Should struggling families tithe?

[Snodog]

I studied this years ago and came to pretty much the same conclusions as GaryArnold.

1. The tithe is an Old Testament law and it was never money. Christians are not under Old Testament law but under the law of Christ which is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind…and to love your neighbor as yourself”

2. The tithe was actually 23.3% and was never giving. It was much more like paying taxes. There was nothing voluntary in paying a tithe.

3. The poor did not tithe - only farmers. Still, even if you had an increase of 9 cattle you did not tithe. Part of the tithe was given to the poor. Jesus would not have tithed.

4. Giving is encouraged in the New Testament but never required.

5. Personally I think it is wrong to tithe if you are in dire straights and can't pay your bills. These are the people the church should be helping and not vice versa.

6. It is ok to give of your time instead.

7. It is ok to give to other worthwhile charities besides your church.

*These are just my own opinions formed from my interpretation of scripture. As a fallible human it is possible that I am in error so I would encourage anyone to not go by what I say but instead study for themselves.

[parafly]

Giving money directly to God is impossible. All that you can do is to give your money to the church or to charities and hope that they will be responsible stewards of it. (Remember Jimmy Swaggart.)

Agreed, which is why it falls into the "Others" category. I agree with disneysteve, and I would never put tithing above myself and my family.

[bjl584]

If this is a financial priority list, how exactly do you give money to God? This is just my opinion, but tithing would fall into the "Others" category.

Giving money directly to God is impossible. All that you can do is to give your money to the church or to charities and hope that they will be responsible stewards of it. (Remember Jimmy Swaggart.)

[parafly]

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 this is a financial priority list, how exactly do you give money to God? This is just my opinion, but tithing would fall into the "Others" category.

[GaryArnold]

In my view, it takes more than a 10% increase in income to get out of poverty.

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.

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

1 - Since you believe it takes more than a 10% increase in income to get out of poverty, just what percent do you think it would take? 11%? 15%? 200%?

2 - In Matthew 23:23 Jesus was speaking to those under the Mosaic law, not to anyone else. And notice, he didn't tell them they should tithe on their income, but rather on their herb gardens - crops (assets that come from God's miracles).

3 - Concerning the widow - the tithe was partially used to help the widows, orphans, etc. The poor didn't pay the tithe, they ate from it.

Notice Leviticus 27:32 - every tenth animal was the tithe. If there was only an increase of 9 animals that year, none were tithed. If there were 19, only 1 would be the tithe. Not ten percent. The TENTH one out of every ten.

To be a Holy tithe the tithe had to come from the Holy land. Any crops or animals outside the Holy land were not considered clean and could not be accept as a Holy tithe. Yet God, Himself, claimed His tithe to be Holy; therefore, if it doesn't come from the Holy land, God doesn't accept it as His tithe.

We all have our beliefs, but sometimes it is wise to determine just where our beliefs came from. Sometimes we believe something because it has been told to us over and over again.

Question: How do we put God FIRST in our life with our money (income)?

Before answering, please consider the following:

The gospel is FREE to everyone. There is no charge for the gospel.

When you go to a seminar, you usually have to pay to attend. When you go to a concert, you usually have to pay to attend. When you go to social events, you usually have to pay to attend.

Why does one "go to" church? Maybe for the following reasons:
1. For instruction / education in God's Word
2. To worship The Lord
3. For prayer and/or to pray
4. For entertainment (the music, etc.)
5. For fellowship / socializing

WE go to church so that WE can get instruction and education in God's Word, so that WE can worship The Lord, so that WE can participate in prayer, so that WE can be entertained and enjoy the music, and so that WE can fellowship or socialize.

WE benefit from going to church services. When WE give our offerings, is it not to PAY for what WE have received from the service? Is that giving to God, or is that paying for a service WE have received?

Who is getting the money? Is it God? Or does the money go to PAY for salaries, the building, utilities, etc., ALL of which WE benefit from?

In the Old Testament, God commanded the tithe be paid to HIM, and HE directed the Israelites to take HIS tithe to the Levites. HE gave HIS tithe to the Levites. Offerings to God were heave offerings, or burnt offerings, or wave offerings.

In the New Testament, God does not tell us HOW to give to HIM other than to give to the poor. God did NOT direct HIS gifts be taken to any church.

IF giving to the church is giving to God, then I have to conclude that when I subscribed to XM Satellite Radio I was giving to God because I listen to Christian music. When I purchased my car was I giving to God? After all, I use the car to go to church, and many times have taken someone else to church. When I bought my Christian T-shirts, was I giving to God? I am spreading the Word by wearing those T-shirts.

WHO determine what is giving to God? YOU, or the scriptures?

[jpg7n16]

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

Probably. I'm working on better expressing my views.

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.

I totally understand and respect that

[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]

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Seeker]

withdrawn

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.