I'm in my 40s and attended a Baptist Church in my youth that required formal members to tithe. It was the primary reason my parents stopped taking us there.
> Do you have any sources for this assertion?
Don't be that person. Take or leave the anecdote, but don't make an asinine request of evidence for something clearly anecdotal.
> but often being a "member" of the church requires providing some form of formal support, such as tithing
note the word "often". How is that clearly anecdotal? If the commenter had framed it as their own experience at a church they attended, I'd have no problem believing them. But clearly that's not the case. They are making a general assertion about most (or many) churches.
And please be a bit more respectful and charitable. It's more conducive to discussion and common decency.
Helping people see that their behaviour is not acceptable in a relatively mild manner is very respectful. The charitability thing is not really all that relevant here, because the words were not taken in a bad light - both of you agree on what was said. What you don't agree on is whether or not it should have been said, which no amount of charitable reading will fix.
> Helping people see that their behaviour is not acceptable in a relatively mild manner is very respectful.
The premise of andrew_14's correction, that the gp comment is anecdotal is totally wrong. I thought I'd made that clear.
So I'm genuinely curious, how was my behavior unacceptable?
Here is the flow of discussion:
Turing_Machine: "often being a "member" of the church requires providing some form of formal support, such as tithing"
Me: (paraphrased) That doesn't seem true that often being a member of a church requires support such as tithing. Could you give me some sources for this?
Again, please explain to me why responding to a blanket assertion by asking for evidence is unacceptable behavior? I see it here all the time.
> relatively mild manner is very respectful
Describing my request as asinine which means extremely stupid is relatively mild and respectful? Relative to what? Getting punched in the face?
I beg to differ that is was mild and respectful. Even if he put it in a respectable way like "I don't think your request is reasonable given the statement was anecdotal", again, the premise of his comment is totally wrong so his correction of my behavior is fallacious.
> The charitability thing is not really all that relevant here, because the words were not taken in a bad light - both of you agree on what was said.
I'm confused by this. I don't think both of us agree on what was said (your words). But since I don't quite understand what you are saying, I can't comment further. What words were not taken in a bad light? That he said my request is really stupid? I take that in a bad light. And what was said that we both agree on?
> Do you have any sources for this assertion?
Don't be that person. Take or leave the anecdote, but don't make an asinine request of evidence for something clearly anecdotal.