Should struggling families tithe?

[jpg7n16]

Of course, I could argue that if there is a struggling family, then why are they giving away 10% of their paycheck instead of taking care of their own bills? If he doesn't stop doing that he is going to be eating at the soup kitchen next week!

I didn't say it was a good argument, only that it could made for time as well as money.

My argument is that a struggling family is not struggling because of a tithe. They have expenses they can cut. They probably are trying to maintain a lifestyle from a former income. Or they don't make enough that even if there were no tithe, they would be struggling and couldn't feed their family.

If they have a good income, and are struggling, the tithe isn't the problem.
If they have a poor income and are struggling, keeping the tithe won't help.

And about the house: Our family could sell it for a dollar and unload it overnight, but that would be unreasonable. They need to sell it for enough to buy something else or even to pay the rent somewhere else. In a depressed market that may take a while.

There you go again with your jump to the opposite extreme and use it as a reason. This discussion would go better if the examples are realistic.

Which is precisely why I specifically said, they don't have to take any offer, but they're not in a position to hold out for an ideal offer either.

You can lower the asking price. You can give seller incentives. There are ways to make houses move in the market without "oh well I can't get $300k for it? then I'll just sell it for $1".

When you can't sell a home for $300k, you lower it to $290k. Not $1.

I just think that making an assumption that 10% is "no big deal" is akin to the govt. deciding what's best for me. There is no common sense in assuming. One size really doesn't fit all. And, everyone's situation is different.

Give what you can, how you can. Help your fellow man, honor God, and take care of your needs. However that is to be achieved depends on who is trying to achieve it.

I haven't said anything about the government except a side post about "render to Caesar"

You see the gov there, because that's what you want to see. That wasn't my intention, point, argument, or belief.

My "no big deal" argument is: 10% won't kick you out of your nice home onto the streets. You won't become a pauper, and you won't have to resort to dumpster diving for food over 10%. If you can afford a very nice home by not tithing, then you can afford an almost as nice home and still tithe.

A person who can afford a $250k home, can afford a $225k home. (90%) That is a far cry from being homeless and getting food from soup kitchens and dumpsters.

[GaryArnold]

Basic Biblical truths:

Tithe came from the miracles of God, specifically crops and animals.

Firstfruits came from the miracles of God.

Do you find any scripture where a carpenter gave the first of his works to God? Do you find any scripture where a tent maker gave the first tent he made to God? Do you find any scripture where fishermen gave the first fish they caught to God?

God reserved, for Himself, a tenth of His crops, every tenth of His animals in herds and flocks, RAISED ON THE HOLY LAND. God did NOT accept a tenth of crops or animals raised outside the Holy land. Crops and animals raised outside the Holy land were not considered clean and could not be accepted as a Holy tithe.

[jpg7n16]

Firstfruits = first of the crop (MIRACLES OF GOD) not first of man's income.

-deleted by me-

I've decided that arguing over this isn't going to go anywhere good. I'll just ignore you cause we clearly disagree on so many levels.

2 Timothy 2:6 (KJV) “The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits.”

1 Timothy 5:8 (KJV) “But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.”

Both addressed in an earlier post.

[GaryArnold]

-deleted by me-
I've decided that arguing over this isn't going to go anywhere good. I'll just ignore you cause we clearly disagree on so many levels.

I agree. We disagree on so many levels because I stick with what the scriptures say, and you take the scriptures and change God's words to suit what you want it to say.

[jpg7n16]

Wow. What the world must think, when two Christians who interpret Scripture differently, read the same passage in a different light, and one accuses the other of twisting the Word of God.

It's no wonder people look on today's Church and laugh.

I get that you disagree with me, but your accusations are not welcome.

[disneysteve]

JPG, I'm having trouble articulating exactly what I'm trying to say but basically, I can't agree that a 10% drop in someone's income isn't going to be significant to a great many people. And the less someone earns, the more significant that 10% will be since lower income earners spend a higher percentage of income on necessities than higher income earners. Especially at a time of crisis, like in maat55's original thread, I think charitable giving needs to be put on hold, along with stopping all unnecessary spending on luxuries, until the income situation is remedied.

I'm happy to agree to disagree. As I said early in the thread, this is not a financial discussion and debating religious beliefs serves no purpose. While I find it interesting to learn about what others believe, it doesn't alter my own beliefs, nor would I expect what I believe to alter anyone else's beliefs.

[disneysteve]

I agree. We disagree on so many levels because I stick with what the scriptures say, and you take the scriptures and change God's words to suit what you want it to say.

your accusations are not welcome.

As a moderator of this site, I must agree with JPG. Disagreements are fine. Personal attacks or accusations are not. Let's keep it polite, civil and respectful of others who may have beliefs different from our own.

[GaryArnold]

As a moderator of this site, I must agree with JPG. Disagreements are fine. Personal attacks or accusations are not. Let's keep it polite, civil and respectful of others who may have beliefs different from our own.

You are right. I also agree with JPG. My words came from frustration, and I do apologize.

[Seeker]

As much as I did not wish to post to this topic here I am again.

Jpg has his beliefs, and while he says that he's not "exactly" trying to convince or change anyone else's belief, his explanation of "why he believes what he believes," is important for him to try to get across.

Most people deep down inside know that "need" in the here and now is of more importance than being a sheep following the trend in times of struggle. To get out of a trend, you don't keep doing the same things.

You do give up those things that are not "needs" -- and bottom line -- if you have $0 income, you don't continue tithe during that time.

JPG is not saying that you have to continue tithing when you have 0 income. All JPG is saying is that when you have an income, any income, you are supposed to tithe 10% according to his belief.

When JPG started this particular post, he changed it.

It no longer is an income of zero dollars; it's now a "struggling family" post.

JPG says, believes that 10% should not "hurt"; he believes that 10% is too little to make a difference.

DS says that 10% can be too much at times.

JPG wants an example. Here's one:

California minimum wage is $8/hour (ignoring tax):

10% of $320 = $32 tithe + $288 to live on for a week.

California $20/hour (still ignoring tax) -- hopefully $20/hr is a more reasonable $/hr salary that is somewhat liveable -- in this HCOL state:

10% of $800 = $80 tithe + $720 to live on for a week.

The highest cost item in this state is fulfilling that one need: keeping a roof over your head.

If you are alone and making minimum wage, do you think you can do it? In California, you'd be very lucky to find a room in someone's house rentable for $400/month now. Rents for a Studio often run pretty close to $800 now (depending on area).

Christians would have the minimum wage person tithe $32/week. The exact same ratio as a middle class and a rich person: 10%. Hmmmm. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class goes one way or another depending on a whole bunch of externals.

FACT:
Unless you live in Old Testament times, with everyone sleeping on the floor of a one room hut, you will NOT be able to tithe 10% on minimum wage and EVER see yourself financially "better."
Not in California, not alone, not on minimum wages; no matter how good you manage your earnings.

---

Part of posting # 3 is completely aggravating to me; and it's this paragraph that I refer to:

But as far as answering "does the Church NEED this tithe?" Absolutely not. But that has nothing to do with it. The temple did not NEED the widow's two coins. But how else would she honor God with what He had given her? Jesus commended the woman for her faith in God - that He would be able to provide for her, though she didn't know how.

To the bolded part, why not? If you give to someone or something, where their need is less than your families' need, then aren't you wasting God's gift?

How do you "honor" God by giving to those not in greater need than you?

The New Testament, is almost entirely people helping people. The words were spoken by Jesus, and heard by the Apostles. The words were spoken by Jesus and heard by conglomerate of peoples.

GaryArnold is correct in that words are attuned to their audiances; they were then, they are now, and they always will be. It is rather unfortunate that the Bible is not written as reading a play would be (name: words, masses: words, name: (gestures) words.

The Old Testament is æons old, and we have only glimmers of light of the real meaning. Though we did not live in those times, we have written words that have been translated.

The Bible is good, but does anyone know the meaning of each and every word? The realities were different? The people undersood the words to mean different things than we do. Words change meanings over time, words morph. Translations lessen the real impact.

---

Some poverty is not self-inflicted. Some poverty is caused by sudden illness, accident, job loss (environmental job loss -- ie economy), a marital separation/divorce, etc.

Jpg -- not every person with 0 income has made "bad choices" to be in that position. And even if the proverty is from bad choices, does that mean that a person cannot learn to do better?

To do better, in the long run, does that not mean a greater "tithe" down the line when the "poor" have hopefully made that climb out of debt?

The below is entirely true. Depending on the needs, which depends on a whole bunch of environmental factors, 10% is a rather huge amount when it's a smaller amount of dollars to begin with. Hopefully, my California minimum wage example proves that one ratio or percentage is not equitable for ALL people.

JPG, I'm having trouble articulating exactly what I'm trying to say but basically, I can't agree that a 10% drop in someone's income isn't going to be significant to a great many people. And the less someone earns, the more significant that 10% will be since lower income earners spend a higher percentage of income on necessities than higher income earners. Especially at a time of crisis, like in maat55's original thread, I think charitable giving needs to be put on hold, along with stopping all unnecessary spending on luxuries, until the income situation is remedied.

[jpg7n16]

Jpg has his beliefs, and while he says that he's not "exactly" trying to convince or change anyone else's belief, his explanation of "why he believes what he believes," is important for him to try to get across.

Yes exactly. That and I enjoy the discussion. (most of the time)

JPG is not saying that you have to continue tithing when you have 0 income. All JPG is saying is that when you have an income, any income, you are supposed to tithe 10% according to his belief.

That is my belief yes.

When JPG started this particular post, he changed it.

It no longer is an income of zero dollars; it's now a "struggling family" post.

If you are suggesting that I am changing the discussion, the thread is titled "Should struggling families tithe?"

It has always been about struggling families.

JPG says, believes that 10% should not "hurt"; he believes that 10% is too little to make a difference.

DS says that 10% can be too much at times.

Those are both accurate, but my statements were more directed at the idea that tithing makes you poor. There were scenarios given of someone living in a nice home, and going straight to the dumpster for food - because of the tithe. Which gives a distorted picture of the pro-tithing viewpoint.

JPG wants an example. Here's one:

California minimum wage is $8/hour (ignoring tax):

10% of $320 = $32 tithe + $288 to live on for a week.

California $20/hour (still ignoring tax) -- hopefully $20/hr is a more reasonable $/hr salary that is somewhat liveable -- in this HCOL state:

10% of $800 = $80 tithe + $720 to live on for a week.

The highest cost item in this state is fulfilling that one need: keeping a roof over your head.

If you are alone and making minimum wage, do you think you can do it? In California, you'd be very lucky to find a room in someone's house rentable for $400/month now. Rents for a Studio often run pretty close to $800 now (depending on area).

Christians would have the minimum wage person tithe $32/week. The exact same ratio as a middle class and a rich person: 10%. Hmmmm. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class goes one way or another depending on a whole bunch of externals.

Let me ask you a question about this scenario then. If studios run close to $800, and you make $1280 a month. How is the tithe the reason you are struggling?

Financial planning recommends no more than 28% of your income go to housing. So you should only look to pay at most $358/month for rent. If you tithe, that number falls to $322/month. How is that situation meaningfully different?

If you choose not to tithe, you still shouldn't get the $800 Studio. And someone in the $800 studio, shouldn't blame his poor financial condition on tithing. He should blame it on paying too much in rent each month.

There are always situations where money will be tight, but never is money tight solely because of giving a tithe.

FACT:
Unless you live in Old Testament times, with everyone sleeping on the floor of a one room hut, you will NOT be able to tithe 10% on minimum wage and EVER see yourself financially "better."
Not in California, not alone, not on minimum wages; no matter how good you manage your earnings.

I completely agree. But you will never get financially better, because you are on minimum wage... not because you tithe.

Part of posting # 3 is completely aggravating to me; and it's this paragraph that I refer to:

To the bolded part, why not? If you give to someone or something, where their need is less than your families' need, then aren't you wasting God's gift?

Because tithing isn't about the amount of money she gave, it was about the honoring of God with finances. It is more about the heart of the giver, than the size of the gift.

And it certainly wasn't a waste. What if the woman wanted to give, and they told her she was too poor to give? Would you rob her of the blessing of giving?

If you feel she shouldn't have given, you should take that up with Jesus. He commended the woman for her gift... and no one gave her her money back.

How do you "honor" God by giving to those not in greater need than you?

By the same logic, why should anyone ever give to God? Doesn't He own everything?

By tithing you honor God as the Giver of all that you have. Whether that's a lot or a little - it all came from Him.

And Jesus even says:

Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation.
Luke 6:20,24

If you disagree, you should take that up with Jesus, not me.

Some poverty is not self-inflicted. Some poverty is caused by sudden illness, accident, job loss (environmental job loss -- ie economy), a marital separation/divorce, etc.

Jpg -- not every person with 0 income has made "bad choices" to be in that position. And even if the proverty is from bad choices, does that mean that a person cannot learn to do better?

Sorry - what did I post that came across this way?? I did say that someone with a good income, who is blaming his situation on tithing, is blaming the wrong thing.

I never said people with no income made bad choices that made them that way.

There are legit reasons that some people have no income. I don't deny that.

But there are also too many people who think that the tithe is what would make them broke. Even though they make good money. They'd rather blame the tithe, than their bad spending habits.

To do better, in the long run, does that not mean a greater "tithe" down the line when the "poor" have hopefully made that climb out of debt?

I am all for someone giving more than 10% when they are in a great financial position. The first 10% is the tithe (by definition). Anything over that is discretionary giving - which I'm all for.

10% is the low point.

The below is entirely true. Depending on the needs, which depends on a whole bunch of environmental factors, 10% is a rather huge amount when it's a smaller amount of dollars to begin with. Hopefully, my California minimum wage example proves that one ratio or percentage is not equitable for ALL people.

I understand the other side of the position. That when times are hard, the more you keep the easier it is on you. I get that.

I just have a priority list:
1) God, 2) Family & Self, and 3) Others

I hold to that for financial priority too, in good times and bad. When push comes to shove - who gets cut out?

[Seeker]

withdrawn

[Seeker]

1)
Tithing may not be the reason for the poverty; but it can well be the reason for not getting out of poverty.

2)
This topic (your topic here) is for strugging families, Maat's topic is for a 0 income family.

JPG-

Life changes over time. Everything changes over time.

There's a time to stop and a time to continue with money.

If someone loses their job, generally MOST PEOPLE make a choice for what they afford at that time. Most people CHANGE to meet whatever new terms come along.

It's not my place to say who is wrong and who is right; there is no wrong or right that can be generalized to ALL SITUATIONS. Nothing in life is clear cut 100% absolute one way or another; there's always middle choices.

Each person must choose for himself or herself what to do with each event in their lives. If married, you choose in collaboration. If you have children, you also do it in collaboration.

I just have a priority list:
1) God, 2) Family & Self, and 3) Others

I hold to that for financial priority too, in good times and bad. When push comes to shove - who gets cut out?

If indeed, the below is correct, and you choose to cut out the needful "others," then I think you can answer your last question above.

Matthew 25:31-46 (NIV)
31“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory.
32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,
36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?
38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?
39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,
43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Notice Jesus didn't say anything about giving to the church.

Jpg - In my mind, your 3 & 1 should be together. They refer to the same thing. We are all God's children. We all "honor" him by helping our fellow brothers and sisters who are in real need (My order using your words: 2, 3 & 1).

I am not suggesting, not giving to the Church/God... all I have ever suggested is that "need" is first.

The Church is composed of Ministers, Priests, Sisters, etc. -- they are human and God's children as well; they have needs as well. I never suggested not giving to them; the only thing I have repeatedly said, is that those with real "needs" come first. Basic human needs.

Frankly you who are parents already know this; your child's need often comes before your own.

To God the Father (from His perspective), I would imagine that His childrens' need come before His need (of which He has no need, because he is God).

My priority order: DH & Self, Friends, All Others.

If you are alone, and you want to help Him or His children first, and neglect the needs of yourself (like the widow), that's fine.

But, if you made marriage vows that hold truth and value to you (your word) -- you made those vows before God.

If you are married, and then you join and help bring forth children that God gave them Life and so blessed your marriage, you in my mind, are responsible for their well being.

If you are married and have children, and your work was minimized and you financially curtailed everything you could, but you still could not provide or sustain shelter, would you still tithe 10% if your children were hungry?

As easy as you might say, work on Saturday at anything, jobs are not always easy to come by. Maat is doing good by his family -- what if your folks cannot help you? What if they have already passed? What if you had no friends to turn to? Or no help for your children? Would you turn to the Church for help at that point?

There's absolutely nothing anyone can write or say that will make me feel that a person who has children in need, and yet they continue tithing as though nothing has changed, is just plain wrong.

Pure and simple, I cannot believe that any Father of all, would want priority over any of His children's basic human needs no matter the age.

God is Father to all of us, no matter if we are father to another; but that does not mean that we should neglect our own words, our own children, our own brothers and sisters in need.

---

You can debate with others.... I'm not writing in this thread again. This is not a debate and I'm done repeating myself.

[bjl584]

I didn't say it was a good argument, only that it could made for time as well as money.

My argument is that a struggling family is not struggling because of a tithe. They have expenses they can cut. They probably are trying to maintain a lifestyle from a former income. Or they don't make enough that even if there were no tithe, they would be struggling and couldn't feed their family.

If they have a good income, and are struggling, the tithe isn't the problem.
If they have a poor income and are struggling, keeping the tithe won't help.


There you go again with your jump to the opposite extreme and use it as a reason. This discussion would go better if the examples are realistic.

Which is precisely why I specifically said, they don't have to take any offer, but they're not in a position to hold out for an ideal offer either.

You can lower the asking price. You can give seller incentives. There are ways to make houses move in the market without "oh well I can't get $300k for it? then I'll just sell it for $1".

When you can't sell a home for $300k, you lower it to $290k. Not $1.



I haven't said anything about the government except a side post about "render to Caesar"

You see the gov there, because that's what you want to see. That wasn't my intention, point, argument, or belief.

My "no big deal" argument is: 10% won't kick you out of your nice home onto the streets. You won't become a pauper, and you won't have to resort to dumpster diving for food over 10%. If you can afford a very nice home by not tithing, then you can afford an almost as nice home and still tithe.

A person who can afford a $250k home, can afford a $225k home. (90%) That is a far cry from being homeless and getting food from soup kitchens and dumpsters.

I agree that a tithe is not the reason that someone is struggling. There are things that can be cut out of someone's life. I just think that the tithe needs to be one of those things that are on the table to cut back on when times get tough. People get into bad financial situations for a variety of reasons, some to faults of their own, some to outside cirumstances. But, we are all human, and we all make mistakes. Sometimes desperate times calls for drastic changes. If someone cuts out their cable, internet, phone, eating out, sells the second car, sells the house, and cuts back every possible thing that they can, AND it still isn't enough to get by in the short term, THEN they need to consider cutting out the tithe for a short period of time so that the long term goal of financial stability can be achieved.

It is easy to pass judgement on others and make broad assumptions such as, they are in a bad situation because of their lifestyle, or they need to sell their house for less money. But in the real world, things may be different. Even if someone sells their house at a discount price, it may be a few months before you find a buyer. And, even when you do find a buyer and they make an offer, the closing is usually scheduled 6 weeks out. You are looking at about 2 to 3 months from the time that you put the house on the market until you actually have the money from the sale in your pocket. If everything has been cut back on during those few months, and it still isn't enough, then cut back on the tithe until you have the money from the sale of your house. Whether the financial trouble was due to recklessness on behalf of the individual or whether it was due to circumstances beyond their control, it doesn't matter. The point is, this person is attempting to make things right, and they may need every last dollar (including the tithe) to achieve their goal.

I believe that we are going to have to respectfully agree to disagree on this one. You believe that the tithe should continue at all costs no matter what. I am taking a more flexible approach to the matter. While I think that the tithe should be one of the last things on the table, it still needs to be on the table. It still needs to be an option.

[disneysteve]

I just have a priority list:
1) God, 2) Family & Self, and 3) Others

I think this would have been a much simpler discussion had you posted this first.

I respectfully disagree. My first priority, always and forever, will be myself and my family. I will do whatever I need to do to service the needs and well-being of us before I worry about the needs of anyone else.

I think that pretty well sums it up.

[jpg7n16]

1)
Tithing may not be the reason for the poverty; but it can well be the reason for not getting out of poverty.

I just disagree with part 2 of that statement. In my view, it takes more than a 10% increase in income to get out of poverty.

Going from $20,000 to 22,000 isn't going to end poverty.

2)
This topic (your topic here) is for strugging families, Maat's topic is for a 0 income family.

Which is why I made the new post.

I don't understand why that matters though. If you lost your job, and have no income you have nothing to tithe. What discussion could there be?

10% * $0 = $0

If you make $0 - stop giving to the church! It's not a tithe at that point. Anything over 10% (which would be over $0) is discretionary giving, and should be cut back in times of need.


But if you make $100, I feel you should tithe $10 of it.

It's not my place to say who is wrong and who is right; there is no wrong or right that can be generalized to ALL SITUATIONS. Nothing in life is clear cut 100% absolute one way or another; there's always middle choices.

Are you 100% absolutely sure that nothing is 100% absolutely sure?

When is it okay to worship Satan? When is it okay to murder someone? When is it okay to rape?

There are things that are absolutely wrong or absolutely right.

Gary's verse

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others
Matthew 23:23

Notice that Jesus says they should continue to tithe.

Jpg - In my mind, your 3 & 1 should be together. They refer to the same thing. We are all God's children. We all "honor" him by helping our fellow brothers and sisters who are in real need (My order using your words: 2, 3 & 1).

I am not suggesting, not giving to the Church/God... all I have ever suggested is that "need" is first.

I know not everyone thinks about this like I do. I see that from all your posts.

I expected a response like this from others like you and DS (which he also showed a different priority).

We're just of different minds on this, and I understand where you're coming from - I just don't see the world the same way.

If you are alone, and you want to help Him or His children first, and neglect the needs of yourself (like the widow), that's fine.

Don't assume the widow had no family to support (see post on this same topic made earlier in thread)

There's absolutely nothing anyone can write or say that will make me feel that a person who has children in need, and yet they continue tithing as though nothing has changed, is just plain wrong.

How many times have I said "I get that people disagree with me on this"? I'm not expecting to somehow change everyone's mind.

And I'm working on learning to better explain where I'm coming from.

From post #1:

Warning: Okay this is going to be a religious post on my views of people with barely anything tithing. I still feel they should, but if they don't - there are more important pieces of Christianity (love, justice, mercy, etc.). If you disagree with me, that's fine. It obviously makes more financial sense to keep as much as you can in very hard times, but there are more important reasons to tithe even when you have little.

This is why I feel they should.

......

[/personal religious views]