No...that is not quite what dbl said...he said it is the duty..not a coercion of church members to pay tithing they are not forced against thier will to pay a tithe...it is akin to being a good samaritan to help a stranger in need one is not forced to help another in need to give substance or medical attention to thier fellow man..but it is one's duty to help thier fellow who is in need.

Obligation and duty does not mean one is threatened or forced to do it.


While it is true it is a commandment from God to pay tithing but no church member as far as I know in the LDS church is forced to pay tithing just as the rest of the commandments as well as ordinances..to be honest I don't know if that exactly applies to other denominations...LDS members are not forced to do anything they do not want to do and that includes going on missions..we still have our agency.

Obedience to the commandments is always our choice and our willingness to keep them and that includes paying a full tithing when members keep the commandments they recieve blessings. If they don't then they don't recieve blessings.

Keep reading below...I made additional comments to what dbl meant.

boggie said religions require tithes, I said they don't, you said they don't.

This is what dbl said..



On a technicality you are right it is a requirement from good christians but not enforced on them which I highlighted in bold lettering.

There is a difference between "requirement" and "enforcement"

I tell ya Foob like dbl said to Lu..you and Lu are likeminded when it comes to nit-picking on certain wording.

Maybe you both should consider a career in law.

That's not what he really meant. That's him backpedaling, AFTER I called him on what he originally said. I'm sorry if precision befuddles you.

I'm quite enjoying this conversation, it's gone from quasi-eugenicist, to tiptoeing around the significant events of 1913 to nonsense spectrum noise and the verbosity-equals-dick-size arguments, naming the monster that's eating us...but I feel it necessary to interject a couple things here.
1.

Yeah?
Ask some Mormons about marriage under the ever-watchful eye of geheime staatspolizei in das Heimutland. Or Huichol practicers and peyote...or the Rastas and cannabis.
I'm assuming you meant prohibition by law in the U.S, because we could include Sharia and certain dirty little tenets of Catholicism...if we go further, past the legal and just into social prohibition or "shit that will probably get you investigated", we could include the "Ground Zero Mosque", or "Burn A Quran Day".

On the other hand, there are quite a few instances of Establishment...still. Sunday Laws are an example. Or Cecil B. DeMille's Ten Commandments ads still in courthouses around the country.
And worse, selective enforcement, on things like Scientology and Operation Snow White.

2.


It isn't enforced? Try getting married or getting counseling at a church when you haven't coughed up that tithe. It's like they have a lien on your soul.

I'm not saying I agree with any of it, the Spartanesque baby-tossing or the religions or the law or crypto-fascism and the right-lefties or left-righties...but let's not just throw things out there without backing them up.
Good show chaps.

We were on the topic of birth control being covered by healthcare. Not all governments with respect to all religions, ever. Birth control being covered by healthcare is not prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Were you trying to inject a little "nonsense spectrum noise?"

Easy there cupcake, I don't know if PMS pills are covered either. You made a general statement that could have been viewed as outside the context. The conversation was about the U.S.; I did not include anything from any other nation's government. In the context of time, I didn't include anything from before a few years ago, so it was recent, and therefore applicable. I could have mentioned Hosanna-Tabor Church v. the EEOC and its possible effects on the decision. But I didn't, because I viewed your statement as outside the context.
And now I see that noise could just as easily be the bug up your ass.
Relax, sweetheart; you aren't hearing the case, you are engaged in civil debate.
On the internet.
On a celebrity picture forum.

In the context of this thread it was obvious what I was talking about. When reading a discussion thread on a forum it would make sense to consider the context of the discussion. Cupcake/Sweetheart/Moron.