LuftWaffle

Hi 808state, I think Believer112 answered it beautifully. It's about autonomy and pride. About wanting to be your own boss and not wanting to answer to anybody. Your initial objection was that Christianity appeals to the human ego just like every other religion, you then references the rewards spoken of in Hebrews 11:6 and Matthew 5:12. I then asked you what you believe these rewards mean, and you then responded with being at peace with God, being forgiven and eternal life with God. Have you forgotten what point you were making? I don't see how being reconciled in forgiveness, making peace and desiring to spend an eternity with the One with whom you've been reconciled could possibly be further from appealing to the ego. Hang on, where did I say that? My statement was that Christianity is unique in that salvation isn't based on fulfilling certain requirements by which the person is justified, but the other way around. Salvation is given freely and then person desires virtue. That's why I said, "Christianity is unique in this regard because it has the cause and effect reversed." I never said that the concept of salvation is unique in Christianity, but rather how the salvation works. So then the requirement is that they have to not only make the requirements, but have a certain attitude as well before they'll attain Nirvana? Why are you responding as if I said something different? My words were, "And this is the basis of your argument against the resurrection, that it could potentially be a lie? Seriously, on a scale from 1 to 10, how strong do you think that argument is?" and, "...Supposed you've been witnessed doing a crime and your entire defense is based on 4 eye-witnesses potentially lying about seeing you?" What would constitute a reliable source to you? Right, you've made up this whole 'ghosts' idea a couple of posts back, and because you've decided in your head that people saw ghosts all the time, you now claim that they're gullible for believing in these ghosts....which you made up? Can you prove that sighting of ghosts happened more at that time then say, 50 years ago? How do you know these sightings weren't real? You're just making up ad hoc speculations and throwing them on the table, which is weird since you were the one claiming earlier that you relied on logic and reason?

I do not think any organ that is present today could not have evolved. So, no matter what you find in nature, if it exists, it can be explained by mutation and natural selection? Where does that leave us concerning prediction and falsification? You've said that no existing organ cannot be explained by mutation and natural selection, so then any organ that exists can be explained. The only things then that cannot be explained are things that also do not exist. What then does evolution predict? Secondly when you say you think there isn't any organ today that could not have evolved, what do you base this on, since nobody have ever witnessed even a single organ coming about through this process? You've also stated that, " Just because scientists don't yet know how something evolved doesn't mean that it didn't.", which means that evolution is believed to have produced these organs without any knowledge of 'How'. In other words evolution is assumed a priori, based on faith.

D-9, Is there any possible organ that you can't get through mutation and natural selection?

You just summed up Karl Marx and every other madman who ever lived. The only difference is that often they were too cowardly to include themselves in their ever maddening atheistic fantasy. True.

....continued, Defining survival as a natural operation isn't really denying the fact that survival alone cannot give meaning to life. Hey, I'm impressed, but you're wrong. Appeal to consequence is the same as affirming the consequent: If P then Q Q therefore P Note though that appeals to consequence is the basis of VALID ethical arguments. However, My original argument (see post #121) regarding meaning was, "If the material world is all there is, then life ultimately has no meaning, and if it has no ultimate meaning, then it also doesn't have any immediate meaning.", which takes the form 1. If P then Q (If materialism, then ultimate meaninglessness) 2. If Q then R (If ultimate meaninglessness, then immediate meaninglessness) 3. Not R (Our immediate actions matter) 4. Therefore not Q (Therefore life isn't ultimately meaningless) 5. Therefore not P (Materialism cannot be true) Premise 1 is true because meaning cannot be derived from non-meaning. What is the meaning of a rock? However suppose we play rock, paper, scissors with an actual rock, now the rock has meaning because I have given it meaning. Premise 2 is true as illustrated by the monopoly analogy. If life is ultimately meaningless, then our individual actions are meaningless. Premise 3 is true, because I know that when you take your philosopher hat off and log off from this forum, you don't live your life as if your actions don't matter. As if your life is meaningless. If I enslaved you to build me a nice big pyramid in my garden, you'd fight against it, because you'd consider your life to be precious and devoting it to such a worthless cause would be a waste. Every fibre of you would cry against it. Conclusion 4 - modus tollens Conclusion 5 - modus tollens Our bodies are geared for survival, I'm not disputing that, but you haven't demonstrated that any of this proves that survival by itself makes life meaningful. In fact, since nothing in the end survives, doesn't that affirm what I've been saying, that life would ultimately be meaningless if life was only about survival? Suppose a mad-man follows your logic to its conclusion and says, "Since the meaning of life is to survive, and since nothing ultimately survives anyway, let's just get it over with and blow up the planet. Yeah!" *Click*....BANG! Has his actions changed ultimate meaning in any way from an atheist point of view? I'd say no. In fact, for a brief moment after the flash before the shockwave and the fire consumes him and everything else, he may even have been happy knowing that he took control of his destiny. And if he's happy, then atleast by your logic what he did was quite meaningful...for him. So now there's just smoldering chunks of the planet formerly known as earth hurtling through endless space. What would you find in the debris field? Perhaps a child's mangled tricycle can be spotted tumbling toward the empty nothing. The memory of the little child's laughter, of bruised knees, bandaids and a mother's comfort now vaporised. Perhaps a cheap silver necklace. Given to a young sweetheart by a starry eyed young lover, wishing that his job as the gas station paid better to that he could afford a diamond. Perhaps a briar pipe, which comforted an old widower as he enjoyed the aroma of cherry tobacco relaxing on his porch, thinking about the good old days, wishing his kids would visit him more often. Has anything really been lost? Is there a reason to mourn? To be a little sad? If survival is the only meaning, the only reason to be good, the only reason to love, then when nothing survives then those reasons have also been lost, right? Now that all the business of the planet is quiet, was it all for nothing?

Hi 808state, Sorry about the long post. Yes, I would. I have a question, is the truth supposed to be evident to me at this point in time? Ok, that's good. I think many for many people the biggest problem isn't that the Christian faith is untenable, but that being a Christian is unthinkable. It's about submitting, and few people want to do that, which is why so many remain 'seekers', because while you're seeking, you don't have to submit to anything. You asked whether the truth is supposed to be evident at this point in time: The Bible teaches that God is evident through creation, and I believe that atheism leads to absurdity, so yes, I think if you take your search seriously and look at the world around you, the truth will become evident to you. An persistent atheist is someone who must spent much of their day deliberately rejecting, ignoring the evidence around them. And this is the basis of your argument against the resurrection, that it could potentially be a lie? Seriously, on a scale from 1 to 10, how strong do you think that argument is? Supposed you've been witnessed doing a crime and your entire defense is based on 4 eye-witnesses potentially lying about seeing you? Your attorney will suggest a plea-bargain, no? Indeed, my argument wasn't that anything written about Jesus would be included in the Bible, but I see no reason why a corroborating 5th gospel or 6th gospel wouldn't, in which case you'll dismiss it, because it's in the Bible. I'm not going to go into detail about this late 2nd century gnostic text, for the simple reason that it doesn't deal with the truth claim of the resurrection. It's credibility is questionable, because it's pseudographical, likely written much later, in a time when none of the eye witnesses remained. Ugh, enough about these ghosts. You're pushing this cart uphill, 808state. A bodily resurrection is falsifiable, a spectral image isn't. The disciples had no expectation of a physical resurrection, and making up the story would be far too easily falsified. It's not merely God's perfection that I mentioned but the complicated concept of the trinity. God's character is also astonishingly cohesive to a point where I don't believe it's a made up character. And what would you say this reward is? No you're wrong. It is by faith that we are saved not by works. Salvation changes a person from the inside out. It's not that Christian pursues virtue in order to be saved and get to live the good life in heaven, but rather that because they've been saved, they desire virtue. That's why we speak of regeneration. It's not man being good against his will, but the regenerated man becomes a new creature, desiring goodness. It is for this reason that the Bible teaches you can judge a tree by its fruit. The evidence for salvation is a changed heart. Christianity is unique in this regard because it has the cause and effect reversed. The Muslim will claim he needs to go to heaven because he met (or atleast sincerely tried to) the requirements. The jew will claim he needs to go to heaven because he met (or atleast sincerely tried to) the requirements. the atheist will demand heaven because God didn't give him enough evidence and because atleast, he's not as bad as hitler. That really he was just a victim of being too intelligent and rational. But, the true Christian on the other hand will say, "Lord, I have broken every commandment you have given. I have not loved you as you deserve to be loved, I have been selfish all my life and didn't care much for my neighbour. I neclected the wife you gave me, watching TV instead of helping her around the house, and sometimes she'd tell me about her day and I'd pretend to listen, thinking about that boat I wanted to buy and fix up. I neglected my children, working late so often, and yelling at them when they disturbed me responding to my emails. I didn't honour my parents although they often had to go without luxuries to buy me diapers, and to pay for school, in fact for most of my life I thought they knew nothing and were ignorant. I stole, I committed adultery, I used your Name as a cussword. I lied...a lot. I lied during that one insurance claim, I lied to my friend when he needed me, when I told him I was busy, but I wasn't. I lied to my boss, telling him I was sick and couldn't come to work, when really, I was hungover from a party the previous night. So Lord, I don't deserve you, but your Son paid the price for me. It is through Him that I stand before your gate."

Fair enough. As long as you're objective about this and not merely shooting down everything we say because of a personal bias. If you're honest, and you keep searching, then I believe God will reveal Himself to you in time. Can I ask you a question? Suppose you could know the truth about God right now...would you accept it, knowing that once you've accepted it, you'll have to submit to it? Yes but potential isn't necessarily actuality. That people could potentially add fictional bits doesn't mean they did. If you're going to assert that, you'll have to prove it. The nature of any historical evidence is that it cannot be 'proven'. There isn't anything more the gospels written could have written that wouldn't be vulnerable to hyperscepticism. This is the same for all of human history. How do we know Julius Ceasar really crossed the rubicon, or that Jerusalem really fell in 70AD? The burden of proof is indeed on us, and we've provided sufficient evidence. If you're saying more extra biblical writers should have written about Jesus, then their extra-biblical accounts would have probably been added to the Bible, and then you'd reject them too for being part of the Bible. If there were a thousand corroborating gospels, then a true sceptic would expect more and reject it based in there not being ten thousand. Or it could simply be wiped off the table as, "they're probably just lying about it". Such is the nature of all historical evidence. ...consistency with what? As I said there was no expectation of the Messiah being killed as a criminal and rising from the dead. The expectation was of a conqueror who'd set up the throne of David forever. When Jesus was arrested even His closest followers denied Him. They left in disappointment, believing that it was all over. I don't understand what you're meaning. You mention consistency with the Old Testament, which you substantiate with people seeing ghosts in ancient Rome. Neither ghosts nor Rome feature much in the Old Testament. And still you haven't dealt with the primary issue here. It is much easier to convince people of a spiritual resurrection then a physical one, because a spiritual resurrection needn't leave any physical evidence behind, whereas a physical one does. Speculating about ghosts in Rome, in that a real live dead criminal would be seen in a more negative way than a spectral one is nonsensical. Which by implication involves comparison. Well, the Christian God poses serious problems if it's merely a made up entity. Most pagan gods are like humans only bigger. They have the same desires and lusts as we do, they war amongst each other and they can even be defeated under the right circumstances. The idea that people would come up with a trice Holy triune God is absurd. The Christian God is also inconvenient, because He's too powerful, too big and too pure. It's not the sort of God that people invent. The other unique and inconvenient thing about Him is that there's nothing we can do to please Him. He needed to save us for Him, whereas all other gods generally bargain with their subjects, "If you do these things, then I'll reward you with heaven or nirvana or valhalla or whatever". This is pleasing to the human ego because through the power of will and deed, you can end up in a situation where god is indebted to you. The Christian God slays the ego, by saying, "even your best deeds are like filthy rags to me, but fear not I will save you". Subjectively making your own meaning is artificial, without ultimate meaning the each individual's actions also become meaningless. The philospher J.P.Moreland uses this illustration to demonstrate the point: Suppose I invite you to play monopoly at my house. You get the first turn and you roll the dice and get a 5, and you move your token 5 spaces up. Now it's my turn, I turn the board upside down and arrange some houses in a circle and say, "your turn!". You turn the board rightside up again, giving me a glance of disapproval, you put your token back where is was, roll the dice and more your token up. My turn: I pour custard on the board and glue some of the monopoly money onto the custard. Your turn: You roll the dice, maybe buy some property. My turn: I turn on the TV and start watching something, saying "your turn" Your turn: You pass go and collect $200 My turn: I take your $200 dollars fold it into a paper hat and put it on my head. At some point you'll realise that the game is meaningless, and you'll stop playing, right? Why? Because if the game is ultimately meaningless, then your invidual actions stop mattering and there's no point in continuing. If people make their own meaning, in the absense of ultimate meaning, then life becomes pointless, and nothing really matters. Onto your next point. Survival by itself cannot be an ultimate meaning or a purpose, because then the question comes "Why must we survive?" Also living in order to survive is a rather dreary reason to keep living, not so? In fact, when people say, "I;m just surviving right now, not really living" we understand as them being down in the dumps, depressed or unhappy. Moreover it seems tautologous...surviving only to survive.

It looks like you're saying that, since the resurrection is a supernatural explanation, the evidence isn't valid because supernatural phenoma can't be verified. There are two problems with this position. First, you're confusing the evidence with the explanation of the evidence. The evidence itself isn't supernatural at all. Jesus was crucified, buried, and Mary Magdalene followed by numerous others discovered the tomb to be empty. Based on the belief that Jesus was raised from the dead Christianity spread despite serious oppression. Which of these pieces of evidence are supernatural in and of themselves? In my view and the view of many the best explanation FOR the evidence though, is the resurrection, which isn't the evidence itself but what can explain the evidence best. Secondly, if you're going to reject something because it isn't verifiable naturalistically then you're limiting your explanatory toolkit to only natural explanations. But what if Jesus really was risen from the dead? Based on this self-imposed rule of accepting only natural explanations you could never get to the truth. It's like looking for a treasure on an Island, but before you even start digging you declare a no-dig zone. What if the treasure is precisely there? You've doomed yourself never to find it. This also makes your entire position circular. You claim there's no supernatural reality based on lack of evidence, and you reject out of hand any evidence that points to the supernatural. 1. It depends on how you define 'follower'. The only disciple who actually stuck around was John. The rest scattered. One must wonder why these very disciples who ran for the hills when Jesus was captured, denying having ever known Him, ended up after the resurrection boldly proclaiming the gospel to a point where they boldly faced death for it. 2. Yes 3. I'm not sure. Again one must ask why it matters. Remember, the Bible is a collection of books and letters written by different people at different times. Rejecting a historical account of events because years later these accounts were complied in a single book we call the bible is not based on anything other than a philosophical bias against all things Biblical. For the purposes of a historical investigation into the resurrection, each account qualifies as an independent attestation of the events. There was absolutely no expectation from Jews in general of the followers of Jesus at that time that He would be executed as a criminal and that He would rise bodily from the dead. The Jews expected the Messiah to be a conqueror. When Jesus rode into Jerusalem shortly before He was crucified the jews of Jerusalem were shouting "Hoshana, Hoshana" which means liberate us. They were expecting a freedom fighter who would set up the throne of David forever. But when Jesus riding on that donkey didn't turn left to attack the Roman compound but instead right and instead chased Jews out of the temple with a whip, they hated Him and saw Him as a blasphemer. It mattered in those times. I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here. If they *needed* an excuse a far better excuse would have been to claim that Jesus' resurrection was a resurrection in a spiritual sense only. But making a bold and falsifiable claim such as a physical resurrection, is crazy if you're making up a story. I'm not going to do that. You're here, at a Christian forum and we're talking about Christian doctrine. Since you're a non-believer, there's absolutely no need for me or anybody else to debunk religions that you don't believe in anyway. You're saying what we do, but not why we do it. Why does humankind have this built-in desire to transcend? If this world is all there is, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to desire to transcend it. As beautiful and amazing as this world is, there's a sense of wrongness about it. There's a sense of wrongness about us. As if it and us are broken. You can't deny it, 808state. If you think about it, deep down I'm sure you agree. And here's something else to think about. If the material world is all there is, then life ultimately has no meaning, and if it has no ultimate meaning, then it also doesn't have any immediate meaning. Now, I know what you're going to say, because you've already said it, "We just have to make the best of the time we have and enjoy the time we have". But that's artificial meaning isn't it?

Yes, but you're not even considering the evidence provided, and hence I believe that maybe you're unreasonably committed to atheism. Take for instance how you've handled the evidence for the resurrection which shiloh357 provided. Shiloh: "The disciples could have been easily debunked by the enemies of Jesus simply producing the body." 808state: "Again, we don't know much about Jesus outside of the Bible. It could be that Jesus did not get himself a nice new tomb like it says in the Bible, but was thrown in the town garbage dump, which was typically where the executed were "laid to rest" in Ancient Rome." Your starting position is that the eyewitnesses are merely lying. That's not "considering evidence", instead that's attempting to create an evidentiary void. Is there any evidence that the eyewitnesses were lying? No. There isn't a single bit of historical evidence stating that Christ's burial location was controversial, or that they authors of the Bible were simply making up stories. But again you're attempting to stack the odds in favour by rejecting out of hand most of the evidence "...because it's in the Bible". What you're doing is saying you want evidence for the resurrection, but the Bible doesn't count, knowing that most of what we know is written in the Bible and therefore you're arbitrarily sweeping evidence off the table before looking at it. As I said, that's not considering evidence, but creating an evidentiary void. This is the equivalent of calling an accused to trial and ruling (artitrarily) that the defense's evidence isn't admissable. A judge making such a ruling would rightly be called 'unreasonable', not so? So, by dismissing out of hand most of the evidence, and then claiming that you go where the evidence leads and that "there's not enough evidence" your objection becomes circular. And the idea that Jesus was thrown on a garbage dump and that the Jews couldn't retrieve the body because it would make them unclean? That's no a reasonable answer either. The Jews had the Romans do their dirty work for them in killing Jesus in the first place. It is unreasonable to assert that somehow they wouldn't be able to find a Roman to also retrieve the body. Especially since Jesus and his followers were both a threat to the Romans as well as the Sanhedrin and the new threat of Christianity could have been stopped in its tracks right there and then, by simply producing that body. Are you saying their hands were tied because they found no-one to retrieve that body, from the rubbish dump. The rubbish dump that you've invented that is, since there's no evidence that Jesus was thrown on any rubbish dump. The thing is as well, if the resurrection was made up by the disciples, why on earth would they fabricate a bodily resurrection? Something that could be so easily debunked. A spiritual resurrection would be unverifiable and therefore a much easier sell. Why did they have women discovering the empty tomb, considering that female testimony wasn't admissable as evidence in those days. A made up story would have had men discovering the tomb, but the inconvenient fact that is was claimed that women discovered it, is most likely so because it's the truth. We cannot speak for other religions, and the atheist tactic of constantly bring into religions into the discussion is non sequitur. You cannot argue against the geniune article from the existence of imitations. But what other religions do show is that, throughout history, mankind has sought to transcend this world. If this world really is all there is, then this behavior makes very little sense. Would you crave chocolate if no such thing as chocolate existed? Likewise the very fact that people intrinsically yearn for transcendence is good evidence that there is more to life than the mere material world. Where does mankind get this notion that this world is all wrong and that there is something better out there?

Hi there 808state, I've been reading through the past couple of posts on this thread, and I guess I can understand why some may have doubts about your intentions. I myself am a little troubled because what you're requiring of Christianity is impossible. You want proof of the existence of God and you want proof of the claims of scripture, but it's a logical impossibility. I've noticed that you've mentioned your reliance upon logic in some posts, and I find it odd that while claiming to rely on logic, you've taken such an illogical position. What do I mean? The only things that can be proven are logical truths and mathematical truths. Since God or the resurrection are neither, neither can be proven deductively. At best you'll receive reasonable evidence and logical arguments for the existence of God and the resurrection, but when you adobt a hypersceptical position, such as you have, then none of these evidences will stand. These evidences are reasonable and as such are only valid if considered reasonably. Let me show you what I mean. Can you prove that Benjamin Franklin ever existed? If I put on a hypersceptical hat, I can smash each argument you can think to provide into the ground. Benjamin Franklin never existed, the historical evidence is all made up. A giant conspiracy. Those who may have known him were liars. What about apples? Can you prove to me that apples exist? You won't be able to. You can show me a picture of an apple and I'll say, "That's a photoshop job". You can feed me an apple and I'll say, "it's styrofoam and plastic, made to look and taste like, whatever an apple is supposed to look and taste like". You can take me to an apple tree, and I'll say it's an apple shaped pear tree. You can get a scientist to analyse an apple using a mass-spectrometer, and I'll claim he's just in on the act. The philosopher Rene Descartes coined the phrase, "I think therefore I am". This was during the era of rationalism, and what he did was to start by doubting everything. He became hypersceptical and by following through on this idea the only thing that he could prove was the fact that he was doubting. And by doubting he knew that he was thinking, because doubting is a type of thinking, and by thinking he knew that he existed. I think, therefore I am. So he knew that he existed. That's it. So if you're going to play the hypersceptic, you can deny everything, and you'll be left with only yourself. Your family...do they exist? Surely you can't prove that, maybe you were born in a testtube and strangers were assigned to be your family, like in the Truman show. But do these strangers even exist? Maybe reality is just a computer program? A matrix. Do your hands and feet exist? Perhaps they're just the renderings of an advanced bit of software, or perhaps even a dream created by your own mind, yes? Have you seen the movie inception? How do you prove that reality isn't just a dream within a dream within a dream? Do you see where I'm going with this? You don't live your life in a hypersceptic fashion, yet you've adobted this position seemingly uniquely in regard to Christianity. It's no great feat what you're doing, because anyone can, and Descartes beat you to it. It's possible to be hypersceptical about most things in life. So the big question is why? Why claim that you rely on logic when you should know that logically virtually nothing can be illuminated bright enough for the ever blind, ever averted eyes of hyperscepticism to behold? I'm my mind there are only two reasons why you could be doing this: 1. You really really don't want God to be real, so you've loaded the dice. Your requirement for belief is one that cannot be met. You require deductive proof of something which cannot be proven by deduction. OR 2. You weren't aware of this fact, which is odd since you claim to rely on logic, which is precisely the thing you're defying by approaching the topic this way. All we can offer you are reasonable arguments. We cannot offer proofs. Yes, it's possible that the disciples were the finest liars ever. That none of the authorities bothered to parade Jesus' body down the streets to solve the problem of this new menace called Christianity. It's possible that they just never thought of producing the body, making them the stupidest people ever. It's possible that it's all an elaborate lie, and that the innumerable Christians were burnt at Ceasar's garden parties suffered and died in vain. It's possible that every Christian today who attests of having a relationship with God is merely deluded, that's it's all a placebo. It's possible that reality is just a dream. That your hands and feet are mere renderings. A dream within a dream within a dream. But is it reasonable? Requiring the impossible is unreasonable by definition, isn't it? You needn't answer this question on the open forum, but think about this: Are you being reasonable about this? If you believe you are, which I'm sure you do, then the following question would be, "Are you consistent?" Do you require deductive proof that your car's brakes will work before you drive? Do you require inductive proof that your eyes aren't lying to you when you cross the road? "But my brakes have never failed me", you say, will will they fail this time?

Hi 808State, I couldn't help but notice that you've mentioned a couple of reasons why Christianity would be appealing, but have you thought about the unifying concept within all these? They're all... a little self-centred, wouldn't you say? See how many times you've used the word 'give'? But the greatest of all you've missed, and that's something that is almost always the case. It's been said, and I believe this is true, that everybody wants to go to heaven, they just don't want God to be there when they get there. And yet heaven is heaven because God is there, but He is seldomly the reason why people want to go to heaven. Interesting, isn't it? Wouldn't you say that atleast in this regard, it makes sense when the Bible says that we are at enmity with God? Wouldn't it be great to meet God? Yet we're generally focussed on ourselves. We truly are enemies of God, and even though you may not have realised it, what you've said demonstrates it. Think about it though, besides seeing your loved ones, and spending time in a great location, wouldn't it all pale in comparison with meeting the Being who created this wonderful universe, and gave you life? ...Gave your loved ones life? And speaking of gifts, again, a far greater gift than giving meaning to life and having a path to follow, is the price that Jesus paid to save His enemies. God becoming man and carrying the guilt of a mankind who wants His heaven, but doesn't want His presence. Nobody likes hearing that they need salvation. It's an affront, but when one truly looks at oneself, and compares oneself to Jesus, the gift of salvation becomes something almost incredible. I've gone from thinking that I didn't need salvation and being offended by the idea, to being unable to fathom, even believe, that God could really love one such as me. That He really bought my freedom. That's the amazing thing about the gospel. I thought I'd share this with you, perhaps it'll be meaningful to you in a small way or atleast offer some food for thought.

Hi Butero, What you wrote is a good, honest, mature and Christian approach to the issue and I agree with what you said. Thanks.

You are quite welcome. I am a dry and wordy writer, I won't feel bad if you cannot make it through, lol. I'm also busy reading through it. Thank for for taking the trouble to put together such a thorough study of the topic.

Well this goes beyond what I am contending about. Most leaders who preach tithes and offerings, are godly men, and I am not trying to sling mud at any of them...in actual fact I thank G-d for many of them and their ministries and from what I have personally learnt and benefitted from what they have taught. It is wrong to try and unite brethren against people, be they leaders in the Body or co-workers...we are all in this together, and should strive to keep the bond of unity. So I distance myself from these comments...my sole pre-occupation in this thread has been to have dialogue/argument/interaction with those that hold to the current teachings on tithes and offerings, not to provide a spring-board to any that want to slander their brothers and sisters....I have wanted to put to the test the conclusions I have come to, and to see if they hold water, fully prepared to reconsider if persuaded by Scripture. I can understand thewordofgod's feelings. Once a person realises what goes on in many churches today, it is upsetting and it does anger a person that often times God's word is exploited for selfish reasons, especially when one witnesses or hears about the victimisation that happens in many many churches. Having said that, I also agree with you, Bots, that one shouldn't lose sight of the fact that no man is perfect and no church is perfect. There are many good churches that teach tithing and for many of them it isn't about the money. Modern tithing is somewhat of a tradition in many churches and even though there's no scriptural foundation for it, it is accepted widely. There is a difference between somebody who upholds a tradition, however errorneous the tradition may be, with noble intentions and somebody who exploits that tradition in order to gain wealth and power and glory for themselves. It is unfair and quite unreasonable to claim that all church leaders are fleecing their congregations, in the same way as it is unfair and unreasonable to make the a priori assumption that all Christians that are opposed to the modern doctrine of tithing are merely looking for excuses because they're greedy.

Wow, Steven. Pulling out all the stops now, I see.

Hi Walla299, Indeed, I've learnt long ago that tithing is something that you just shouldn't ask questions about. It is very rare that a pastor will engage in dialogue regarding this issue, which strikes me as odd, because if I were to ask questions about another doctrine such as baptism or communion, for instance, a pastor will go to great lengths to explain it scripturally, but ask about tithing and you hit a brick wall. Once the common proofs (Mal 3:10) have been parroted and refuted the only recourse is to walk away, usually with some dismissive remark/innuendo about the questioner's character. ...but then again the tendency of church leadership to avoid this issue isn't that odd at all, it simply demonstrates that tithing cannot stand up to scrunity. It's a manmade doctrine which many pastors rabidly cling to, and they simply will not tolerate or entertain any thing that may threaten the status quo. The way is issue is dealt with is to ignore it and hope it'll go away and sometimes to badmouth and condemn those opposed to tithing incase congregation members start giving ear to the objections and stop paying. It really has become somewhat of a cult mentality. I do agree that not all churches are like this which is a relief. Blessings.

Reality does not exist with that which passes away... The True Life, The True Way, The Truth does not pass away but remains a reality for all eternities Do you understand this verse? Matt 13:12 12 For whoever has, to him more will be given, and he will have abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. NKJV Much of what I have replied to you is Spiritual heart attitude toward this world and its heart beat "money"! The above verse speaks of not having and yet in that not having state what something remains to be taken away. You seem to be a man who battles for the hard fast rules of law or standards in which to live by formed in your mind by a logic that you rely upon! There is freedom set forth in Grace by the Holy Spirit so that we are in the world but not of it. In this freedom one can be blown about by The Wind of God doing the things of God and be gaining that which he cannot loose so that the abundance spoken of above is as all things of God eternal and pure... even our own bodies will shrink back for the fear of suffering and then we who are of Spirit must remember this Matt 10:28-29 28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. NKJV It is why He reacts to those who turn back in this manner Heb 10:37-38 37 "For yet a little while, And He who is coming will come and will not tarry. 38 Now the just shall live by faith; But if anyone draws back, My soul has no pleasure in him." NKJV and again Luke 9:62 62 But Jesus said to him, "No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." NKJV Do not allow friend those who try to persuade you to focus upon the world and the the things in it for the serpent was more subtle than all else except Our Lord. For the obedience of God is no idols which defined is all that is created of God put before God at any time... So these who have placed monies as important enough as to say God wants it will answer as well to His Holy Word Christ Jesus... but for yourself realize the frailty of the short while it is given and place only that much concern for it and the rest of you give to God and be the plowman that looks ahead Isa 55:1-3 55 "Ho! Everyone who thirsts,Come to the waters;And you who have no money,Come, buy and eat.Yes, come, buy wine and milkWithout money and without price. 2 Why do you spend money for what is not bread,And your wages for what does not satisfy?Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good,And let your soul delight itself in abundance. 3 Incline your ear, and come to Me.Hear, and your soul shall live;And I will make an everlasting covenant with you NKJV The right to purchase sustenance in the eternal Kingdom of our Lord without monies is what Ananias and Sapphira could not understand... but into His hands they now are! Love Steven Hi Steven, The beauty of the Christian gospel is that satisfies and fills the body, the mind and the soul. Christianity doesn't require that we abandon reason or logic. God is the God of order. He is the Logos, He is love and moreover He is Holy. Spirituality isn't the opposite of logic, because logic is the study of truth. Spirituality without truth is a false spirituality. Keep on tithing if you want to, but you know, and I know that you know why you've been trying to talk about everything but the topic at hand. I see what you're doing, you're trying desperately to create the impression that my opposition to tithing stems from worldliness or greed or whatever. It's easier thinking there's something wrong with me, then it is admitting that you're wrong. You've made up your mind and you're pushing this cart uphill. Think whatever pleases you about me, you're not even getting close to how evil and vile I really am. Thank goodness though that the truth isn't contingent upon my virtue... I Leave you to your games, dear friend, because I have no interest in talking about myself. When you want to talk about the topic at hand, I'll be here. God bless.

Yeah, the name's LuftWaffle von Icecream-und-Maple-syrup-stein-berger and I am highly offended Hey, no worries I'm open to comments on the text, but I would say though that if you look at post-pentacostal evangelism is precisely in line with Jesus' instruction in Math 10. They did preach the kingdom of God, they did heal the sick and cast out demons. In terms of not providing for themselves Paul states that he didn't draw a salary from the churches he planted but instead made tents to cover his necessities. Act 20:33 I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel. Act 20:34 Yea, ye yourselves know, that these hands have ministered unto my necessities, and to them that were with me. So even if it was only a once-off instruction, it seems the apostles stuck to it. Well, this is the key issue. Where exactly are gentile Christians under the new covenant instructed to pay tithes in the form of money to churches? See, the problem here isn't in the church getting funding, but how it gets it. When you think of the word tithing, I imagine you see it as giving a minimum of ten percent of your gross income to the church to support the running of the church, right? Now suppose I arrive at your church one day with some sheep and goats and perhaps even some strong drink. And I slaughter these animals and barbeque them and have an enormous party, inviting lots of poor people to join in and feast on all the great stuff. And you come to me saying, "Man, what the heck are you doing? This is a church!!!!" and I say, "God looked after me this year and we're having a party honouring him for His providence." You'd think I'm a little nutty, right? But in actual fact this very thing that I'm doing is something you hear in churches all over, but it's changed so much that people won't even recognise it when they see it. That big party is actually the biblical tithe. I have posted Deut 14 in an earlier post, where God defines the Biblical tithe, and what I've described here is pretty close to the real thing. Problem is, people won't recognise it as tithing, because people have been given a new definition of tithing which isn't commanded anywhere in scripture. It's all about definitions. The problem isn't the church getting support (see Declaration G - Post #76)....hehe. The problem is using the word 'tithe' to justify mandatory donations which is an equivocation. Let me give you an example of what I mean: Suppose I put up an online store where I sell the latest BlackBerry ™ for a discounted price of $100. The credit card orders come rolling in because, let's face it, that's pretty cheap for a high-end smartphone, right? But then what do I deliver to my customers? This: The latest blackberry....handpicked this morning. What happened, here? An equivocation: In once sense I'm using the word BlackBerry in reference to a mobile phone, but then subtly switch the definition to the blackberry fruit for my own benefit. Which means my customers got royally conned paying $100 for a fruit. Now, how does this relate to tithing? The Bible defines tithing as in Deut 14. The church defines tithing as something totally different, but uses verses like Malachi 3:10, Matthew 23 etc. to defend the switched definition of tithing. People believe they're obeying a command God gave, but in fact they're obeying a new manmade command that happens to have the same name. I hope this puts my position into perspective. God bless

The following is the biblical tithe defined. This particular section of scripture is very seldomly preached on nowadays especially during sermons on tithing. I'd like to post it here, so that it can be seen. Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year. And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always. And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee: Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose: And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household, And the Levite that is within thy gates; thou shalt not forsake him; for he hath no part nor inheritance with thee. At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates: And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest. (Deu 14:22-29)

Hi Steven, Thank you for the response. This says nothing about giving a monetary tithe to the local church. In fact, I believe this verse goes against modern tithing for often times tithing is taught as follows, "Your tithe must go to the church first and foremost, thereafter if you want to give to charity or missions you can give them an offering, but only after you've tithed." If you like I can post video clips of this very thing being taught. This very teaching isn't scripturally sound and it goes against the verses that you've posted. God clearly assosiates with the poor, the destitute, the orphan and the widow. These are the very people who are neglected with modern tithing teaching. I'd also like to add that Matthew 25:37-46 cannot possibly be a reapplication of the biblical tithe, because as per Deut 14 the biblical tithe wasn't primarily about charity. Granted it has a big charity aspect, but primarily tithing formed part of the festival of booths and as such is feast in thanksgiving for God's providence. If your brother and pastor does not speak of the tithe but allows people to give, then I have a great deal of respect for him. Unfortunately such pastors are becoming fewer and fewer. Irrelevant ad hominem and quite interesting actually considering that most churches who place emphasis on tithing, offer 'financial blessings' as an incentive. Here's a fine example: http://www.tithing.org/ This website is nothing but the logical end of modern tithing preaching. God suddenly is reduced from being the sovereign and thrice Holy Lord of the universe, to a business partner, who can be bought in order to 'Get what you want'. The doctrine ends up with God being endebted to man instead of the other way around, because people tithe and expect the blessings that they're owed because the preacher twisted the biblical tithe into a modern investment scheme. Members tithe, the pastor (acting as broker) takes his cut, and long term returns are expected. Not all churches are this bad, but the only thing seperating them is how far they push this modern doctrine. Reading the success stories on tithing.org is even more telling http://www.tithing.o...ing_stories.php The unifying principle in all those posts is money. Not God's holiness, not His grace, but how well tithing worked. Here's another example: http://www.worldtocome.org/Tithing The subheading to the webpage actually says, "Tithing in the New Testament will Bring Financial Security! " I actually had a discussion with a pastor on this issue a while back and was shocked by what this pastor said to me. He claimed that poverty is a sign of a lack of faith and that he has no sympathy with poor Christians. "They bring it on themselves because they don't tithe". Here's another example that implies the same thing http://www.essortmen...ithing_rayf.htm "Obedience opens up opportunities for God to bless us. Just as a responsible parent would not reward a disobedient child, God cannot reward us when we do not obey Him. If you are struggling financially, it could be a result of financial disobedience. This is not the only reason we experience financial difficulty, certainly, but it can be one reason." Notice the implications of the above statement: It paints a picture of God who desperately wants to help you, but unfortunately He can't because you're behind on your payments. Also it states that financial problems may be caused by financial disobedience, in otherwords, your financial problems go away if you start tithing and if you're poor, it's your own fault. Here's another http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/11/tithing/ He describes the first benefit of tithing as, "Overcoming scarcity thinking. Tithing helps you develop a greater sense of abundance. By giving away 10% of your income, you’re programming your subconscious to believe in abundance thinking. This can make you more open and receptive to receiving money. If you think abundance, you’re more likely to experience abundance." So I don't think the common tactic of accusing those opposed to this modern doctrine of being 'protective of worldly things' actually squares with reality.

I'd really like it if we can get back to the key topic of this thread which is the validity of the doctrine of modern tithing. Thus far many strawman arguments and caricatures have been constructed regarding the opposition so for the sake of clarity I'd like to reaffirm the my position. Tithing as taught today can be refuted in two ways: a) Christians under the new covenant aren't under the law. b) Tithing as it is taught today isn't even in the Bible at all. I have focussed primarily on the second approach. One need only to make a comparison between what is taught in churches today, with how God defined tithing in Deut 14 to see that apart from the name, these are two entirely seperate things, yet when tithing is taught, verses referencing the biblical tithe is used to support the modern version. This is a classic fallacy of equivocation which makes it an unreasonable and wrong thing to do. Also, tithing isn't interchangeable with giving: The bible distinguishes between gifts and tithes, even pastors who preach tithing, make the distinction, so calling tithing 'giving' and then offering verses about giving or charity aren't valid responses. What I'd like to know is where God commanded modern tithing or where the church got the authority to modify biblical tithing into what is being taught nowadays. Further (and by the way, I think it's sad that I have to do this) as a catch-all for future attempts at misrepresenting the arguments I would like to declare the following and will from now on refer back to these as declaration A through H to prevent further detraction: A) I'm not arguing against giving in general B) I'm not arguing against people worshipping God C) I'm not arguing against pastors earning an honest living D) I'm not arguing against churches or pastors or christian institutions in general E) I'm not arguing against spreading the gospel F) I'm not arguing against people supporting or assisting the church in general G) I'm not arguing against pastors or churches being supported or assisted by their congregations as long as they're honest about it. H) I'm not arguing against the scriptural notion that God owns all of creation and that all is His This is a great and important topic and I'm greatful for everybody's contributions and on the whole, an excellent thread.

"Waffle"...I like that...very clever I agree. Did I give the impression that I don't believe the church is a God ordained vehicle to spread the gospel? But being the vehicle for spreading the gospel surely doesn't give the church the authority to take tithes on God's behalf? Wow, I don't recall saying that the Holy spirit abolishes the need to support pastors. What I wrote in regard to giving is: "I generally advise that Christians follow the lead of the Holy Spirit and if the Holy spirit says, "The pastor needs your help" then you give all you can...." - Post #64 I wonder, whether teaching manmade laws to cover the running expenses of a modern megachurch is what the author had in mind when he wrote, "A man who doesn't look after his family is worse than an unbeliever" This discussion as far as I understand is supposed to be about the doctrine of modern tithing and it's validity, not about whether it's effective in keeping churches open. I have no doubt that tithing is effective in making churches wealthy, the wealthiest churches in the world afterall, are also the ones that place the most emphasis on tithing. Scripture please? Friend, honestly have you read what I posted at all? I don't have an issue with supporting God's work, neither do I have a problem with pastors earning a living. What I do have an issue with is taking an old testament law, and modifying it entirely so that the only similarity with the original is the name 'tithing' and then teaching it as a God given law and enforcing this new law using scripture references to the original meaning coupled with threats about robbing God, appeals to emotion, anecdotal evidence and promises of financial blessings. If a church needs money, why not just ask for it? Why play tricks? If a church struggles and asks for help and the congregation is too self-centred and stingy to assist, then perhaps the pastor hasn't been preaching the gospel enough, not so? This is really what I think it boils down to: pastors nowadays don't really trust their congregations, which in turn reflects on their trust for God's providence, why else would they do this? Mat 10:7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Mat 10:8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. Mat 10:9 Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, Mat 10:10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat. God bless

Hi Steven, I'm not entirely sure what you're asking me, here though I don't believe that gentile Christians should be keeping the ~630 Laws and statutes of the old testament. The bible teaches that the entire Law hinges upon loving God with all one's heart, mind and soul and loving your neighbour as yourself. That is the Christian law and when a man comes to God and is regenerated, then this is what is written upon the heart. The problem nowadays is that the law written on people's hearts urge people to aid missionaries, but the church demands her 10% first. People want to feed their families, but the church want's her 10% first. People are called to assist the needy, but they can only do so once the church got her piece of the pie. Thankfully not all churches are like this, but I see more and more. No wonder Sam Pascoe wrote, "Christianity started out in Palestine as a fellowship; it moved to Greece and became a philosophy; it moved to Italy and became an institution; it moved to Europe and became a culture; it came to America and became an enterprise" If you believe we should be keeping the Old Testament law rigidly, then as I said before tithing as defined in the law is violated by the modern tithing teaching. Also how do we choose which laws to keep and which to discard? The very churches teaching tithing still sell books, CD's and DVD on the sabbath. People still wear clothing made of mixed fabric: Deu 22:11 Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together. So, let me ask you the same question: Which statutes are we to keep? You needn't call me 'sir' Steven. I'm just some guy. Why is it that tithers, when they cannot answer questions they start telling you what great Christians they are? Is this not precisely what you're doing now? Suddenly you've put on this, "I'm just a humble servant of the Lord and I just want to please the Lord" hat. Friend, why play these games? Why the sudden shift in your approach to this topic? Which is the real Steven, the one whom I reasoned with in earlier posts, or the new servile Steven who calls me 'sir'. Why the sudden shift in the style of your posts? You may think that I'm a hard man, and perhaps you're be right, but I see this all the time. Friend, please I beg you, why won't you just answer simple questions. Are asking direct questions unreasonable? Have I not been clear in my posts? Or is there a small chance that could it perhaps be ego, dear friend? You've invested so much into a man made law and you will not accept that you've been tricked. You cannot walk away from the topic because that will be seen as defeat, but you have no answers. God never gave the gentile church the authority to take tithes, did He? It's not in scripture, but you've been keeping this Law, and you feel justified...proud of yourself that you've done good, that you're a good servant. You know you're not perfect, but atleast tithing makes you better than some. You've shown God that you're devoted and now you've climbed a notch. That's the pitfall of justification by law isn't it? Pride. I could be very wrong and most likely you'll say that I am, so no need to answer me regarding this. I'm just speculating based on what I know about human nature. Either way, I have mentioned that your church probably distinguishes between tithes and offerings, can you confirm this? Let me sketch what I see happening regarding tithing this way. Suppose I walk down the street. I see a man in a suit and I grab him, drag him into an alley and tell him that if he doesn't give me his mobile phone, his wallet and his watch I'm going to kill him... He turned to me in fear and asks, "Why are you doing this?" And I respond, "The bible teaches us that we shouldn't love worldly things. That all things belong to God and that we should give it to God. I'll also tell him that I need the money to continue feeding my family." What would you say if you were in that position? Would you ask me where the Bible gave me the authority to demand things from people in the name of God? Would you argue that although feeding my family is a good end, my means of acquiring help are wrong? Would you argue that when Jesus said we should love worldy things doesn't mean that we should simply hand it over when anybody deems it right to simply take it in the Name of God? Here's what the church does. They say give to God because all things belong to Him. But then they stick out their hand to take it. Where did God authorise the church to take money on God's behalf? If somebody like me, ask questions we are told that the New Testament teaches giving, something I agree with, but where does the Bible say that we must give a minimum to the church? Christian generosity cannot be used to justify anybody or any entity simply taking from people and calling it "an act of worship". It's exactly the same as robbing people because the Bible says people should be generous and not cling to worldly things. Thirdly the ends do not justify the means. Churches cannot invent a law and manipulate and coerce because, "How else will the church survive?" The only thing a person needs to do nowadays to get your hands on ten percent of Christians often hard earned money, is to start a church. Tell me that I'm wrong! Is there any other criteria? No. Is there any biblical justification? No! So think about this, I come to your house and I demand that you pay me tithes of 10% of your salary before your pay any expenses, because I'm spreading the word of God on the internet. What would you say? If you say, "No Luft, you're not a registered church" then I'd say to you, "Where does the Bible say registered churches should get ten percent? What makes me different from the Pastor?" If you say, "What authority do you have to demand this of me" then I'll say, "The bible says you must be generous... So give it up." If you say, "Yeah but churches do the work of God" then I'll say, "So do I. I'm going to use your money to expand my little business." If you say, "What about my family, I can't afford to just give you money every month", then I'll say, "You have so little faith. Does God not say that you should test him that he'll bless you? And if He blesses you then I'll also get more money from you. If he doesn't bless you and you end up broke, then you probably didn't have enough faith...naughty Steven!" If you say, "What if I refuse to pay you?", then I'll say, "Well then you're robbing God. Then you're showing that you're a greedy materialist who has no faith and aren't really very devoted to God." If you say, "You have no right to do this", then I'll say, "Yes I have, the Bible says all things belong to God anyway, so give it up." Then you say, "YEAH, BUT YOU'RE NOT GOD...You....You're a thief. An extortionist!" I think you get the picture. Please answer me, why is the pastor justified in doing this, but another individual isn't? What is the piece of information that I'm unaware of that makes the one right and the other wrong? Please, if I am to tithe I want to know, lest I spend the rest of my life fighting against something that I shouldn't be.

Dave, Off-topic question: What is the Men's lounge about? Blessings LW

Hi Botz, No you haven't misrepresented me at all. Thank you for summarising so eloquently what I've been trying to bring across. I appreciate it greatly. God bless.