constraints of biblical limitations, one ends up simply supporting the many, many lies commonly taught today and historically. That's why I'm wary when it comes to accepting something as a subjective principle, especially when it's been ripped from the context within which it was originally couched.
On top of that, the logical progression of thought drilled into our heads by churchianity is that the church organization is the proper repository for one's primary, largest portion tithe or giving. That clearly is putting the cart before the horse, given modern statistics supplied by church organizations all across the country. MOST church organizations have reported they absorb, on average, almost 87% of what they take in for internal expenditures, and use only what's left for benevolent outreaches.
As outrageous as that fact is, most people fail to see how ANTI-scriptural that is. If I were to describe what it means to rob God, THAT is it, and yet those people assume they're GIVING TO GOD.
Quite a dichotomy, huh? It's hypocrisy at its worst.
Two things:
1) How do you define giving to Jesus? Do you believe as the mainstream believers; that handing it over to institutionalized religion is synonymous with giving to God? Please define your understanding of that for us.
2) How do you know Abraham wasn't fulfilling a Law or Commandment of God? This just ocurred to me, based on Genesis 26:5. Law, Statues and Commandments of God did exist before they were codified in writing by Moses. How do you know for sure Abraham wasn't following something not yet sodified for us to see today?
Granted: Israel never did follow Abraham's exmaple of the tenth he handed over to Melchizedek. As a matter of fact, there's an instance that only 1/500th of the spoils were handed over to the priests (Levites). Obviously, had Abraham established a principle, then it would have been followed by the nation to which he seeded. Instead, Israel nowhere followed even the principle, unless one wants to argue that the percentage itself is the principle, which, again, runs aground of the error of subjectivity.
There, again, you're giving typing service to something that simply is impossible for us as believers. I have no spoils from which to hand over a percentage.
Let's explore this more deeply: When a believer finds something stolen from another, the follower of Christ Jesus returns every bit of what was found rather than to keep a tenth to hand over to someone else, be they pastor or heathen (and sometimes I can't tell the difference).
So, once again, how do you tie in to us today what Abraham did without finding yourself marooned on the rocks of subjectivity? Is it made more easy to perpetrate this level of subjectivity simply because of how innundated we've all been, throughout our lives, with the teachings of the tenth and giving the primary, largest portion to church organizations? I'd appreciate clarification.
Faith....yes. Abraham's faith was evidenced in his believing God, his obeyience to God's Law, statues and commandments, not because of he handing over to Melchizedek a portion of the spoils in order for religious men to come along centuries later and create from his actions a subjective principle.
Again, I'm speaking generally when saying that. Most people assume from teachings stemming from subjective principles about what Abraham did that the primary, largest portion should go to institutionalized religion rather than directly to needy believers and the needy in one's local community BEFORE being poured into something from which the giver reaps direct benefit.
Yes, but we're not talking about everyone else. Abraham was one of the wealthiest men around. Few men had what he had, or more.
Can you see anywhere in those passages where Abraham tithed from his own massive wealth still located up in northern Canaan?
Nope. It was only from all the spoils. His own personal wealth was still located in northern Canaan because it would never have made sense to go on a mission of war, pursuing those five kings, while dragging along all his tents, sheep, cattle, grains to feed the livestock, water, servants and their children, et al.
BTW
Upvote
0
