Tithing law!?
By jodylee
@jodylee (946)
United States
September 27, 2011 7:55pm CST
The ancient Babylonians practiced a vital law that was the cause of their immense prosperity. They used the tithing law, which involves giving one-tenth of all money or riches that you receive. The tithing law says that you must give to receive, and the Babylonians knew that the practice of this law opens up the flow of abundance.
If you are thinking, "I will give when I have enough money," then the tithing says that you will never have enough money, because you have to give first. Many of the wealthiest people on the planet have tithed their way to wealth, and they have never stopped tithing!
What are you thoughts after reading this?
1 person likes this
4 responses
@grandpa_lash (5225)
• Australia
28 Sep 11
It's interesting that you choose Babylon as your example. There have been others, but Babylon could be seen as one of the centres where Islam originated and grew. Islamic economics shows this influence. One of the main tenets of Islamic economics is redistribution of wealth. They call this "zakat": Technically, it means a contribution of a proportion of wealth for the use of the poor and needy as a sanctification for the remainder of the property. Hence in modern terminology, zakat is a tax collected from the relatively richer Muslims and distributed (mainly) among the poorer Muslims.
‘According to the contemporary religious views, zakat is imposed at a levy of 2.5 per cent on all idle assets (with very few exceptions) including cash in hand, idle deposits with banks, silver, gold and other jewellery; and on net earnings from transactions and at a levy of 10 percent on net returns from investments (i.e., after allowing for depreciation)’. [Metwally 1997:945]
The Christin church has always had a tradition of tithing, but that tends to be a bit sporadic as far as I can see.
In a way I suppose this tithing is an example of what comes around goes around.
Lash
1 person likes this
@trinidadvelasco (11401)
• Philippines
28 Sep 11
so tithing for the muslims is so well defined as against for the others where it is not as outlined as the muslims are doing it.
i am not that well informed on the way the muslims are doing it. it appears to be a better way of making the wealthier members of the society give help to the less privileged ones in terms of finances. nice.
@jodylee (946)
• United States
29 Sep 11
That you for that Lash! I honestly had this blurb sent to me through e-mail and thought it was interesting to see what it brought to others minds. Tithing in Christian churches does seem sporadic. I have not been to church in many years but I do have many ideas in terms of giving to others... You explanation was great! Thank you!
@grandpa_lash (5225)
• Australia
30 Sep 11
Their approach to lending is also quite different, and they do not allow the sort of fixed term "idle" investment that drives so much of Western economics. There are three kinds of lending, all profit/loss sharing.
‘Under muduraba, an investor or group of investors entrusts capital to an entrepreneur, who puts this into production or trade, and then returns to the investor(s) a prespecified share of his revenues. The remaining share is kept by the entrepreneur as a reward for his time and effort. If the business fails, the capital loss is borne entirely by the investor(s), the entrepreneur’s loss being his expended labour. Under musharaka, the entrepreneur adds some of his own capital to that supplied by the investor(s), exposing himself to the risk of capital loss. The key difference between the two mechanisms lies in the entrepreneur’s own financial commitment’. [Kumar 1993:308]
‘Lending with no participation in management (mudarabah or qiradh): under this method the bank provides all the capital of the operation and the client is fully responsible for management. In consideration, the partner gets an agreed proportion of the net profits. In case of loss resulting from normal business activities, the bank bears all the losses and the client loses only the profit that would have been the reward of his effort’. [Metwally 1997:970]
The public good outweighs the individual, so Islamic governments will not allow certain industries, mainly utilities, to be privatised.
I'm quite impressed by the possibilities of this form of economics.
Lash
@trinidadvelasco (11401)
• Philippines
28 Sep 11
in the old testament, this is indeed so. in the new testament, one gives a part of his income to the church following the dictates of his conscience and his heart.
yes, if we take a good look into this, everyone of us must allocate a part of our income for the church. this shall cover for the financial needs of those who are in the task of ministering the gospel and all the other tasks that it entails.
i would take it that this means setting aside a good amount of our earnings for the purpose of supporting the financial needs of the church ministers. this amount is not just a negligible amount. it should be an amount that matters.
@grandpa_lash (5225)
• Australia
4 Oct 11
Actually trinidad, I think you have missed the point of tithing, which is not designed to support the clergy but to provide a safety net for the poor. Considering the wealth of the major sects in the world today, perhaps the churches themselves should be tithed for this purpose.
Lash
@jodylee (946)
• United States
29 Sep 11
That is how it seems in Christianity, you are correct there. I am not sure I feel all that comfortable giving to churches for their survival but really, to each his own. I think whatever you can give to others to help is a wonderful thing, no matter what the amount and how you choose to allocate it...
@bounce58 (17387)
• Canada
6 Oct 11
I actually know of a religion that uses this law! They are required to give 10% of all of their earnings. And when they fail to do so, their names are called out during their gatherings.
And I know that they are very prosperous, as their churches are really feats of architecture.
@whatrow (792)
• United States
28 Sep 11
It doesn't work. Giving away 10% of what you have does not lead to riches. At least, it has never helped me. If I hadn't been so devoted to the idea of helping others I would not be where I am today. If I finally receive enough money to pay off a big bill, do you actually expect me to prolong my problem by paying only 90% and giving 10% to some charity?
