Posted on 09/26/2014 7:35:23 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Attacking the messenger vis-à-vis ad hominem.
So reverse tithing which this church is engaging in - a form of it instructed in Deuteronomy 26:12 (these people were widows and poor people talked about in Deut. 26:12) probably did not give tithes in the first place - is displeasing to the Lord? Hardly...
What does Marx have to do with this thread?
What this pastor and church have done isn’t Marxism anymore than the Bible saying that a giving of the tithe in Deuteronomy 26:12 to the poor and widow every three years was Marxism.
Pastors and staff of churches that believe in tithing may not like reverse tithing (Deut. 26:12 was a form of it) but the Bible teaches it - so those who support and believe in tithing must also support reverse tithing, too, or be branded a hypocrite.
BTW, your talking of giving alms in secret was dealt with in the scriptures concerning those who were haughty and purposefully wanted to be seen of men: your extrapolation of this to mean all giving (be it alms or tithes) is an eisegetical reading of the scriptures. In the end, reverse tithing isn’t same as the giving of alms, as they are two different things per Deut. 26:12.
Reverse tithing falls under Deut. 26:12, and thus falls under ALL tithing covered in other places in Deuteronomy. If reverse tithing can be looked into by the IRS, then I guess the IRS will have to check out tithing, too. What do you think will come of the IRS looking into tithing for all churches, much less reverse tithing?
You mean like the “decided to give back $10 percent of the $1.6 million”? Yea, that stuff gets to me too.
Do all churches tell exactly where every single dollar, dime and penny is spent, be it an exact amount for lighting, electric, food costs, be it for the, say, $80 dollars allocated to the church staff budget to fill up the church mini van for the staff going to the church convention, or for the ten dollars allocated within the staff budget spent to buy snacks for the staff going to a convention?
The story about Lazarus was meant to show that while it isn’t wrong to be rich, it is wrong for anyone to be indifferent, as the rich man was to Lazarus and his plight.
Francis has been accused of being a Marxist here at FR, and yet Deut. 26:12 does not teach Marxism, but it does teach reverse tithing which this church engaged in, so your knee-jerk reaction was quite unnecessary. ;)
If I remember correctly, my response was geared to someone who appeared to think he was entitled to pass judgment on the giving of another. I vehemently disagree that we have any right whatsoever to pass judgment on what or how another person does for the poor.
What does Marx have to do with this? Was it not Marx who taught that the state could and should determine how much an individual should contribute to the “general welfare”? “From each, according to his means”? If you look carefully, you will find Marxist teachings everywhere in the current teachings of some churches.
I certainly hope you forgot your </sarc> tag...
Can you please provide a link, so that the context of what she has said (according to you) can be viewed by all, and thus a proper understanding can be achieved. This will eliminate any chance of you providing a mischaracterization of what she “said.”
I wouldn’t know everything that Beck likes or does not like. Perhaps you do?
BTW, damnable heresy is covered under Matthew 5:19:
In this passage we can see that not all that is falsely taught will exclude a person from the Kingdom of Heaven. Even Jesus Himself (here in this passage) said that some who break commandments and teach others to do so will make it to heaven - but will be called least there in heaven.
Tell who, exactly?
My mistake then in wrongly assessing that there was a specific angle you were coming from:
As one can see on this thread, there seems to be the repeated linking to Marxism, Pope Francis and on and on here and at other threads dealing with giving to the poor, the duty of the church and so on.
While Marxist teaching certainly has become pervasive within the teachings of some churches, we cannot engage in a broad brush stroking of this - and I am not saying that you did this, btw.
Deuteronomy 26:12 teaches the giving back of the tithe (reverse tithing) to the poor and widows every three years. In the end, the scriptures teach reverse tithing, but the scriptures do not teach Marxism.
Deuteronomy 26:12 (and tithing, etc.) is part of the Old Covenant, the Law of Moses. That covenant is no longer in effect.
In the New Covenant, God has given instructions to His church as to how it is to spend its money. (In 1 Timothy 5, for instance.)
So although we may come up with an idea that sounds great to us, God’s ideas are better. And it’s important is for us to obey Him.
Context. Mm-hm.
"According to me?" Why, you wouldn't be implying I'm lying...certainly not. That would be edging into "ad hom" territory.
"can be viewed by all, and thus a proper understanding can be achieved."
Do you think you're the only person here who can read?
That sounds more than a little arrogant. Just so you know.
" This will eliminate any chance of you providing a mischaracterization of what she “said.”""
Yes, it seems you have questions about my honesty.
Why is that?
Do you assume untruthfulness from Freepers because they voice an opinion you dislike? I hope not.
In fact, I've seen threads where you specifically requested that folks refrain from posting ad hominems. So I would think you'd be properly civil in your own posts. Wouldn't I?
"I wouldn’t know everything that Beck likes or does not like. Perhaps you do?"
Straw man. How does being familiar with Beck and his manner equate to "knowing everything he likes or doesn't like?" Those are two very different things.
I know that Beck is a Mormon whose theology is a mess. I know that he's a blubberer, a squish, and no friend of conservatives. He's even on board with the blasphemous concept of Jesus being married to Mary Magdalene.
"BTW, damnable heresy is covered under Matthew 5:19:
In this passage we can see that not all that is falsely taught will exclude a person from the Kingdom of Heaven. Even Jesus Himself (here in this passage) said that some who break commandments and teach others to do so will make it to heaven - but will be called least there in heaven."
That's for the Lord to decide, isn't it? If we misunderstand Matthew 5:19, we make light of heresy. But 2 Peter 2 speaks of damnable heresies that bring swift destruction.
For instance, a female "pastor" lets me know right away something is wrong. When I visit the home page of her church, where diversity and sexual orientation are mentioned before Jesus Christ, my opinion is strengthened.
Here's your link; I apologize for not including it in my post.
You made an assertion in post #18 without backing it up, even though the onus of proof was upon you to do so then.
The only way that it would be edging into ad hom territory is if you knew that I was accusing you of lying. But you couldn’t possibly know that or prove it, could you? BTW, I didn’t accuse you of this, nor thought you were lying. I was adhering to the princuiple othat the onus of prorof is upon the one who make an assertion.
You must adhere to this as well, which you finally did.
Now, continue to do this.
And I don’t have question about your honesty, either.
Dispense with those games...
Got it?
good.
that’s all...
Have a good Monday, you sweetheart, you!
Hope things improve for you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.