@ ZIK AND Ogajim what is your business where i work? Are you guys native doctors? or you work with the Nigerian police, this is nairaland get use to it. LANDLORDS OF NL.

Nuella2.0, LOL

You're being more defensive than a DB or a Linebacker for that matter, native doctors are beneath me, I am a FRIEND of Jesus Christ, what need do I have for a native doctor?

Nigerian Police, LOL , I didn't consider it 26 years ago and see no need to consider it now even if the position was that of IG, could join MPD if I wanted but that's not my thing.

I hope this answers your question "madame"


PS: It looks like a lot of Nigerian "Churches" have opened NL branch offices now, way to go NL


## Colts fans can stop crying now, "who dat" nation won it fair and square.

@ viaro
This is one of KunleOshobi Many incosistencies. This was his defence in a thread:

Stop confusing issues nobody as said it is wrong to pay tithes what we have maintained is wrong is the falsehood that pastors preach about tithes being a compulsory 10% of your income given to the church. I am sure most pastors would frown at the idea of this man giving his tithes to the needy cos in their greediness and selfishness, they want it for themselves.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-203250.0.html

ogajim:

PS: It looks like a lot of Nigerian "Churches" have opened NL branch offices now, way to go NL

You read my mind. Was about making similar comment.

mabell:

@ viaro
This is one of KunleOshobi Many incosistencies. This was his defence in a thread:

Stop confusing issues nobody as said it is wrong to pay tithes what we have maintained is wrong is the falsehood that pastors preach about tithes being a compulsory 10% of your income given to the church. I am sure most pastors would frown at the idea of this man giving his tithes to the needy cos in their greediness and selfishness, they want it for themselves

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-203250.0.html

@mabell, well. . what can I say? I had wanted to believe very much that perhaps there was a possibility that he might've been misrepresented and his readers might not have understood him. So I tried to follow several of his posts, and wasn't convinced. .  until today when he sealed it.

That said, I would not like to encourage the sad state of affairs that has resulted in this thread - and I acknowledge it is partly my fault. My apologies again. _{(there's someone around me that has thoroughly whipped me for letting down my guards at a crucial moment)}

Forgive me for indulging myself to go off topic briefly. Yesterday I referred to "semantic pedantry"; Just now reading the link posted above by mabell led me to this:

Having to go through off point verbiage on semantics or when and how to use the right verbs, pronouns, adjective, structure, definition etc, can be tiring and just makes a reader want to give up reading the thread. . .

mabell:

@ viaro
This is one of KunleOshobi Many incosistencies. This was his defence in a thread:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-203250.0.html

There is nothing inconsistent in that statement you highlighted, if you didn't study english comprehension in secondary school i suggest you go back and demand a refund as the money paid for your education is obviously a complete waste.

viaro:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-203250.0.html


@mabell, well. . what can I say? I had wanted to believe very much that perhaps there was a possibility that he might've been misrepresented and his readers might not have understood him. So I tried to follow several of his posts, and wasn't convinced. . until today when he sealed it.

That said, I would not like to encourage the sad state of affairs that has resulted in this thread - and I acknowledge it is partly my fault. My apologies again. _{(there's someone around me that has thoroughly whipped me for letting down my guards at a crucial moment)}

Aunty if your poor intellect cannot comprehend what i have written in very simple english that is your personal problem. We both know i am quite conversant with your silly antics and you would never be able to box me into a corner no matter how much you try. I debate with children like you for sport and amusement your futile attempts to always try to prove you know anything are simply hilarious. So take note your pranks and twisted way of debating would not work with me. meanwhile you are yet to answer the question of exactly what was anulled in hebrews 7:18 it wouldn't hurt to answer that question in oone simple sentence would it

KunleOshob, take my word for it. viaro is NOT pilgrim. I know the guy outside NL and not only is he male, he is not an ex-muslim. Remain the blessed of God.

Traugott:

KunleOshob, take my word for it. viaro is NOT pilgrim. I know the guy outside NL and not only is he male, he is not an ex-muslim. Remain the blessed of God.

I'm fairly confident that you are in for a surprise ---- some day.

Traugott:

KunleOshob, take my word for it. viaro is NOT pilgrim. I know the guy outside NL and not only is he male, he is not an ex-muslim. Remain the blessed of God.

Maybe heshe is a transvestite, i won't be suprised cos she certainly posts like someone with twisted values and loose morals.

KunleOshob:

Maybe heshe is a transvestite, i won't be suprised cos she certainly posts like someone with twisted values and loose morals.

That's okay - there's really no need for me to go down that route with you.

Traugott:

KunleOshob, take my word for it. viaro is NOT pilgrim. I know the guy outside NL and not only is he male, he is not an ex-muslim. Remain the blessed of God.

Don't worry about it . . you know me, and that's okay as it is. Bless up.

KunleOshob, what warrants your ad hominem attack on viaro? That was unnecessary, and the only reason Im saying the below is cos I need to make myself clear.

kunleOSHOB and Enigma, Viaro the person is known to me as viaro the poster. I dont know pilgrim, but if she exists and you insist that its the same brain, fingerprint, bone marrow and DNA; THEN i assure you that everything you know about pilgrim is false. If you can live with it and u r sure its d same person, then pilgrim is male, is not an ex-muslim, etc. This is not what I found out on NL Threads, but thats the case with my pal viaro the poster AND viaro the person. Lastly, compare pilgrim's discussions with olabowale, with viaro's with ditto. The subtle differences will glare at you.

VIARO, you rise still. And I apologize.

Traugott, I'm happy to leave things at my last statement 

Traugott:

KunleOshob, what warrants your ad hominem attack on viaro? That was unnecessary, and the only reason Im saying the below is cos I need to make myself clear.

kunleOSHOB and Enigma, Viaro the person is known to me as viaro the poster. I dont know pilgrim, but if she exists and you insist that its the same brain, fingerprint, bone marrow and DNA; THEN i assure you that everything you know about pilgrim is false. If you can live with it and u r sure its d same person, then pilgrim is male, is not an ex-muslim, etc. This is not what I found out on NL Threads, but thats the case with my pal viaro the poster AND viaro the person. Lastly, compare pilgrim's discussions with olabowale, with viaro's with ditto. The subtle differences will glare at you.

VIARO, you rise still. And I apologize.

Well don't lets derail this thread, i'd rather spend my energy showing people that tithing is a scam than try to expose viaro's true identity. I know she has made some conscious effort to disguise her true identity but it doesn't sell with me i know her too well. She is my nairaland wife now she is trying to disguise herself.  

KunleOshob:

Well don't lets derail this thread, i[b]'d rather spend my energy showing people that tithing is a scam[/b] than try to expose viaro's true identity. I know she has made some conscious effort to disguise her true identity but it doesn't sell with me i know her too well. She is my nairaland wife now she is trying to disguise herself.  

KunleOshob, you see yourself? You said you want to show that TITHING IS A SCAM? That is as unfounded as saying all Nigerian women are Italian love-peddlers and all the Nigerian guys are bloated conmen. If what you are saying is that Tithing is a scam, then there's nothing to discuss. I'd rather wear a red-feathered white cap cos Santa is coming to town.

Traugott:

KunleOshob, you see yourself? You said you want to show that TITHING IS A SCAM? That is as unfounded as saying all Nigerian women are Italian love-peddlers and all the Nigerian guys are bloated conmen. If what you are saying is that Tithing is a scam, then there's nothing to discuss. I'd rather wear a red-feathered white cap cos Santa is coming to town.

Not defending Kunle but to make a more general point: context!!!

It is true that Kunle could have been much more careful with his language . . . BUT

Readers of this and other/related threads must know know that, like me, Kunle has said there is no problem if a Christian who knows the truth chooses to tithe; also, Kunle has said repeatedly that his main concern is about the "pastors" who use the teaching of compulsory tithing in particular to 'fleece the flock' i.e. as a scam.

With this background and context, it really should be obvious that the statement "tithing is a scam" especially along with the context of the particular post in which it was made could not be intended to be absolute and/or incapable of qualification.


I make this point, again not so much as to defend Kunle, but so as to tie it to the now 'famous' "semantic pedantry" point.

Enigma, you keep talking as if Nairaland will not be there for years as long as Seun Osewa keeps renewing his domain and hosting registration. Will you be there in, say, 20 years time to explain KunleOshob's misplaced statement "Tithing is a SCAM", will you or him be there to explain the context? You speak as if WE (Viaro, Traugott, etc) should know, but don't you get it? We're not saying all of this for ourselves only, its also for the future. THAT is why we always speak carefully about matters that you refer to as irrelevant details. One who is passing information around should better do it properly or not at all, lest it deforms rather than inform.

Imagine that I never drew attention to what he just said, and someone else sees that LIE. It will lead such a one astray and he too may keep spreading the false doctrine that TITHING IS A SCAM. Can you imagine that?

Jingle bells. . .

Traugott:

Enigma, you keep talking as if Nairaland will not be there for years as long as Seun Osewa keeps renewing his domain and hosting registration. Will you be there in, say, 20 years time to explain KunleOshob's misplaced statement "Tithing is a SCAM", will you or him be there to explain the context? You speak as if WE (Viaro, Traugott, etc) should know, but don't you get it? We're not saying all of this for ourselves only, its also for the future. THAT is why we always speak carefully about matters that you refer to as irrelevant details. One who is passing information around should better do it properly or not at all, lest it deforms rather than inform.

Imagine that I never drew attention to what he just said, and someone else sees that LIE. It will lead such a one astray and he too may keep spreading the false doctrine that TITHING IS A SCAM. Can you imagine that?

Jingle bells. . .

I don't know why my posts are giving you sleepness nights, centuries ago when the catholic church was in need of extra funding and the church memebers did not have access to the bible they decided to introduce tithing to the church despite the fact that it was not part of the apostolic teachings or traditions handed down to the church, it started as obligatory and later they got bolder and made it mandatory, it even got to a point in time that it was incoporated into the laws of european Kingdoms of that time. With time and enlightenment the catholic church realized their error and recanted on the obligatory/ mandatory nature f their tithe doctrine and they then made it optional. But today amongst the new generation churches they have developed new doctrine about this false teaching and the debate is now wether it should before or after tax. the truth is that tithing as it is preached and practised today lacks sound biblical basis and it is essentially a doctrine of man being presented as the word of God so i am absolutely 100% correct when i call it a scam. I challenge anyone to show me from the bible were tithes is defined as a 10% of our regular income. I am quite aware that what is posted on the internet would be there in twenty years time, infact i was pleasantly suprised late last year when a article i had written about tithes two years earlier and posted on the internet was published in a major newspaper even without my knowledge. this is the link to the article http://www.compassnews.net/Ng/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=34919:tithing-is-unscriptural-kunle-oshobi&catid=46:sunday-compass&Itemid=698 i am truly glad that through my efforts thousands of people are being freed of this bondage of compulsary tithing being placed on them by ordinary men like themselves in the name of God. As a true christian you should be more bothered that the word of God is being twisted on a massive scale by the church that claims to represent him than worrying about someone who is exposing the fallacies and scams in their teachings. So i maintain my stand, tithing as it is preached and practised today is a scam as it lacks sound biblical basis and it was never part of the christian doctrines handed down by the apostles but only introduced by men centuries later. If any pastor wants to encourage his flock to tithe he owes it an obligation to make them know it is not a christian doctrine and they should be made to understand it is a purely discretionary choice of the tither, any teaching short of this is a 100% scam.

KunleOshob:

So i maintain my stand, tithing as it is preached and practised today is a scam as it lacks sound biblical basis and it was never part of the christian doctrines handed down by the apostles but only introduced by men centuries later. If any pastor wants to encourage his flock to tithe he owes it an obligation to make them know it is not a christian doctrine and they should be made to understand it is a purely discretionary choice of the tither, any teaching short of this is a 100% scam.

Yep, the argument has been consistent that "as it is preached and practised today", "tithing" is a false teaching. There have been several examples indicating the false teaching on this thread including those who say "you will not get to heaven" if you do not tithe. Here is one I made earlier:

The modern teaching and preaching of "tithing" is certainly wrong. If you check several other threads, I have in the past argued very strongly against it. A very short summary:

1. Tithing is not a compulsory requirement for a Christian
2. Tithing does not have any greater spiritual significance (or attached blessing) than voluntary 'grace' 'giving'.
3. Nevertheless, if a Christian knows the truth (as in 1 & 2 above) and yet chooses to "tithe", that is perfectly fine.
4. However, bear in mind that many so-called pastors and preachers who teach the compulsory "tithing" nonsense are fraudulent and, as the Bible says, their god is their belly.

I expect some would say but we have given examples of people who teach/preach it as not compulsory. Yeah right; 3 or 4 examples; when we can give thousands of examples of those who teach/preach it as compulsory; when the biggest "modern" churches certainly preach it as compulsory; when millions are put in bondage (like the guy who condemns people to hell) by the false teaching etc etc etc

As a friendly gesture to some of our friends who support tithing (including those who already know or now know that it is not compulsory) but especially to those who are not yet sure and to those who still think it is compulsory, here is another one I made earlier:

Indeed the bone of contention is that those who support "tithing" today are essentially saying, either directly or indirectly, that it is compulsory or that it is a Christian obligation. A lot of the debate would be unnecessary IF certain simple acknowledgments are made.

1. We who argue against the modern teaching of "tithing" acknowledge and accept that a Christian can voluntarily choose to "tithe" (including giving it in the form of money to a church) - preferably when s/he knows that it is not compulsory and s/he is not coerced or manipulated into doing it.

2. Those who support "tithing" today acknowledge that it is not a Christian obligation.

3. Those who support "tithing" would agree that a "tither" can choose not to give the monetary "tithe" to his/her church or to any church at all; thus

4. Those who support "tithing" would agree that every month, a "tither" can choose to give the "tithes" to charity e.g. to the poor, the orphan the widow.

5. Those who support "tithing" would acknowledge that the "tither" does not have to give/pay the "tithe" in money but that it can be in other forms including giving of food to the hungry (to take a less controversial example).

These are just some basics to keep things simple; proper scholarship can distill things into such simplicity than obfuscate issues with irrelevance.

I emphasised "proper scholarship" to say that as this is a discussion forum to exchange, learn from others even as you teach others, you don't need to be conceited, no need to show off "scholarship" quoting 'commentator this', 'commentator that', 'commentator the other' or 'eminent theologians' to get very simple points across.

Enigma:

As a friendly gesture to some of our friends who support tithing (including those who already know or now know that it is not compulsory) but especially to those who are not yet sure and to those who still think it is compulsory, here is another one I made earlier:

Some of us already know that tithing is NOT compulsory - and we have been bold to say it so many times already! Here again I have said it. BUT - Is it too much for an anti-tither to simply proclaim that 'Tithing is NOT a scam'?? Why is that difficult to say, and why it is that no anti-tither has thus far come back to make that simple statement if they are actually seeking the best interest of both themselves and others? Why the pretences all along and then coming back to make excuses from semantics to "context"?

I emphasised "proper scholarship" to say that as this is a discussion forum to exchange, learn from others even as you teach others, you don't need to be conceited, no need to show off "scholarship" quoting 'commentator this', 'commentator that', 'commentator the other' or 'eminent theologians' to get very simple points across.

Anti-tithers like yourself don't need to be conceited and then come back with grandiloquent hypocrisy about "proper scholarship" that you don't have! It were better that you don't even make such statements than to put up these doublespeak while looking the other way pretending you have no clue that your mentor has been lying up and down the street in such a conceited manner that leaves no one in doubt!

If I quote commentators, it was for the benefit of guys like you who have no "proper scholarship" because you CANNOT find one single theologian supporting the arrant nonsense you guys have been noising here and coming back to make "context" excuses for. If you want to make a statement, make it plain and simple without underhanded methods for which you have to come back apologising and changing too many times.

Traugott:

Enigma, you keep talking as if Nairaland will not be there for years as long as Seun Osewa keeps renewing his domain and hosting registration. Will you be there in, say, 20 years time to explain KunleOshob's misplaced statement "Tithing is a SCAM", will you or him be there to explain the context? You speak as if WE (Viaro, Traugott, etc) should know, but don't you get it? We're not saying all of this for ourselves only, its also for the future. THAT is why we always speak carefully about matters that you refer to as irrelevant details. One who is passing information around should better do it properly or not at all, lest it deforms rather than inform. 

Imagine that I never drew attention to what he just said, and someone else sees that LIE. It will lead such a one astray and he too may keep spreading the false doctrine that TITHING IS A SCAM. Can you imagine that? 

Jingle bells. . .

The whole thread should be there --- and perhaps 'scandalous' statements like "tithing is a scam" will encourage people to search; encourage people to look for context!!!

See one of the reasons why many Christians are easily fooled is that they don't know context or do not understand the importance of context or do not pay enough attention to context. Hence, they resort to proof-texting --- quoting a verse here or a verse there ------------- without any appreciation of context. Prominent examples are the misunderstanding, misuse and abuse of otherwise simple passages like Matthew 23:23, Malachi 3:10ff and, one for the prosperity "gospel" adherents, III John 2.

Traugott:

Imagine that I never drew attention to what he just said, and someone else sees that LIE. It will lead such a one astray and he too may keep spreading the false doctrine that TITHING IS A SCAM. Can you imagine that?

Tithing is not a scam - that much we know. But anti-tithers will make all sorts of excuses to play games and then come back with 'semantic pedantry' and now cry "context". Is it not funny that it seems only anti-tithers are the ones who fall all over themselves changing their own words every so often while waving the victims' card that nobody understands them? Why not be clear and stick to what they say?

Now supposing someone else should have said 'giving is scamming', what would these same people have said? Would they be indifferent? Are people not being scammed through messages of 'giving' as well? But we know that 'giving is NOT a scam', and those of us who know the difference take time to carefully choose our words and leave no one confused with any inconsistencies to then come back shouting 'semantics' or 'context'! Why would anyone with genuine and honest conscience be making very misleading statements and covering up with excuses repeatedly - even AFTER REPEATED corrections? Such attitudes are very suspect, and there's just no end in sight to all these games anti-tithers play.

It is not only "context" that we should be concerned about - we should also be careful about methods: and when anti-tithers are very proud of their underhanded methods of doubletalk, there sure is a serious problem somewhere.

This underhanded method is the hallmark of the anti-tither's games, and it is really laughable for Enigma to have quipped "you don't need to be conceited" but then pretend he did not notice what his mentor has been up to all along! How does he expect anyone to buy this puerile hypocrisy when it is obvious they are not seeking a genuine input on the subject? One minute they say that it is wrong for Christians to receive or give tithes; then when challenged, they turn round and say that "nobody" has ever claimed such a thing (@mabell, thanks for that link)! Is that not an OBVIOUS LIE well characteristic of the conceit that Enigma pretends not to have seen in his mentor??

It is not the believer's calling to be misleading the public with inconsistencies and manipulative doubletalk. Says the apostle Paul: "We reject all shameful deeds and underhanded methods. We don’t try to trick anyone or distort the word of God. We tell the truth before God, and all who are honest know this" (2 Cor. 4:2, NLT).

@ Traugott specifically:

Which of the following do you agree with? Which do you disagree with?

Indeed the bone of contention is that those who support "tithing" today are essentially saying, either directly or indirectly, that it is compulsory or that it is a Christian obligation. A lot of the debate would be unnecessary IF certain simple acknowledgments are made.

1. We who argue against the modern teaching of "tithing" acknowledge and accept that a Christian can voluntarily choose to "tithe" (including giving it in the form of money to a church) - preferably when s/he knows that it is not compulsory and s/he is not coerced or manipulated into doing it.

2. Those who support "tithing" today acknowledge that it is not a Christian obligation.

3. Those who support "tithing" would agree that a "tither" can choose not to give the monetary "tithe" to his/her church or to any church at all; thus

4. Those who support "tithing" would agree that every month, a "tither" can choose to give the "tithes" to charity e.g. to the poor, the orphan the widow.

5. Those who support "tithing" would acknowledge that the "tither" does not have to give/pay the "tithe" in money but that it can be in other forms including giving of food to the hungry (to take a less controversial example).

Enigma:

@ Traugott specifically:

Which of the following do you agree with? Which do you disagree with?

Stop playing games - it is dense to be pretending you're in "agreement" with what tithers have been saying and yet trying not to notice the many inconsistencies and lies rapidly spewing from anti-tithers on this forum! Those who are inclined to tithe are not the ones coming back changing statements and shouting "context" - so you should be far more concerned about the underhanded methods of your anti-tithing gang.

Just a quick question if i pay my tithe religiously every month and my job ends and I have to borrow money (which gives me a negative in come) am I free to request for 10% of what I borrow from the church ?

@ Traugott specifically:

Which of the following do you agree with? Which do you disagree with?

Indeed the bone of contention is that those who support "tithing" today are essentially saying, either directly or indirectly, that it is compulsory or that it is a Christian obligation. A lot of the debate would be unnecessary IF certain simple acknowledgments are made.

1. We who argue against the modern teaching of "tithing" acknowledge and accept that a Christian can voluntarily choose to "tithe" (including giving it in the form of money to a church) - preferably when s/he knows that it is not compulsory and s/he is not coerced or manipulated into doing it.

2. Those who support "tithing" today acknowledge that it is not a Christian obligation.

3. Those who support "tithing" would agree that a "tither" can choose not to give the monetary "tithe" to his/her church or to any church at all; thus

4. Those who support "tithing" would agree that every month, a "tither" can choose to give the "tithes" to charity e.g. to the poor, the orphan the widow.

5. Those who support "tithing" would acknowledge that the "tither" does not have to give/pay the "tithe" in money but that it can be in other forms including giving of food to the hungry (to take a less controversial example).

techie:

Just a quick question if i pay my tithe religiously every month and my job ends and I have to borrow money (which gives me a negative in come) am I free to request for 10% of what I borrow from the church ?

Eh, just a quick question, sir: who is asking you to pay tithes religiously?

techie:

Just a quick question if i pay my tithe religiously every month and my job ends and I have to borrow money (which gives me a negative in come) am I free to request for 10% of what I borrow from the church ?

techie

Obviously by religiously you mean regularly; no need for semantic pedantry on that one I would have thought.

Anyway, I suspect that your question was rhetorical!

techie:

Just a quick question if i pay my tithe religiously every month and my job ends and I have to borrow money (which gives me a negative in come) am I free to request for 10% of what I borrow from the church ?

viaro:

Eh, just a quick question, sir: who is asking you to pay tithes religiously?

It is aperfectly logical question since tithe peddlers preach compulsary 10% of positive income, if the income goes into the negative would they reverse the tithe?

KunleOshob:

It is aperfectly logical question since tithe peddlers preach compulsary 10% of positive income, if the income goes into the negative would they reverse the tithe?

Enigma: Indeed the bone of contention is that those who support "tithing" today are essentially saying, either directly or indirectly, that it is compulsory or that it is a Christian obligation. A lot of the debate would be unnecessary IF certain simple acknowledgments are made.

But. .

viaro:

Some of us already know that tithing is NOT compulsory - and we have been bold to say it so many times already! Here again I have said it. BUT - Is it too much for an anti-tither to simply proclaim that 'Tithing is NOT a scam'??

Enigma:

no need for semantic pedantry on that one I would have thought.

Anti-tithers should stop entertaining us with the hypocrisy of their 'semnatics' and shouting "context" on top of their lies.