Jump to content

Shiwiii

What does not passing the collection plate really mean anyway?

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Shiwiii -
Shiwiii -
198
4634

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

There was the statement you made that the sole purpose of the law was to serve for our happiness.

TTH:

I suspect that you, as usual, have misunderstood what I said.  Since I don't remember saying that ... the burden of proof is on you to quote what I actually did say.  So far ...your accusation has no basis of reference.

THEN we can BOTH see what is the REAL case.

Your credibility so far is zero, so I am not going to worry about it.

When you actually provide a quote to look at, I will look at it, and give you a fair and complete explanation, of what I meant by what I said ... if it was too abrupt for you.

Oh, and since AGAIN you avoided the issue being discussed ...

Please ... disprove any statement I made about Prince.  OTHERWISE ... your credibility REMAINS at ...

"ZIP - ZERO - NADA"'

again.

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/18/2017 at 5:56 PM, Shiwiii said:

I have NEVER, EVER seen this. I have been to plenty of Church's worldwide (Baptist, Protestant, non Denominational, Lutheran, Catholic, and the list goes on)  and have not come across this even once. If you have, then I suggest you reach out to them and ask them why. I think you may be just regurgitating the propaganda spread by the wt and not really ever experienced this either. 

You're joking! The remark seems almost too disingenuous to answer.

I was raised United Presbyterian. Our family received pledge envelopes to put in the collection plate at services. Put in the amount pledged. Like any charity, a pledge was used as the basis to try to secure a greater pledge. My non-churchgoing dad even had words with the pastor about it, since my mom did not work outside of the home, thus he was the one who ended up paying.

My sister still is Presbyterian, Reformed. She tithes 10%. It is what's done.

What seems more trusting in God to you - a contribution box in the back where people may or may not give anonymously, or a collection plate passed through the rows and everyone nearby will know just how much one puts in?

On 9/18/2017 at 5:56 PM, Shiwiii said:

If you have, then I suggest you reach out to them and ask them why.

I think you would have to be pretty obtuse to ask this question. I think I know why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2017 at 10:39 PM, Witness said:

There's a recent Watchtower study edition on this very topic.  “The Generous Person Will Be Blessed”  11/2017, pp. 18,19

Quote:  "We can be assured that “the generous person will be blessed.” Moreover, when we give our valuable things (monetary valuables, of course) to Jehovah, we honor him.Prov. 3:9;22:9."

Not according to Jesus, or his apostles.

Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”  Matt 19:21

“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money."  Matt 6:24

"For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." 1 Tim 6:10

"Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. 18 Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. 19 In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life."  1 Tim 6:17-19

Obviously, the GB has it all wrong.  

"Whoever loves money never has enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with their income.This too is meaningless."  Eccl 5:10

 

 What you are talking about is not what the WT is talking about. Completely different topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2017 at 5:56 PM, Shiwiii said:

I have NEVER, EVER seen this

My step son is a Mormon and they tithe 10%

and here are links where you can read up about the topic of passing plates

http://www.churchmarketingsucks.com/2009/03/passing-the-plate-poll-results/

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/2009/march/passing-plate.html

The only reason why passing the plate might peter out in the future is because less and less people carry paper money and more will want to pay by card or check. Tithing no doubt will stay for some denominations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I was raised United Presbyterian.

Hmmmm.... the Muppet Fozzie Bear was a Presbyterian and he also was a comedian.

( you have to see the original circa 1980 "Muppet Movie" ...)

Dwight David Eisenhower was also a Presbyterian, after he became President of the USA, but he was raised  in a family of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Coincidence ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Anna said:

What you are talking about is not what the WT is talking about. Completely different topic.

Look at that article again, and see the inset note at the bottom of the page. The whole article is to get your head nodding up and down, so when you get to WHY they chose that topic, your head will STILL be nodding up and down.

Like the man said to his wife when watching the televangelist on TV jumping around and telling them they had been healed of their tongue warts, then looking in the mirror ...  "Hees widte! .... Gebt de theckboogh !"

The Society has STILL not recovered from the 2015 "Red October Meltdown"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Anna said:

Tithing no doubt will stay for some denominations.

Just a thought that "tithing" today can refer to any % of income as a contribution to a religious organisation and may no longer be compulsory. Also, many countries still distribute tax revenues to religious organisations.

I suppose exemption from VAT is another avenue,  as is the "covenanting" of donations which exempts from income tax  and enables government rebates. It all comes from the "communal pot".

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Mostly during the mid-week meetings, my head also nods up and down continuously, as does my wife's.  Sometimes I will pat her on the opposite shoulder, or she will discreetly stick me with a ball point pen

Maybe there is a place for a frequent passing of a rattling plate in your neck of the woods. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:
22 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

There was the statement you made that the sole purpose of the law was to serve for our happiness.

TTH:

I suspect that you, as usual, have misunderstood what I said.  Since I don't remember saying that ... the burden of proof is on you to quote what I actually did say.  So far ...your accusation has no basis of reference.

 

It's nice not to remember what you have said. Not everyone has that luxury. From the thread Friends With Benefits:

 

TTH: "Many times you have challenged readers to point to even one thing you have said that is not true. I will take you up on your challenge now.

"You just said an untruth, and it is a big one. It is fundamental to everything else you say:

  On 8/7/2017 at 7:15 PM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

The alternate explanation would have to be reasonable, show common sense, and the end result be merciful, and just ... and NOT HURT ANYONE ... which is the whole point ofALL Theocratic Law.

"It's not about us. Not primarily. Primarily, it is about the sanctification of God's name and the vindication of his purpose. 'Not hurting anyone,'  though a good provision, is not as good as keeping God's name on high and his purpose undeterred.

"Furthermore, though you have been very critical of the Governing Body, this understanding predates the Governing Body. It first emerged in Rutherford's day."

In response to my comment, you squealed that it was irrelevant because you had not just then issued a challenge to point out anything untrue you might have said. It is relevant now, as you have just done so.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Forum Statistics

    62,003
    Total Topics
    116,516
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,533
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    Sunny3481
    Newest Member
    Sunny3481
    Joined




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.