Originally posted by Smarty Boy:Now, need to change what you said........??
Nothing you said proved that Catholic Churches today is teaching tithing and that it is being enforced on all Catholics. As you mentioned, History......
You came in with wild allegation and make this thread OT and now start pointing fingers at others?
You can keep quoting Catholic sites that have sermons on tithes (why is that a problem?) but none that enforces tithes like those churches I am talking about. NONE.
If you wish to argue about right or wrong, go and read those links in the first post and state your stand why you think it is not wrong. Don't stray OT and start blaming others.
when i have missed out a word, i will need to make that change....
it is factual that the practice of "tithing" comes from an OT practice.... it was a need at the point in time.... just like the objections to the different kinds of food and the rules to what to wear....
the regulations and practices were for a reason, and were part of the culture at that point of time....
such practices may evolve into a church practice - which in itself, is not wrong.
your topic is "is tithing a correct teaching".... tithing is a correct teaching, it may just not be relevant to modern times, similar to teachings on food and clothing.
the issue that the Catholic church is NOT teaching tithing now does not mean that the catholic church is opposing tithing as a good practice.
the Catholic encyclopedia give a very good write up on the issue of tithing and inspite of that you are adament in your stand even though it is quite different from what is written in there.
.... but i realised that you are quite stubborn over on your personal stand.... so again... quite pointless liao.
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
when i have missed out a word, i will need to make that change....it is factual that the practice of "tithing" comes from an OT practice.... it was a need at the point in time.... just like the objections to the different kinds of food and the rules to what to wear....
the regulations and practices were for a reason, and were part of the culture at that point of time....
such practices may evolve into a church practice - which in itself, is not wrong.
your topic is "is tithing a correct teaching".... tithing is a correct teaching, it may just not be relevant to modern times, similar to teachings on food and clothing.
the issue that the Catholic church is NOT teaching tithing now does not mean that the catholic church is opposing tithing as a good practice.
the Catholic encyclopedia give a very good write up on the issue of tithing and inspite of that you are adament in your stand even though it is quite different from what is written in there.
.... but i realised that you are quite stubborn over on your personal stand.... so again... quite pointless liao.
Thanks for telling me that the Catholic encyclopedia has a good write up. And I am stubborn because Catholics Churches do not teach and enforce tithings like some churches.
Miss out some words can cause misunderstanding and I would have apologise and not be so arrogant as if it's ok....or to accuse other of saying things that they not .... and then said, "granted you did not"...but no sorry? I know that's difficult for someone who call others liars and stubborn and yet......
Ha...ha...ha.... It's ok and I look forward to your comments on the links as posted earlier (yeah, I know I am crazy) but if you have no wish to do so, it's ok.
Really OT liao and if this is moderated, this thread would have been locked pages ago.....
Originally posted by Smarty Boy:Thanks for telling me that the Catholic encyclopedia has a good write up. And I am stubborn because Catholics Churches do not teach and enforce tithings like some churches.
Miss out some words can cause misunderstanding and I would have apologise and not be so arrogant as if it's ok....or to accuse other of saying things that they not .... and then said, "granted you did not"...but no sorry? I know that's difficult for someone who call others liars and stubborn and yet......
Ha...ha...ha.... It's ok and I look forward to your comments on the links as posted earlier (yeah, I know I am crazy) but if you have no wish to do so, it's ok.
Really OT liao and if this is moderated, this thread would have been locked pages ago.....
i seriously think that the catholic encyclopedia is a good source. it is relatively unbias and factual.... but this factuality at least with the issue of tithing points irrevocably that this was practice and encouraged.... at least in the past.
bear in mind again, the thread is about whether "tithing is a correct teaching" or not..... had your topic been "tithing is irrelevant or not" it will become another issue.
also your denial of the catholic church not doing it... does not come across as objective when the encyclopedia states that very clearly that tithing was part of the catholic lifestyle.
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
bear in mind again, the thread is about whether "tithing is a correct teaching" or not..... had your topic been "tithing is irrelevant or not" it will become another issue.
Ok lah, wrong topic (if you insist) and this has gone too far OT liao (but was ok before you came along).... I don't want to change words and make auccssations etc....and after that still slient about it.
If you don't like the topic, don't post lah....if you come only to "disturb" it's your choice lah....after all, this not moderated one...free for all..
Originally posted by Smarty Boy:Ok lah, wrong topic (if you insist) and this has gone too far OT liao (but was ok before you came along).... I don't want to change words and make auccssations etc....and after that still slient about it.
If you don't like the topic, don't post lah....if you come only to "disturb" it's your choice lah....after all, this not moderated one...free for all..
disturb meaning...???? that i am not free to discuss?
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
disturb meaning...???? that i am not free to discuss?
can lah...no problem, discuss freely.........how about giving your opinion of the articles in the first post?
Originally posted by Smarty Boy:can lah...no problem, discuss freely.........how about giving your opinion of the articles in the first post?
actually now quite frighten to give my opinion liao.... maybe next time.
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
actually now quite frighten to give my opinion liao.... maybe next time.
Ok....it's your free willl.....
Originally posted by Smarty Boy:Ok....it's your free willl.....
thanks, ok, if you say so....
Originally posted by Smarty Boy:The question is whether teaching of tithing is correct. The obvious answer is NO.
so if it is obviously wrong....
how does one view this???
At first, the tithe was payable to the bishop, but later the right passed by common law to parish priests. Abuses soon crept in. The right to receive tithes was granted to princes and nobles, even hereditarily, by ecclesiastics in return for protection or eminent services, and this species of impropriation became so intolerable that the Third Council of Lateran (1179) decreed that no alienation of tithes to laymen was permissible without the consent of the pope. In the time of Gregory VIII, a so-called Saladin tithe was instituted, which was payable by all who did not take part personally in the crusade to recover the Holy Land. At the present time, in most countries where some species of tithes still exist, as in England (for the Established Church), in Austria, and Germany, the payment has been changed into a rent-charge. In English-speaking countries generally, as far as Catholics are concerned, the clergy receive no tithes. As a consequence, other means have had to be adopted to support the clergy and maintain the ecclesiastical institutions (see CHURCH MAINTENANCE), and to substitute other equivalent payments in lieu of tithe. Soglia (Institut, Canon, II, 12) says "The law of tithes can never be abrogated by prescription or custom, if the ministers of the Church have no suitable and sufficient provision from other sources; because then the natural and divine law, which can neither be abrogated not antiquate, commands that the tithe be paid." In some parts of Canada, the tithe is still recognized by civil law, and the Fourth Council of Quebec (1868) declared that its payment is binding in conscience of the faithful.
It cannot be said that the "church" mentioned in this passage (and all the text the precedes it) refers to any other religious institutions other than the catholic church.
It does seem to me that according to the Catholic encyclopedia, tithes were practiced by the church in history.
Therefore, can it be concluded that the catholic church was incorrect,
or perhaps,
the church was correct, taking into consideration of the social and cultural issue of the era.. but over the years, tithing is now longer relevant?
Originally posted by Chin Eng:thanks, ok, if you say so....
so if it is obviously wrong....
how does one view this???
At first, the tithe was payable to the bishop, but later the right passed by common law to parish priests. Abuses soon crept in. The right to receive tithes was granted to princes and nobles, even hereditarily, by ecclesiastics in return for protection or eminent services, and this species of impropriation became so intolerable that the Third Council of Lateran (1179) decreed that no alienation of tithes to laymen was permissible without the consent of the pope. In the time of Gregory VIII, a so-called Saladin tithe was instituted, which was payable by all who did not take part personally in the crusade to recover the Holy Land. At the present time, in most countries where some species of tithes still exist, as in England (for the Established Church), in Austria, and Germany, the payment has been changed into a rent-charge. In English-speaking countries generally, as far as Catholics are concerned, the clergy receive no tithes. As a consequence, other means have had to be adopted to support the clergy and maintain the ecclesiastical institutions (see CHURCH MAINTENANCE), and to substitute other equivalent payments in lieu of tithe. Soglia (Institut, Canon, II, 12) says "The law of tithes can never be abrogated by prescription or custom, if the ministers of the Church have no suitable and sufficient provision from other sources; because then the natural and divine law, which can neither be abrogated not antiquate, commands that the tithe be paid." In some parts of Canada, the tithe is still recognized by civil law, and the Fourth Council of Quebec (1868) declared that its payment is binding in conscience of the faithful.
It cannot be said that the "church" mentioned in this passage (and all the text the precedes it) refers to any other religious institutions other than the catholic church.
It does seem to me that according to the Catholic encyclopedia, tithes were practiced by the church in history.
Therefore, can it be concluded that the catholic church was incorrect,
or perhaps,
the church was correct, taking into consideration of the social and cultural issue of the era.. but over the years, tithing is now longer relevant?
Wah next time comes quite fast eh......Ok, whatever you said and quote......I am going back to my Church now and start tithing....liao 10% poorer every month but it's ok because God will repay me.....many times back.
Originally posted by Smarty Boy:Wah next vtime comes quite fast eh......Ok, whatever you said and quote......I am going back to my Church now and start tithing....liao 10% poorer every month but it's ok because God will repay me.....many times back.
why not i make it more economical for you... go ask your priest if tithing teaching correct or wrong?
next time come quite fast because you said it's my own free will.... 8-)
Originally posted by Chin Eng:why not i make it more economical for you... go ask your priest if tithing teaching correct or wrong?
next time come quite fast because you said it's my own free will.... 8-)
Ok....and by the way, don't pm me liao ok? Thanks.
Originally posted by Smarty Boy:
I am actually against wrong teaching of tithes and enforcing it so that it enriches only some which is why I said in the beinging of the thread:
"There are recent outcry about mega churches and one of the issues is about money which of course comes from tithing. However, is tithing a correct teaching? Can they be enforced on all Christians?"
Under the Law of Moses, some Isrealites don't tithe. e.g Fisherman don't tithe 10% their catch. Can u imagine what will happen if u collect tithe of fishes and keeping them in the store house without refrigeration. Also fish cannot be used as offering in the temple of Hashem.
Originally posted by Creation1656:Under the Law of Moses, some Isrealites don't tithe. e.g Fisherman don't tithe 10% their catch. Can u imagine what will happen if u collect tithe of fishes and keeping them in the store house without refrigeration. Also fish cannot be used as offering in the temple of Hashem.
i am quite sure one cannot tithe fish, unless it's salted fish....
but generally would you say that aside from fish, tithe is a common practice???
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
i am quite sure one cannot tithe fish, unless it's salted fish....
but generally would you say that aside from fish, tithe is a common practice???
Salted fish is unhealty, possibility of heart attack?. Generally the people that tithe are Owners of fields where certain crops like wheat are planted, also the Owner of flocks of sheeps, goats etc., also the Levites who gave the best 10% of the tithe they received from the Isrealites to the Priests. The priests don't tithe, but use the tithe for services in the temple. Poor people who received tithes or charity cannot give tithes unlike some of the present church teachings today.
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
how does one view this???
At first, the tithe was payable to the bishop, but later the right passed by common law to parish priests. Abuses soon crept in. The right to receive tithes was granted to princes and nobles, even hereditarily, by ecclesiastics in return for protection or eminent services, and this species of impropriation became so intolerable that the Third Council of Lateran (1179) decreed that no alienation of tithes to laymen was permissible without the consent of the pope. In the time of Gregory VIII, a so-called Saladin tithe was instituted, which was payable by all who did not take part personally in the crusade to recover the Holy Land. At the present time, in most countries where some species of tithes still exist, as in England (for the Established Church), in Austria, and Germany, the payment has been changed into a rent-charge. In English-speaking countries generally, as far as Catholics are concerned, the clergy receive no tithes. As a consequence, other means have had to be adopted to support the clergy and maintain the ecclesiastical institutions (see CHURCH MAINTENANCE), and to substitute other equivalent payments in lieu of tithe. Soglia (Institut, Canon, II, 12) says "The law of tithes can never be abrogated by prescription or custom, if the ministers of the Church have no suitable and sufficient provision from other sources; because then the natural and divine law, which can neither be abrogated not antiquate, commands that the tithe be paid." In some parts of Canada, the tithe is still recognized by civil law, and the Fourth Council of Quebec (1868) declared that its payment is binding in conscience of the faithful.
It cannot be said that the "church" mentioned in this passage (and all the text the precedes it) refers to any other religious institutions other than the catholic church.
It does seem to me that according to the Catholic encyclopedia, tithes were practiced by the church in history.
Therefore, can it be concluded that the catholic church was incorrect,
or perhaps,
the church was correct, taking into consideration of the social and cultural issue of the era.. but over the years, tithing is now longer relevant?
Obversely the teachings of tithing by the church are not in accordance with the Law of Moses. I am for the opinion that the RC Church has repented from this error, but many protestant churches, especially the independent churches, are still unrepentant.
Originally posted by Creation1656:Obversely the teachings of tithing by the church are not in accordance with the Law of Moses. I am for the opinion that the RC Church has repented from this error, but many protestant churches, especially the independent churches, are still unrepentant.
obversely? or do you mean, obviously...
well, if the church had "repented" it is not documented....
to me, there is really nothing to repent.... times changes and the church (or the religious insititution, whatever you choose to call it) also need to adapt.
if the argument is that in the OT times... the tithe were crops... and because it is NOT money, the teaching is wrong... then note that in those days, barter trading was the norm... so the crops were also a form of currency.
... however, without sounding offensive, your viewpoint is kinda like following the Hebraic root.... so there will be differences....
... for that matter, perhaps, too, you will find that most church practices are also "incorrect"...
... your remind me of someone else that use to be here in the forum....
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
obversely? or do you mean, obviously...
My bad, yes it should be obviously.
if the argument is that in the OT times... the tithe were crops... and because it is NOT money, the teaching is wrong... then note that in those days, barter trading was the norm... so the crops were also a form of currency.
Money in the form of shekels, silver & gold were widely used during the time of Abraham. Abraham bought the piece of land to bury Sarah for 400 shekels of silver. Jacob sent his sons to Egypt to buy grains with money. During the time of Moses money is widely used for transactions & trade. e.g if an isrealites wishes to redeem his tithes with money, he must add 20% to its value etc. Here is a list of valuation laws in the Law of Moses:
Again, the LORD spoke to Moses, saying,
"Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, 'When a man makes a difficult vow, he shall be valued according to your valuation of persons belonging to the LORD.
'If your valuation is of the male from twenty years even to sixty years old, then your valuation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary.
Or if it is a female, then your valuation shall be thirty shekels.
'If it be from five years even to twenty years old then your valuation for the male shall be twenty shekels and for the female ten shekels.
'But if they are from a month even up to five years old, then your valuation shall be five shekels of silver for the male, and for the female your valuation shall be three shekels of silver.
'If they are from sixty years old and upward, if it is a male, then your valuation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female ten shekels.
'But if he is poorer than your valuation, then he shall be placed before the priest and the priest shall value him; according to the means of the one who vowed, the priest shall value him.
'Now if it is an animal of the kind which men can present as an offering to the LORD, any such that one gives to the LORD shall be holy.
'He shall not replace it or exchange it, a good for a bad, or a bad for a good; or if he does exchange animal for animal, then both it and its substitute shall become holy.
'If, however, it is any unclean animal of the kind which men do not present as an offering to the LORD, then he shall place the animal before the priest.
'The priest shall value it as either good or bad; as you, the priest, value it, so it shall be.
'But if he should ever wish to redeem it, then he shall add one-fifth of it to your valuation.
'Now if a man consecrates his house as holy to the LORD, then the priest shall value it as either good or bad; as the priest values it, so it shall stand.
'Yet if the one who consecrates it should wish to redeem his house, then he shall add one-fifth of your valuation price to it, so that it may be his.
'Again, if a man consecrates to the LORD part of the fields of his own property, then your valuation shall be proportionate to the seed needed for it: a homer of barley seed at fifty shekels of silver.
'If he consecrates his field as of the year of jubilee, according to your valuation it shall stand.
'If he consecrates his field after the jubilee, however, then the priest shall calculate the price for him proportionate to the years that are left until the year of jubilee; and it shall be deducted from your valuation.
'If the one who consecrates it should ever wish to redeem the field, then he shall add one-fifth of your valuation price to it, so that it may pass to him.
'Yet if he will not redeem the field, but has sold the field to another man, it may no longer be redeemed;
and when it reverts in the jubilee, the field shall be holy to the LORD, like a field set apart; it shall be for the priest as his property.
'Or if he consecrates to the LORD a field which he has bought, which is not a part of the field of his own property,
then the priest shall calculate for him the amount of your valuation up to the year of jubilee; and he shall on that day give your valuation as holy to the LORD.
'In the year of jubilee the field shall return to the one from whom he bought it, to whom the possession of the land belongs.
'Every valuation of yours, moreover, shall be after the shekel of the sanctuary. The shekel shall be twenty gerahs.
'However, a firstborn among animals, which as a firstborn belongs to the LORD, no man may consecrate it; whether ox or sheep, it is the LORD'S.
'But if it is among the unclean animals, then he shall redeem it according to your valuation and add to it one-fifth of it; and if it is not redeemed, then it shall be sold according to your valuation. Leviticus 27:1-27 NASB
... however, without sounding offensive, your viewpoint is kinda like following the Hebraic root.... so there will be differences....
btw, i dun believe in the Hebraic root... stuff. The hebraic root people usually call themselves "Messianic Judaism". To us Messianic Judaism is Protestant Christianity.
... your remind me of someone else that use to be here in the forum....
That person faith is Rabbinic Judaism??
Originally posted by Creation1656:
That person faith is Rabbinic Judaism??
not sure.... you might want to take a peak at http://www.sgforums.com/forums/2436.
but not sure how active it has been recently.
Originally posted by Chin Eng:if the argument is that in the OT times... the tithe were crops... and because it is NOT money, the teaching is wrong... then note that in those days, barter trading was the norm... so the crops were also a form of currency.
confused liao.........so got money or not? Or is it barter trading?
Originally posted by Smarty Boy:confused liao.........so got money or not? Or is it barter trading?
Deut 26: 1 "When you arrive in the land the LORD your God is giving you as a special possession and you have conquered it and settled there,
2 put some of the first produce from each harvest into a basket and bring it to the place the LORD your God chooses for his name to be honored.
3 Go to the priest in charge at that time and say to him, `With this gift I acknowledge that the LORD your God has brought me into the land he swore to give our ancestors.'
Neh 13:5 And he had prepared for him a great chamber, where aforetime they laid the meat offerings, the frankincense, and the vessels, and the tithes of the corn, the new wine, and the oil, which was commanded to be given to the Levites, and the singers, and the porters; and the offerings of the priests.
well, as quote by creation 1656, .currency were already in used.....
tithing at old testament time were crops and livestocks....
... so the issue is NOT whether the folks back there tithe or not, but with what was tithed....
... the principle of tithing is for the purpose of the levites to have sustanence....
... i am quite sure that if we buy our pastors and priests a dinner or so, would have be alright too....
Originally posted by Creation1656:
Money in the form of shekels, silver & gold were widely used during the time of Abraham. Abraham bought the piece of land to bury Sarah for 400 shekels of silver. Jacob sent his sons to Egypt to buy grains with money. During the time of Moses money is widely used for transactions & trade. e.g if an isrealites wishes to redeem his tithes with money, he must add 20% to its value etc.
Not absolutely true....
according to this wiki source, shekel is primarily a measurement of weight....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shekel
having said that, i am no expert in this area.
Originally posted by Chin Eng:if the argument is that in the OT times... the tithe were crops... and because it is NOT money, the teaching is wrong... then note that in those days, barter trading was the norm... so the crops were also a form of currency.
Originally posted by Chin Eng:well, as quote by creation 1656, .currency were already in used.....
tithing at old testament time were crops and livestocks....
... so the issue is NOT whether the folks back there tithe or not, but with what was tithed....
... the principle of tithing is for the purpose of the levites to have sustanence....
... i am quite sure that if we buy our pastors and priests a dinner or so, would have be alright too....
More confused laio......and why only for levites sustanence?
Originally posted by Chin Eng:having said that, i am no expert in this area.
oic....but still confused...."because it is NOT money, the teaching is wrong"