Pages

Monday, June 28, 2010

Revelation: When was it written?

When was Revelation written?

The following information is from An Introduction to the New Testament, D. Edmond Hiebert, Moody Press, 1977, pages 253-257.

“It was the testimony of the early church that the Apocalypse was written during the latter part of the reign of Domitian who was emperor from AD81-96.”

1. Irenaeus (150-200): “For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian’s reign.” Against Heresies, 5.30.3 Note: Some think that Irenaeus was quoting Papias around AD130.

2. Clement of Alexander:, “For when on the tyrant’s death he returned to Ephesus from the isle of Patmos…” Who was This Rich Man?, XLII

3. Victoinas of Pettau (D304): “… in the isle of Patmos condemned by Caesar Domitian.” Commentary on the Apocalypse, 10:11

4. Eusebius agreed with Irenaeus: John was imprisoned in the 15th year of Domitian (AD95-96) and returned during the reign of Nerva, Eccliastical History, 3.18 and 3.20

5. Jerome (d420): Agreed with Domitian date, Lives of Illustrious Men (ch 9)

6. Making the transliterated name of Nero equal 666 requires misspelling the transliterated name by adding a second letter “n.”

7. The churches of Asia were not in decline in the AD60s but had declined by the AD90s (Rev 2:4; 3:1; 3:15-18).

8. The Nicolaitan party was not present in Paul’s letters of the AD60s but was very strong in the AD90s (Rev 2:6, 15).

9. John seems to have a long intimate knowledge of the churches. This was not possible for the AD60s because he only went to Asia in AD67. The AD96 date best explains this.

10. The expression “synagogue of Satan” would have been inappropriate for the AD60s but not for the AD90s.

11. The phrase “the Lord’s day” (1:9) as a reference to Sunday had replaced “the first day of the week” in the AD90s and not in the AD60s.

12. Live emperor worship seen throughout Revelation and especially in chapter 13 does not fit Nero because Domitian was the first Emperor who demanded worship of a living emperor.

13. Laodicea had been destroyed by an earthquake in AD62 and could not have been wealthy between AD67-70. It was wealthy again in AD96.

14. Polycarp implies that there was no church in Smyrna as of AD63. Therefore AD96 better fits the description.

15. If Revelation were written in Nero’s age, why did the early church have such a strong tradition that it had been written under Domitian? (Hiebert, p257)

Thursday, June 24, 2010

DEFINING ATHEISM

Atheism: Once upon a long long time ago something as small as a BB had eternally existed. Although it had no intelligence and laws to guide it, it must be the same as a “god” because it always existed.

Eventually this BB-god superheated for no reason and exploded into a huge helium-gas fart. This new fart-god still had no intelligence or laws guiding it.

By pure dumb chance this fart-god kept superheating and re-farting until there were heavier elements everywhere which very much later evolved without intelligence into atheists. That is how THEY explain life!

The rest of us explain intelligence by believing in an Intelligent Creator God.

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Nobody Biblically Tithes Today

The answer comes from the biblical definition of “tithe” as only holy food from inside God’s only Old Covenant land of Israel which God had increased. Tithes could not come from what man produced, from Gentiles or from outside of Israel. Period.

In order for somebody to biblically give holy tithes today:
1. They must be a Hebrew living under the Old Covenant (Ex 19:5-6).
2. They must be a Hebrew living inside a holy land of Israel (Lev 27:30-33).
3. They must be a Hebrew and only tithe food miraculously increased inside a holy Israel (Lev 27:30-33).
4. They must give Levitical tithes of food to a holy Levitical servant-hood (Num 18:21-24; Neh 10:37b) who tithes to a holy Aaronic priesthood (Num 18:25-28; Neh 10:38).
5. They must not deliberately share their Old Covenant with Gentiles (Ex 23:32; Deu 7:2).
6. They must not use tithes to support the proselytizing of Gentiles Ex 23:32; Deu 7:2).
7. They must give tithes to Levites who have forfeited their right to own property (Num 18:21-28).

Christians may call giving 10% of their income “tithing” but it not does not meet the biblical definition or purpose of tithing. They are merely giving freewill offerings of 10% and calling such “tithing.”

Rebuttal of Kenneth Copeland on Tithing

Rebuttal to Kenneth Copeland on Tithing EDITED

http://www.kcm.org/real-help/article/i-want-you-prosper-tithing-faith-love-and-righteousness

Copeland: What does it mean to tithe according to the Word?

Kelly: It means to obey EVERYTHING the Bible says about tithing: (1) Only OT Hebrews, (2) Only FOOD from inside God’s holy land, (3) Levite tithe only given to servants of the priests, (4) Levites only give priests one per cent and (5) tithe recipients are not allowed to own or inherit property (Numbers 18).

Copeland: Matthew 23:23 …
Addressing the religious people of the day, Jesus said that they tithed their money but they neglected the important matters of the heart. …

Kelly: The Bible says “mint and cumin” –not “money.” Biblical HOLY tithes were always only FOOD from inside Israel. Non-food producers and Gentiles could not tithe and tithes could not come from outisde Israel. In Mt 23:23 Jesus was discssing “matters of the law.”

Copeland: … we can expand our definition and say that tithing is bringing the first tenth to Jesus, according to His Word …

Kelly: You have CHANGED the DEFINITION of “tithe” from God’s Word. Then you have erroneously blended it with “firstfruits.” Firstfrutis and tithes were never the same thing. Firstfrutis were very small token offerings. Tithes were “tenth-fruits.”

Copeland: … Faith works by love (Galatians 5:6) …

Kelly: And tithing is cold hard law which was required from food producers whether they had faith or not. Placing Christians under the Law is the same as “witchcraft” per Gal 3:1.

Copeland: … and righteousness is by faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 3:22). …

Kelly: We are saved “by grace through faith.” Adding anything else is adding works of law back into it (Eph 2:8-9).

Copeland: … Therefore, these three cannot be separated. When we tithe, we need to be mindful of all these areas. …

Kelly: Your preaching of tithing is like a congressman voting himself a pay raise by robbing the poor. Nobody actually bibllically tithes today. They may sacrificially give freewill offerings, but those are not tithes.

Copeland: … Let’s look at tithing from the level of “faith first” by studying Genesis 4:1-8 … LONG DISCUSSION

Kelly: This is not a discussion of tithing. After the fall the land was CURSED and sin offerings must include sacrifice and the shedding of blood.

Copeland: … I’m satisfied that the revelation which they received was the knowledge that the whole earth belonged to God and they (who were given the use of the earth) were to tithe a tenth of it back to God (Leviticus 27:30; Psalms 24:1; Haggai 2:8). …

Kelly: While it is true that the whole earth belonged to God (PS 24:1), He only accepted HOLY tithes from inside His blessed HOLY land of Israel (Lev 27:30).

Copeland: … No wonder the church has fought over the tithe--the first murder was committed over it. …

Kelly: This is horrendous abuse of God’s Word.

Copeland: As the New Testament church, we cannot afford disobedience either. But sin and the hundredfold blessing of God lie at the door. We are the only ones with the authority to let one or the other in. This is one of the reasons that we have been robbed financially….

Kelly: You disobey God every time you change the definition of God’s HOLY tithe and enrich yourself financially while robbing from the poor.

Copeland: Gen 14:18-20. … The first thing Abram did was tithe the spoils. …

Kelly: Yes, but why? The Bible does not tell us why. Verse 21 suggests that a pagan Cannanite law of the land was the motive behind the tithe and Abram was compelled to obey the law of the land. This is verified in socres of books on ancient religions.

Copeland: … The king whose goods had been stolen greedily watched Abram, thinking that he was going to keep all of the spoil. He wanted some of it back. After all, it belonged to him before those armies came in and stole it. …

Kelly: First, this was a different king of Sodom because the first had been killed. Second, the law of the land allowed Abram to keep all the spoils except the tithe to the local king-priest. The king of Sodom was merely hoping for grace from Abram.

Copeland: He went to Abram and said; "Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself. …

Kelly: The king of Sodom actdually had not right to anything.

Copeland: And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lifted up mind hand unto the Lord, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth. That I will not take from a thread even to a shoelatchet …

Kelly: Abram had already pre-determined not to be enriched through spoils of war. God had already blessed him beyond measure when he had not deserved it.

Copeland: “I promised when I tithed the spoils that I wouldn’t even take one of your shoestrings, lest you say that you are the one that made me rich.” …

Kelly: The Bible does not tell us WHEN he made the promise to God to keep nothing. He might have made such promise BEFORE the battle or even BEFORE leaving for battle to rescue Lot.

Copeland: The next time you approach the tithing altar, realize that Jesus your High Priest is standing there. Judge yourself according to the Word of God. Test your heart and your motives. …

Kelly: What is a “titing altar”? Nehemiah 10:37b038 tells us that the ordinary people brought their tithes to the Levitical cities were the Levites and priests lived and needed the tithes for food. The Levites and priests RECEIVED the FOOD tithes in the Levitical cities –not in the Temple. Only the Levites and priests normally brought very small portions of the FOOD tithe to the temple for weekly use per Mal 3:10-11.

Copeland: Don’t just tithe and neglect the weightier matter of justice. Abram did what was right and just. He tithed righteously, not selfishly. Abram is our example….

Kelly: Abram also gave the 90% to the king of Sodom and lied to Pharash about his wife. Are those also our examples or only what you choose?

Copeland:
The Matter of Mercy
Mercy is the last area that Jesus mentioned in Matthew 23:23 concerning how we ought to tithe.

Kelly: Why do you ignore WHAT Jesus said was tithe-able? –FOOD, mint and cumin—from inside Israel.

Copeland: Read Nehemiah 10:38,39 and you will see what I mean; "(1) And the priest the son of Aaron shall be with the Levites, (2) when the Levites take tithes: (3) and the Levites shall bring up the tithe of the tithes unto the house of our God, to the chambers, unto the treasure house. (4) For the children of Israel and the children of Levi shall bring the offering of the corn, of the new wine, and the oil, unto the chambers, where are the vessels of the sanctuary, (5) and the priests that minister, and the porters, and the singers: and we will not forsake the house of our God.

Kelly: Wow! Copeland actually has the guts to quote this text BUT he does not quote verse 37! (1) The Levites and priests received the tithe from the people –NOT IN THE TEMPLE—but in the Levitical cites (Neh 10:37b). (2) The first whole Levitical tithe went to the Levites –not to the priests (Num 18:21-24). (3) Levites (and priests) brought portion of the tithe they needed to minister for one week at a time to the SMALL Temple store-room (Neh 12:44). (4) The Temple chambers were much too small to hold ALL the tithe of the nation; it held freewill firstfruit offerings (Neh 10:35-37a). (5) The tithe first feed the Levite servants to the priests who were also the guards and singers.

Copeland: To attend church every Sunday and always be on the receiving end and never on the giving end is selfish. …

Kelly: This comes from a man who is filthy rich with many houses and jet planes.

Copeland: The person who does this has forgotten the weightier matter of mercy and love. Love gives. …

Kelly: Again, “weightier matters --- OF THE LAW” is omitted from Mt 23:23.

Copeland: To withhold the tithe is to forsake the household of God….

Kelly: The tithe was never commnded to Gentiles or the Church either before or after Calvary. And church “tithe-recipients” do not forsake ownersip of property.

Copeland:
Who Receives the Tithe?
Jesus is the High Priest over the house of God in the New Testament. In the spirit, He receives our tithes and presents them to the Father in heaven. But who receives them here on earth?

Kelly: There are no real biblical HOLY tithes from inside God’s HOLY land of Israel today! That which Copeland recieves as “tithes” he presents to aircraft and real estate salesmen.

Copeland:
II Chronicles 31:4,5 says that the priests and Levites, or the ministry, received the tithe that they might be encouraged. This is not an issue that we can handle lightly. …

Kelly: Read the whole chapter. King Hezeiah had erroneously commadned the people to bring ALL the tithes to the Temple in Jerusalem; there was no storehouse, therefore they rotted in the streets! After consulting the Levites and priests, the tithes were then REDISTRIBUTED to the Levitcal cities in verses 15-19.

Copeland: Under the Old Covenant, the tithe was brought mainly into the temple in Jerusalem and the local synagogue.

Kelly: No. This is contrary to what we have just discussed in Neh 10:35-38; 13:5-10 and 2 Chron 31:15-19. And there were no synagogues prior to the exile to Babylon. Synagogues were run by SELF-SUPPORTING rabbis who would not accept tithes which belonged to the Levites and priests. This is false theology and false history.

Copeland: In the New Testament, the local church is the backbone of the body of Christ.

Kelly: Read any reputable church historian. The early church hid and met in catacombs and graveyards for centuries as an outlaw religion. It had no church buildings to store anything. The church is not a storehouse. Both the OT Temple and priesthood were replaced, not by Gospel Workers, but by the priesthood of every believer.

Copeland: Malachi 3:10 … Wherever you are receiving revelation, that is where your tithe should go.

Kelly: Freewill, generous, sacrificial offerings YES. Tithes –NO.

Copeland: But let us also notice that Paul said that the church at Philippi supported him.

Kelly: When Paul left Philippi he told the next church at Thessalonica that he worked “night and day” to support himself. The church at Philippi did NOT fully support him. Paul accepted limited support because he was poor-- not because he was a gospel worker.

Copeland: … Will you allow Jesus to direct your giving? If you are, God will open the windows of heaven and pour out a blessing so rich, so abundant that you will not be able to contain it!

Kelly: This is a misuse of Malachi 3:10. The whole law was a test –not merely tithing (Neh 10:29; Mal 4:4). Obey all to be blessed; break one to be cursed. God cannot bless a New Covenant Christian for obedience to an Old Covenant conditional promise.

Copeland: Let me provide you with a sample confession for your tithe based on Deuteronomy 26. First read that entire chapter.

Kelly: Yes, read the entire chapter. (1) Tithes were always only FOOD from inside God’s holy land of Israel which God had miraculously increased. (2) The second festaival tithe was eaten in the streets of Jerusalem and not placed into the Temple storehosue. (3) The third third-year tithe was kept in the towns for the poor. (4) The total tithe was at least 20% and probably 23 1/3rd%.

Copeland: Then relate it to the New Testament and hold your tithe before the Lord as you say out loud:
"We profess this day unto the Lord God that we have come into the inheritance which the Lord swore to give us.

Kelly: (1) We Gentiles were prohibited from tithing under the Old Covenant and Israel was prohibited from using tithes to convert us Gentiles. (2) New Covenant Gentile Christians cannot hold up HOLY food from inside Israel. (3) The instructions in Deuteronomy 26 are impossible for Christians to obey today. (4) The blessings and curses of the Old Covenant follow.

Copeland: We are in the land which You have provided for us in Jesus Christ, the kingdom of Almighty God (Colossians 1:13).

Kelly: This is not a direct corrolation to tithing.

Copeland: … "Jesus, as our Lord and High Priest, we bring the firstfruits of our income to You and worship the Lord our God with it. …

Kelly: Not biblical. Firstfruits were very small token offerings and not tithes (Deu 26:1-4; Neh 10:35-37). Christians are to use their first income for medicine, food and essential shelter per First Timothy 5:8.

Copeland:
We rejoice in all the good which You have given to us and our household. We have hearkened to the voice of the Lord our God and have done according to all that He has commanded us. Now look down from Your holy habitation from heaven and bless us as You said in Deuteronomy 26:14,15 and Malachi 3:10,11."

Kelly: In other words “God, I am a New Covenant Christian and have obeyed at least one of 613 Old Covenant commands. Therefore you are obligated to bless me.”

Russell Earl Kelly, PHD
www.tithing-russkelly.com
russell-kelly@att.net

Monday, June 21, 2010

Reply to Pastor’s Reflections

Pastorrefelections.blogspot

How To Get Rich Quick EDITED

Pastor Jeff: Deuteronomy 14:22-29

Russ: You dare to quote an Old Covenant text designed only for national Israel land then you obey NONE of it. (1) holy tithes were always only food from inside God’s holy land, (2) the second festival tithe was eaten by all during 3 annual feasts in Jerusalem and (3) a third year tithe was kept in the homes and towns for the poor.

Jeff: Jesus’ … only quoted statement in the New Testament outside the Gospels was, "it is more blessed to give than to receive". In essence those who give, not those who get, are the rich people of the world. The rich are to those who "get it", that they are blessed with much so that they can bless much. They are blessed to BE a blessing.

Russ: You have taken this completely out of context. It is not addressed to the “rich.” Read Acts 21:29-35. It is addressed to church elders. They are to get a secular job and assist the needy in their congregations.

Jeff: Deut 14:23 “And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always.”

Two things are important here. The first is at the end of verse 23. "The purpose of tithing is to teach you always to put God first in your life." That's simple and clear. Money, food, material wealth is where the rubber meets the road. If I want to put God first I will do so in my giving. It will be sacrificial and generous. Maybe the best guideline is to always give an amount that exceeds what I can afford.

Russ: The text tells me (1) tithes are only food from inside Israel, (2) the second tithe is to be eaten in the streets of Jerusalem during 3 annual feasts and (3) tithing taught FEAR of God. Since tithes are not the same as firstfruits and, since, only food producers inside Israel could tithe, it does not ALL to give firstfruits.

Jeff: Second is that tithing is how we care for others.

Russ: “We”? Tithing was never commanded to the Gentiles or Church. “We” Gentiles never were under the tithing laws. Tithes could not come from non-food products, outside Israel or Gentiles.

Jeff: The Christian Church is the greatest force for social justice on the planet. …

Russ: Its power has been severely lessened by legalism such as tithing which makes rich preachers look selfish and greedy.

Jeff: There's a third thing. They ate their tithe together. Pretty awesome. Feasting together, they proclaimed YHWH provider and sustainer of all of life. And foreigners, widows, orphans and other underprivileged people got in on it.

Russ: Why do you even point this out when you personally do not teach it or follow it?

Superior NT giving principles for the Church after Calvary are: freewill, generous, sacrificial, joyful, not by commandment (or percentage) and motivated by love for God and lost souls. For many this means MORE than ten per cent; others are giving sacrificially even though less.

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Stand Your Ground revision

STAND YOUR GROUND (first revision)
Thursday, June 19, 2010

Friends of Tithing-Study Group and Dr. Russell Earl Kelly:

The following is a great revision of my original article, Stand Your Ground. I asked for discussion and have incorporated almost every suggestion into this revision. I thank all who contributed. I also pray that this revision will be acceptable to all.

After a recent meeting with my good friend, Charles Crabtree, I have come to the conclusion that we have been using the wrong strategy. Most of us, INCLUDING MYSELF, have been leaving churches which teach tithing instead of STANDING OUR GROUND.

What did Jeremiah do when he was right and almost everybody opposed him? He obeyed his holy prophetic calling, STOOD HIS GROUND, and made the king act against him. If the king had killed him the negative publicity might have been bad for the king.

What did Jesus do when He was rebuked by the scribes and Pharisees? He responded in love, STOOD HIS GROUND and publicly severely rebuked them! He did not apologize for hurting their feelings. The truth was worth dieing for.

What did Peter do at Pentecost? He was filled with love. He was filled with the Holy Spirit. He STOOD HIS GROUND and said things which the leaders did not want him to say.
“You killed the Prince of life” (Acts 3:15). “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out” (3:19). When the Jewish leaders became angry that Peter and the disciples were preaching a different doctrine, they threw them into prison -- but abut 5000 believed (4:1-4). From bonds Peter STOOD HIS GROUND testified in front of the high priests and all the rulers (4:5-12). Upon seeing their “boldness” (not their knowledge of the Bible), after the leaders had commanded them NOT to teach in the name of Jesus, Peter and John STOOD THEIR GROUND and said “we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.”

Stephen was bolder than Peter. Out of love he told his fellow Jews “Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye” (Acts 7:51). He accused them of murdering the Messiah and not keeping the law” (7:52-53). After STANDING HIS GROUND, the Jewish leaders were “cut to the heart, and they gnashed their teeth” before killing him (7:54-59). Stephen was willing to pay the ultimate price.

What did Paul do when he was kicked out of synagogue after synagogue? He STOOD HIS GROUND. He stayed in each synagogue until he was forcibly removed –and—by then he had reached many with the truth. Paul was certainly motivated by the love of God as revealed in Jesus Christ, but that love never stopped him from speaking and living the truth: “for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel!” (1 Cor 9:16). Tithing was the farthest thing from Paul’s mind. His love for Christ, his calling of God and his desire to win souls sacrificed any monetary gain (1 Cor 9:18-19).

Almost every Protestant church has rules in its by-laws granting any member the right to be heard with a grievance before the entire congregation. Neither the pastor, the elders, the deacons nor the board of trustees has the biblical authority to remove members or command members not to return.

From this point onward I will not counsel anybody to leave his/her present church UNTIL AFTER they have been heard before the congregated church at a formal called and scheduled business meeting. This is biblical (Acts 15:4-7; 21:17-22).

WHEN YOU INITIATE THE DIALOG

1 Tim 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.

1 Tim 5:20 them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.

1 Tim 5:21 I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.

1. If you decide to initiate an inquiry about your pastor (elder, bishop) concerning abuse of authority, discipline or doctrine, BE DOUBLE SURE that you know what you are talking about and be double prepared. He/she has been chosen by the assembly to fill a position of double honor and is “double worthy” of double caution. Discipline of church leaders is the context of First Timothy 5:17-18 from verse 1.

2. The Bible commands doing such in front of two or three witnesses. This is your opportunity to be clearly heard. Anticipate objections and expect to have certain texts injected into the discussion (Gen 14:18-20; Lev 27:30-33; Mal 3:8-10; Mt 23:23; 1 Cor 9:13-14; Heb 7:1-10).

3. Regardless of promises of confidentiality, this WILL very soon be known in the entire church. Do not fool yourself. If you do not want widespread whispering, then say nothing.

4. An approach of superior knowledge will not succeed. If your opposition is not motivated by much prayer, love for the truth and abuse of the needy in the church, it is for self-gratification.

5. Remember the counsel of Romans 14 about offending the weaker brethren. Most tithe-payers are wonderful sincere Christians who will be severely shaken by the truth about tithing. Be fully prepared to prove to them that you are not against supporting the church; that you are FOR generous sacrificial giving which can, for some, mean MORE than ten per cent. If you cannot offer better giving principles, stop and study more before proceeding.

6. Consider your wife and family. Tithing is a non-salvation issue. It would be wrong for arguments over tithing to cause a divorce. And I do not think that one should stop going to church merely because it teaches tithing and you cannot find a non-tithing church. Christians are all part of the Body of Christ and need sustenance from the Body even though the Body is not rock-solid in doctrine.

7. If you are not prepared to be severely criticized, keep quiet. These are not games to be played.

WHEN SOMEBODY ELSE INITIATES THE DIALOG AGAINST YOU

Matt 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

Matt 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

Matt 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

1. When any in the church accuse you of teaching a false doctrine and takes it upon themselves to discipline you, then Jesus’ words come into effect.

2. Be aware that, most likely, you will eventually be asked to leave the church because you disagree with it over tithing. Again, if you are not willing to take this route, keep quiet.

3. First, the accuser is commanded by Jesus to talk to you on a one-to-one basis per Matt 18:15 –even it the accuser is the pastor. The first meeting should not be a gang-up on you. If it is, do not participate. They are disobeying Jesus’ direct command. Ask for this correct biblical sequence.

4. Second, if there is still no agreement, the next step is for the accusing party to speak to you again in front of two-three witnesses. This second meeting is NOT to be in front of the board of elders, deacons or the church. If it is, do not participlate. Ask for this correct biblical sequence. The purpose of this meeting is to insure that all parties are being understood clearly. Make sure that they understand you are not equating tithing with freewill offerings

5. Third, if there is still no agreement, the accuser is commanded by Jesus to bring the issue before the entire congregation. Only the church body has the authority to discipline you or anybody else.

6. Again, there is no biblical authority invested in the pastor, the elders, the deacon or the church board to discipline you BEFORE the entire church has heard your case. Exactly like the examples of Jeremiah, Jesus, Peter, Stephen and Paul -- this is your golden opportunity to defend God’s Word and your conviction about tithing before the entire church. Project love.

7. Let the Tithing-Study Group know of your progress through these steps in order that all of us may pray for you. Because of the nature of our Tithing-Study Group, I feel that there is no need to ask for assistance to a brother or sister facing questions. This is why we exist.

Note: We realize that there are some churches which do not follow the biblical sequence and give far too much authority to the leader. If you recognize this in your church, it is probably best simply to state your conviction and quietly either submit or leave. At least attempt to be heard before you leave. That is how the Apostle Paul acted.

In Christ’s love
Russell Earl Kelly, PHD

John Hagee and Tithing Abuse

http://harpercrusade.blogspot.com/2010/06/tithing-yourself-into-knots-john-hagee.html

Thursday, June 17, 2010

stand your ground

(FOR DISCUSSION)

STAND YOUR GROUND
Thursday, June 17, 2010

Friends of Tithing-Study Group and Dr. Russell Earl Kelly:

After a recent meeting with my good friend, Charles Crabtree, I have come to the conclusion that we have been using the wrong strategy. Most of us, INCLUDING MYSELF, have been leaving churches which teach tithing instead of standing our ground.

What did Jeremiah do when he was right and almost everybody opposed him? He stood his ground and made the king act against him. If the king had killed him the negative publicity might have been bad.

What did Jesus do when He was rebuked by the scribes and Pharisees? He stood his ground and publicly rebuked them! He did not apologize for hurting their feelings. The truth was worth dieing for.

What did Paul do when he was kicked out of synagogue after synagogue? He stood his ground. He stayed in each one until he was forcibly removed –and—by then he had reached many with the truth.

Almost every Protestant church has rules in its by-laws granting any member the right to be heard with a grievance before the entire congregation. Neither the pastor nor the elders nor the deacons nor the board of trustees have the biblical authority to remove members or command members not to return.

From this point onward I will not counsel anybody to leave his/her present church UNTIL AFTER they have been heard before the congregated church at a formal called scheduled business meeting. This is biblical.

1 Tim 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.

1 Tim 5:20 Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.
1 Tim 5:21 I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels, that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing by partiality.

WHEN YOU INITIATE THE DIALOG

1. If you want to initiate an inquiry about your pastor (elder) concerning abuse of authority, discipline or doctrine, be DOUBLE SURE that you know what you are talking about and be double prepared. Discipline of church leaders is the context of 1Timothy 5:17-18 from verse 1.
2. The Bible commands doing such in front of two or three witnesses. Regardless of promises of confidentiality, this WILL very soon be known in the entire church.
3. If you are not prepared to be severely criticized, keep quiet. These are not games to be played.

WHEN SOMEBODY ELSE INITIATES THE DIALOG AGAINST YOU

Matt 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.

Matt 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

Matt 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

4. When any in the church accuse you of teaching a false doctrine and takes it upon themselves to discipline you, then Jesus’ words come into effect.

5. Be aware that, most likely, you will eventually be asked to leave the church because you disagree with it over tithing. Again, if you are not willing to take this route, keep quiet.

6. First, the accuser is commanded by Jesus to talk to you on a one-to-one basis per Matt 18:15 –even it the accuser is the pastor. The first meeting should not be a gang-up on you. If it is, then ask for this correct biblical sequence.

7. Second, if there is still no agreement, the next step is for the accusing party to speak to you again in front of two-three witnesses. This second meeting is NOT to be in front of the board of elders, deacons or the church. If it is, then ask for this correct biblical sequence.

8. Third, if there is still no agreement, the accuser is commanded by Jesus to bring the issue before the entire congregation. Only the church body has the authority to discipline.

9. Again, there is no biblical authority invested in the pastor, the elders, the deacon or the church board to discipline you BEFORE the entire church has heard your case. This is your opportunity to defend God’s Word and your conviction about tithing before the entire church.

10. Let the Tithing-Study Group know of your progress through these steps in order that all of us may pray for you.

11. I urge the Group to help me better state these ideas and fine-tune them. If you disagree and think I should delete this appeal, I will listen.

Monday, June 14, 2010

Preterism-5

Chris: ALL DISPENSATIONALITS AGREE THAT THE LAW OF MOSES HAS BEEN PERMANENTLY REMOVED.

Russ: What is your position?

Chris: HOWEVER ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE MOSAIC COVENANT WITH ITS CULTUS WAS TO STAND FOREVER? … FROM THESE EXAMPLES IT IS EVIDENT THAT FOREVER DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN WITHOUT END.

Russ: Yes, there are times in which “forever” refers to “as long as you shall live” (EX 21:6) and “perpetual” means “as long as the conditional Old Covenant lasts.”

Chris: GEN17:7 GOD MADE AN EVERLASTING COVENANT WITH ABRAHAM TO GIVE THEM THE LAND.THE CONDITIONAL PROMISE THAT DEMANDED OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW OF MOSES.

Russ: You conveniently skipped Genesis 12 and 15. The covenant had both an UNCONDITIONAL and a CONDITIONAL element. The only conditions of Genesis 12:1-4 was for Abram to “Get thee out” of Haran and go to Canaan. “And he departed” in Gen 12:4 makes God’s promises UNCONDDTIONAL that the land would be given to Abraham’s seed. Also, in Genesis 15, God Himself placed Abraham in a sleep and He alone walked among the cut covenant. That makes the covenant UNCONDITINAL. Only the timing was CONDITIONAL as we see in Genesis 17. All the prophets taught the same thing: God was going to UNCONDITIONALLY give Israel the land but the timing was CONDITIONAL until God was ready.

Chris: GENESIS 17:13 CIRCUMCISION WAS TO BE AN EVERLASTING COVENANT BETWEEN GOD AND ISRAEL YET PAUL SAID THAT CIRCUMCISION MEANS NOTHING AND TO BE CIRCUMCISED FOR RELIGIOUS REASON IS TO LOSE BENEFIT OF CHRIST'S WORK GAL 5:1-6.

Russ: What consistent hermeneutic do you use to bring something from the past into the New Covenant? I really want to know. You are asking all the questions and REFUSE to comment on my questions. Unfair!
The consistent hermeneutic used by Dispensationalists is this: That which is eternal and moral has been REPEATED to the Church after Calvary in terms of the New Covenant through grace and faith. Circumcision has specifically been repeated in that new light to the Church in the New Covenant after Calvary.

Chris: EXODUS 31:16 THE SABBATHS WAS A PERPETUAL COVENANT YET PAUL (GOOD JEW THAT HE WAS) SAID THAT GENTILE CHRISTIAN WERE NOT TO BE JUDGED ON WHETHER THEY OBSERVED THE SABBATHS OF ISRAEL IN FACT WHEN WRITING TO GALATIANS HE SAID I AM AFRAID OF YOU FOR YOY OBSERVE DAYS AND WEEKS AND MONTHS AND YEARS.

Russ: Exodus 31:13-17 is in the context of God’s CONDITIONAL Old Covenant made only with national Israel. Again, what is your CONSISTENT hermeneutic to deal with this problem? I really want to know. The application of my consistent hermeneutic allows me to discard it for two reasons (1) as part of the discarded CONDITIONAL Old Covenant and (2) because the Sabbath is dealt with by Paul after Calvary in terms of the New Covenant.

Chris: THE ATTEMPT TO IMPOSE THOSE ETERNAL STATUES ON CHRISTIANS IS CONDEMNED.

Russ: Conservative Baptist Dispensationalists have no problem understanding these texts. You need to take them up with churches which have a yearly calendar of holy days and think that Sunday legalistically replaces the Sabbath.

Chris: EXDOUS 29:28 THE LORD PROMISED WOULD BELONG TO THE AARONIC FAMILY FOR PERPETUAL STATUTE YET THE NEW TESTSMENT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE AARONIC PRIESTHOOD HAS BEEN SUPERCEDED BY CHRISTS SUPERIOR PRIESHOOD'

Russ: Again my CONSISTENT hermeneutic allows me to discard this for the same two reasons as the Sabbath: (1) as part of the CONDITIONAL Old Covenant and (2) because it has been dealt with in the New Covenant for the Church after Calvary.

Chris: THE DEMAND THAT FOREVER MEANS WITHOUT END CAN IN FACT LEAD TO A SERIOUS PROBLEMS FOR THE MILLENNIAL VIEW. NOT ONLY WERE THE MANDATES OF THE MOSAIC COVENANT SAID TO BE ETERNAL …

Russ: Do you have a CONSISTENT hermeneutic to use on the same texts you want me to explain? Let us be fair now. It is your turn. Do you discard EVERYTHING called “forever” or simply pick-n-choose?
For the third time, my CONSISTENT hermeneutic allows to me discard a “forever” or “perpetual” statement which is found WITHIN THE CONDITIONAL Old Covenant. The “forever” statement promised to Abram in Genesis 12 and 15 were (1) given BEFORE the Old Covenant and (2) were not annulled in the New Covenant.

Chris: WHAT MANY DO NOT REALIZE IS THAT JEHOVAH PLACED AN ETERNAL CURSE ON ISRAEL YET WE DO NOT HEAR THE MILLENNIAITS TALKING ABOUT THIS. JER 23:39-40

Russ: If all we had from Jeremiah’s pen were 23:39-40 I might agree with you. God did indeed cast out those who rejected Jeremiah’s message and place an everlasting curse and humiliation ON THEM. Now I use your own words to ask you “Do you realize that Jehovah gave David and everlasting covenant which would extend even BEYOND his disobedient children?” Millennialists do not need to talk about Jeremiah 23:30-40 because Jeremiah added much more in chapters 29 through 33!!! YOU, my friend, do not want to own up to Jer 31:35-36
Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name: 36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.” These are NOT CONDITIONAL words which are part of the Old Covenant and these are definitely repeated to the Church after Calvary in terms of the New Covenant.

Chris: LETS TAKE A BRIEF WALK THROUGH THE OLD TESTAMENT TO EXAMINE SOME OF THE ETERNAL THINGS THAT WERE TO PASS AWAY.

Russ: Now LETS TAKE A BRIEF WALK THROUGH THE OLD TESTAMENT TO EXAMINE SOME OF THE ETERNAL THINGS THAT WERE NOT TO PASS AWAY.

Gen 12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

Gen 13:15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.

2 Sam 7:16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

Amos 9:14-15 And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. 15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.

Mic 7:18-20 Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy. 19 He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea. 20 Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob, and the mercy to Abraham, which thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old.

Ezek 36:21-22 But I had pity for mine holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the heathen, whither they went. 22 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name's sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went.

Zech 14:16 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.

I have lots more of these. Now it is your turn to explain my texts.

In Christ’s love
Russ

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Preterism4

Chris: jesus will rapture the church at the end of the tribulation really?

Russ: No. Jesus could rapture the church at any moment. He will return again in glory at the end of the great tribulation in Revelation 19.

TO YOU: Tell me what you think happened in 70AD. Were all Christians raptured to heaven in 70AD? Was there a bodily resurrection? You are not discussing what YOU believe at all.

Chris: ephesians 3:21 unto him be glory in the church by christ jesus through out all ages world without end amen.did you see that the church age has no end.

Russ: This does not say that the church AGE will not end as a Dispensation. It merely says that the church will have glory through all ages.

Chris: why would christ in the church age makes no sense; the old coveant age the law did have and end heaven earth will pass away but my words will not.

Russ: The AGE ends as a Dispensation. The glory of the Church is eternal.

Chris: JOHN 17:15 I PRAY NOT THAT YOU TAKE THEM OUT OF THE WORLD BUT THAT THOU SHOULDEST KEEP THEM FROM EVIL. DID JESUS LIE ?NO HE DID NOT JESUS ON WORDS HE DECLARES THAT GOD WOULD NOT TAKE US OUT OF THE WORLD.

Russ: So the church will never be taken off planet earth???? What about John 14:1-4? You are extremely confusing. I have not the foggiest idea what YOU believe. You are only arguing about where you disagree with me.

Chris: BUT HE WOULD TAKE HIS BRIDE IN AD 70 THE ELECT THE LOST SHEEP OF ISREAL AND GIVE THEM RELIF FROM THE GREAT TRIBULATION THAT OCCURED FROM 66AD TO 70AD.

Russ: Finally some meat. You think that the BRIDE only refers to Jewish Christians living in 70AD. Is that correct? Is there any evidence from the early church fathers that this happened? Were not most of the disciples dead before 70AD? Were Jewish Christians who died before 70AD bodily resurrected in 70AD?

Chris: PETER SAYS THAT THE FIERY TRAIL HAD BEGUN IN THERE LIFE TIME.PAUL STATES THEY WERE WERE BEING PERSECUTED BY WHO?THE SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN. ONLY JEWS MEET IN SYNAGOGUE REV 2:9 AND 3:9 PAUL SAID FOR YE BRETHREN BECAME FOLLOWERS OF THE CHURCHES OF GOD WHICH ARE AT JUDAEA ARE IN CHRIST JESUS FOR YE ALSO HAVE SUFFERED LIKE THINGS OF YOUR OWN COUNTRYMEN AKA REV 2:9 THE SYNAGOGUE OF SATAN EVEN THEY OF THE JEWS. WHO BOTH KILLED THE LORD JESUS AND THEIR OWN PROPHETS AND AKA GREAT TRIBULAION PERSECUTED US.THEY REV 1:7 WOULD LOOK ON THE ONE WHOM THEY PIERCED AT HIS RETURN TO PUNISH JERULSALEM IN AD 70

Russ: Is there any evidence from history or early church fathers that this happened in 70AD?

Frankly I am appalled at this doctrine. You keep on insisting that the events of Matthew 24 were fulfilled in 70AD BUT you cannot verify that ANY of those events literally occurred other than the destruction of the Temple.

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Reply to Debradoo on Church Tithes and Offerings

Reply to Debradoo:

On Church Stewardship and Tithing Blog, “6 Reasons to Debate Tithing”

Debra: Many (most actually) of those opposing the tithe use.. the 'fleecing of televangelists' to promote their stance and claim that tithing allows them to build their dreams and have others pay for such.

Russ: The primary reason is that the modern DEFINITION of tithing is a lie. True HOLY biblical tithes were always only food from inside God’s HOLY land of Israel which He had miraculously increased. It is WRONG to teach that tithes come from what man increased or from outside Israel. Nobody tithes today.

Debra: In a recent study conducted by the Barna Group, it was learned that only five percent of Americans gave away at least 10 percent of their income.

Russ: Tithing first entered non-state churches in the USA around 1895 and it has failed miserably. It is far past time to try another approach rather than the threat of an Old Covenant curse for national Israel.

Debra: (Rich televangelists) If this is the case .. then why give anything to a church? Why not use this 'scenario' for keeping any money at all from going out to churches?

Russ: All Christians should support the work of the gospel BUT by using better New Covenant post-Calvary principles. Second Corinthians 8:12-14 discusses EQUALITY giving: many should give more than 10% but others are already giving sacrificially at less than 10%.

Debra: Is there somewhere in the Bible that says having a well to do pastor or an elaborate church is a sin?

Russ: The Bible neither commands nor forbids churches from having full-time pastors. However, while agreeing that some amounts of support are legitimate, Paul boasted that his “wage” was to preach “for free” (1 Cor 9:12-19). Paul told the Ephesian elders to follow his example, get a job and support the needy in their churches –just the opposite of what we see today (Acts 20:29-35). Every penny wasted on lavish living and lavish churches is a penny not being used to further gospel work.

Debra: What about the ark of the Covenant? Check out Exodus 25-27 .. Now THAT is elaborate! And again, the temple that Solomon built .. WOW!

Russ: Both were built with materials received from freewill offerings and not tithes.

Debra: If a man makes 400.00 dollars a week and tithes 40 of that 400.00 .. you truly think this 40 dollars is going to save his home or his job or his car, etc.?

Russ: The rich man who earns $4000 per week has $3600 after a 10% tithe. Have you ever tried to survive with $360 per week? Where in the Bible does God command EVERYBODY including the poor to BEGIN their level of giving at 10%??? The only people required to tithe were farmers and herdsmen who lived inside Israel.

Debra: Sheesh.

Russ: The vast majority of “tithers” are already in the lowest income brackets and have been “tithing” for generations without being “overwhelmingly blessed.” The rare ones who succeed are the only ones giving testimonies.

Debra: And here is another argument against the tithe ..
"It is not in the New Testament and we are under a New Covenant."
There are lots of things that we embrace today as Christians that were under the Old Covenant .. Observing the Sabbath. Taking Communion. Obeying the 10 commandments. Tithing is more than just an Old Covenant command .. It is a principle that works in this earth today!

Russ: Why do you pick out tithing and leave out hundreds of other OT commands which were equally important to Israel? Have you killed your disobedient children lately per Ex 21:15, 17? The new giving principle is: that which is eternal and moral from the Old Covenant has been REPEATED to the Church after Calvary in the New Covenant –and tithing was not repeated.

Debra: And here is another ..
"People must be freed from the command to give".
Let me first emphasize that the tithe is not giving. It is paying. (It is not yours to give!) God owns all. Everything. We own nada. Nothing. When we pay our 10 percent, then in exchange God gives us 90 percent.

Russ: False argument. The OT only commanded food producers who lived inside Israel to tithe. It also required Levitical tithe-recipients NOT to own or inherit property. Tithes could not come from what man increased or from outside Israel. God also owned everything then BUT only accepted legitimate tithes from inside Israel.

Debra: Out of this 90, we can give an offering or make a donation or support a charity, etc. (It cannot be an offering if it belongs to God.)

Russ: The formula is not “tithes plus offerings.” The formula is “tithes from food producers inside Israel AND/OR freewill offerings from everybody else.”

Debra: There is freedom in tithing.

Russ: Tithing was cold hard LAW and was required whether or not one desired to give.

Debra: There is no freedom in disobeying God.

Russ: Modern so-called “tithers” disobey God by redefining God’s definition of tithing, by setting parameters on giving to God and by threatening Christians with an Old Covenant curse which cannot apply to New Covenant believers per Gal 3:10-13.

Please read my essay and book and watch my 2 hour video at www.tithing-russkelly.com

Friday, June 11, 2010

Reply to Pastor Darrell LaHay

Darrell: Recently I was asked if I could write a controversial post on tithing. Realizing that this is something that could get me in trouble, I’ve decided to take up the challenge.

Russ:I challenge you to an extended in-depth look at the subject onl my web site.

Darrell: Before we look at this matter, let’s get a working definition. What is tithing? Simply, a tithe means: a tenth . A 10% portion of an income, possessions or lands.

Russ: True biblical HOLY tithes were always only food from inside God’s HOLY land of Israel which He had mirculously increased. Tithes could not come from what man increased or from outside HOLY Old Covenant Israel. You must reconcile your definition. Jesus, Peter and Paul did not qualify as tithe-teachers. Only food producers inside Israel qualified.

Darrell: Tithing is certainly not only a Judean-Christian practice. The Babylonians, Islamic, as well as Sikhs have tithed since ancient times.

Russ: Very true, but this only proves that it is not an eternal moral principle. Tithing was practiced among idolators, and those who practised child sacrificie and temple prostitution.

Darrell: Biblically, the first mention of the concept of tithing is found in Genesis 14:18-19. Here Abraham meets the mysterious figure: Melchezedek, who is a king of Salem, and a priest of the Most High God. …
We see Abram offering this priest, a tenth of all of his spoils.

Russ: Abram’s tithe as an uncircumcised Gentile did not qualify as a HOLy tithe uneer the Law. He was obeying the law of the land which required tithes from spoils of war to the local king-priest. The Bible does not say that he ttihed freely. He did not tithe of his pre-existing property. He kept nothing. And he gave the 90% to the king of Sodom. None of this is an example for Christians.

Darrell: Deuteronomy 14;22-27, Deuteronomy 26:12-14, Numbers 18:13-14

Russ: There are 16 texts from Levitcus 27 to Luke 18 which descrie the contents of the tithe as only food from inside Israel. .

Darrell: In the context of the Mosaic Law, tithes and offerings were a combination of ceremonial offerings, but a specific percentage essentially served as a type of tax. This tax served two chief purposes. To finance and support the temple and Priesthood, and to provide for the poor among the people.

Russ: Yes, it was a tax as seen in First Chronicles 23 to 26 which even supported the king’s servants as judges and rulers. No, it did not pay for Temple materials for construction and was not used to send out missionaries to Gentiles.

Darrell: Later, the early Catholic writer Francis Plowden wrote about tithing as “A divine ordinance and an obligation of conscience.”

Russ: Most Catholic writers would not agree, including Augustine. It was only a divine ordinance –from the Church.

Darrell: Although most modern Biblical scholars agree that tithing IS NOT a direct command given in the New Testament many Catholics church leaders have cited Matthew 23:23, arguing that Jesus in fact instructed that tithing was essential.

Russ: The first rule of hermeneutics is to look at the verse itself. Jesus was rebuking “hypocrites, scribes and Pharisees” concerning “matters of the law.” Jesus told His Jewish disciples to obey them because “they sit in Moses seat” (23:2-3). Jesus could not have told His Jewish disciples to tithe to him and he could not have told His Gentile disciples to tithe at all –both were illegal.

Darrell: Lastly, the common scripture used to define the act of tithing in most protestant churches today comes from Malachi 3:8-10. This scripture eloquently describes the heart and principle of giving to God. It portrays that the failure of the Jewish people to observe it in the past was a clear sign of their lack of faith …

Russ: Malachi 1:1-5 is addressed to Old Covenant Israel (Ex 19:5-6; Lev 27:34; Neh 10:29; Mal 4:4) and not to the Church. Malachi 1:6; 2:1; 2:17 ar addressed to dishonest PRIESTS of Israel (the “you”) who had stolen tithes and vows of tithes in Neh 10:5-13 and Mal 1:13-14.

Darrell: … and would now incur a curse upon them. It also showed that those who are faithful in giving to God in tithes and offerings, would be rewarded with divine provision and blessing. This scripture in Malachi is often referred to as command.

Russ: The blessings and curses associated with tithes are those of the whole law per Neh 10:29 and Gal 3:10-13. Obey ALL to be blessed; break ONE to be cursed. One must observe ALL the law in order to claim blessing. Jesus removed that curse for Hebrews and Gentiles never were under the curse of the Old Covenant Law.

Darrell: Although the passage does show a great truth, it is erroneously taught as an Old Testament command that must be observed.

Russ: It was only a truth for Old Covenant Hebrews.

Darrell: This proposes a doctrinal problem. Why should a New Testament believer, who is supposedly not under the “old law’, observe an obscure principle mentioned in the Prophets, but, be shunned and labeled as a Judaizer or Legalist if they decide to observe the Feasts or Festivals of Yawheh, or observe the levitical dietary laws, let alone the entire Mosaic law. In short, my tough question is: Why do we insist that our congregations obey this single Old Testament law, but encourage them that they are free from all of the other 313 laws? I think we all know the answer to that. Because the church’s need money.

Do I think it is wrong to tithe? Absolutely not! I encourage it, and practice it myself.

Russ: You may sacrificially give more than 10% but that is still New Covenant freewill giving. It does not meet the biblical definition of a HOLY tithe.

Darrell: Do I think it is a direct command that all Christians have to give ten percent of their income to the local church? No. Hermeneutically, that would be a convenient assumption.

Russ: Thank you for your honesty.

Darrell: Why tithe when you can give? When you give 8%, you may feel guilty…. when you give 10%, you may feel satisfied…….. when you give 12%, You feel “spiritual”. This is not a good perspective on charity. The law was designed to show sin and act as yoke,(obligation) leading us to Christ (joy).

Russ: Second Corinthians 8:12-14 gives the equality principle. Many, if not most, should give MORE than 10%. However many others are giving sacrificially even thouth less than 10%. It equals out.

Darrell: Tithing is good. It is never a sin.

Russ: New Covenant HOLY biblical tithing is lilterally impossible.

Darrell: Give money, give lots, give regularly
• Give to the local Church and give to pastors who bless you
• Finances can be given to increase our faith. Every financial offering is a seed sown.
• If money, and fear of lack has a grip on you, the best way to break that spirit, is to give hilariously.
• Give because you want to
• Give because God has blessed you
• Give because you trust God

Russ: Very good.

Darrell: Don’t limit yourself to ten percent. Give in proportion to your faith, and joy.

Russ: Obey First Timothy 5:8 first. Use your first to buy essential medicine, food and shelter. Do not live lavishly. Firstfrutis were never the same as tithes.

Darrell: Generosity releases revival. I hope you all enjoyed this post. Please let me know if you have any questions..

Russ: Keep up the good posts. May God bless your ministry.

Russell Earl Kelly, PHD
www.tithing-russkelly.com

Tuesday, June 08, 2010

Glenn Beck: First Repudaite Your False Mormon History

When is Glenn Beck Going to “Correct” American History by Teaching Mormon American History?

Glenn Beck must either repudiate Mormon history or cease his attempts to correct American history.

From Vanguard Church.com
http://vanguardchurch.blogspot.com/2010/02/glenn-beck-stormin-mormons-credentials.html

Posted by Bob Robinson, 2-23-2010

According to Mormon history, the first group (the “Jeredites”) came to America after the tower of Babel. That civilization was destroyed because of “corruption” and “apostasy.” The second group came to America around 600 B.C. They were righteous Jews led by a man named Nephi. This group split into two warring camps, the Nephites and the Lamanites (which, according to the book of Mormon, were the American Indians). The Lamanites were ungodly so they were cursed with dark skin. Jesus Christ then came to America to reveal himself to the Nephites, creating a latter-day group of Christians (or the “latter-day saints”). However, the Lamanites defeated the Nephites, annihilating them in a battle in Palmyra, New York in A.D. 385. Some 1,400 years later, Joseph Smith discovered the Book of Mormon, written in a reformed Egyptian hieroglyphic on golden plates.

The Book of Mormon explains how great these two civilizations were.
• There were 38 cities cataloged in the Book of Mormon.
• “The whole face of the land had become covered with buildings” (Mormon 1:7).
• “Fine workmanship…in iron and copper, and brass and steal, makings all manners of tools” (Jarom 1:8).
• “did multiply and spread…began to cover the face of the whole earth, from the sea south to the sea north, from the sea west to the sea east” (Heleman 3:8)
• “Their shipping and their building ships, and their building of temples, and of synagogues and their sanctuaries” (Heleman 3:14).
So, where is the archeological evidence that such civilizations actually existed on the American continent? There has been absolutely no evidence found by any archeologists, period. The Smithsonian Institution issued official statements saying that it “has found no archaeological evidence to support [the Book of Mormon’s] claims.” The National Geographic Society stated “Archaeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere's past and the society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon.” (see the chapters on Mormonism in Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults and Ruth Tucker's Another Gospel: Cults, Alternative Religions, and the New Age Movement).

My point is this: Glenn Beck, the “researcher” that finds the truth about America’s history readily available in the local library, cannot figure out the truth about the fallacious historical claims of Mormonism.

And we evangelicals are supposed to applaud his historical acumen?

Sunday, June 06, 2010

Edited Rebuttal of Adrian Rogers

Rebuttal to Adrian Rogers on Tithing

LOVE WORTH FINDING MINISTRIES
http://www.lwf.org/site/News2?abbr=for_&page=NewsArticle&id=6982&news_iv_ctrl=1183

God Blesses Through the Tithe
June 4
Rogers: Sometimes when I talk about tithing, people will say, “Well, you don’t expect that little widow to tithe her pension, do you?" I’d say, “Sure!" And they reply, “You hardhearted man!"
I’d be hardhearted if I didn’t teach her to tithe; I want her to be blessed! If there’s anybody who needs to depend on God, it’s that kind of a person. You’re not smarter than God…don’t you know that God knows what that little lady needs?
And this person will say, "You’re trying to take her money from her. The church doesn’t need it." And that person is right on the second part. No, God doesn’t need her money, or anyone else's for that matter.
But God wants to bless. He says, “Prove Me! I’ll renew your faith, I’ll rebuke your foes, and I’ll restore your fruitfulness. Your fruit is not going to fall to the ground ahead of time. I’ll make you fruitful in all that you do."
You’ll always do more with nine-tenths and God as a partner, than you do with ten-tenths by yourself. It’s time we began to trust the Lord!
Proverbs 3:5-10 says, "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil. It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones. Honor the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase: So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine."
…………………………………………..

Matt 7:9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone ?
…………………………………………………
………………………………………………
First, Rogers does not know the biblical definition of the HOLY tithe as only food from inside God’s HOLY land of Israel. If he did, he would not be discussing tithing at all. True HOLY tithes could not come from what man increased or from outside Israel. Nobody tithes today.

Second, Rogers does not know the difference between the Old and New Covenants. If he did, then he would not be placing Gentile Christians under the Old Covenant. The Old was only commanded to national Israel who was commanded NOT to share its covenant with Gentiles. OT tithes were never used to send out missionaries to Gentiles.

Third, Rogers does not understand that the early church, in Acts 15 and 21, refused to place Gentile Christians under the law. If he did, then he would not be placing Gentiles under the Old Covenant tithing law. Gentiles never were under any part of the Old Covenant Law. And Hebrew Christians continued to tithe to the Temple system per Acts 21:20-21.

Fourth, Rogers does not understand that he poor widow in the Bible was not tithing. If he did, then he would not be using her as an example of tithing. His “Sure … I’d be hardhearted if I didn’t teach her to tithe” answer sounds pretty “mandatory” to me. She was giving a sacrificial freewill offering. Today many churches would not let her join afterwards because she then had nothing.

Fifth, Rogers does not understand that the “Prove me” text in Malachi 3:10-11 was part of an indivisible Law which required obedience to all 600+ commands before God would bless. Obey all to be blessed; break one to be cursed per Galatians 3:10-13. If Rogers understood that firstfruits were not tithes and that God does not command Christians (or Hebrews) to give their first as a tithe, then he would not have misused Proverbs 3. An OT Hebrew would hot be blessed for tithing if he violated any of the other commands of the law.

Sixth, Rogers does not understand that, if he teaches the Law-blessings of tithing, then he must also teach and obey the entire tithing statute of Numbers 18:21-28. His error is self-evident. As a Levitical tithe-recipient he must (1) allow tithes to be given to Levites (ushers, deacons, choir, musicians, church builders, politicians), (2) only pay ministers with 1/10th of the tithe, (3) KILL anybody else who attempts to enter the sanctuary and worship God directly and (4) forfeit all land and property ownership rights.

Seventh, Rogers does not understand that “firstfruits” and tithes (tenth-fruits) are never the same thing per Deu 26:1-4; Neh 10:35-37, etc. If he did, then he would not teach that a Christian should give his/her first tenth to the Church. Firstfruits were very small token offerings which must be eaten by priests inside the Temple. In 1 Tim 5:8 Paul told New Covenant Christians that their first obligation was for essentials such as medicine, food and basic shelter. Rogers does not grasp the importance of this text.

Eighth, Rogers needs to study Church History. There is no historical evidence to support tithing in the early church and Rogers should have known that. For the first 300 years almost nobody even attempted to teach tithing and it did not become legally enforceable until AD777. Non-state churches in the USA did not begin teaching tithing until around 1895. It is a new and false doctrine.

Ninth, Rogers does not understand that God is NOW dealing with the Church in terms of the New Covenant which does not teach tithing. Rogers should know that there is no New Covenant curse or blessing for not tithing or tithing. He is truly “hard-hearted” when he falsely promises a blessing based solely on “vanished” Old Covenant promises per Heb 8:13.

Tenth, Rogers does not understand that the tithing system of the poor widow supplied her basic needs from a second and third tithe throughout the year (23%). She would leave the Temple with food or money and citizens were expected to give her lodging. I doubt that Rogers preaches and teaches 3 separate tithes totaling 23%. He wants to say “bless you”, give her a stone and send her away empty handed with no place to sleep.

REBUTTAL OFADRIAN ROGERS ON TITHING

Rebuttal to Adrian Rogers on Tithing

LOVE WORTH FINDING MINISTRIES
http://www.lwf.org/site/News2?abbr=for_&page=NewsArticle&id=6982&news_iv_ctrl=1183

God Blesses Through the Tithe
June 4
Rogers: Sometimes when I talk about tithing, people will say, “Well, you don’t expect that little widow to tithe her pension, do you?" I’d say, “Sure!" And they reply, “You hardhearted man!"
I’d be hardhearted if I didn’t teach her to tithe; I want her to be blessed! If there’s anybody who needs to depend on God, it’s that kind of a person. You’re not smarter than God…don’t you know that God knows what that little lady needs?
And this person will say, "You’re trying to take her money from her. The church doesn’t need it." And that person is right on the second part. No, God doesn’t need her money, or anyone else's for that matter.
But God wants to bless. He says, “Prove Me! I’ll renew your faith, I’ll rebuke your foes, and I’ll restore your fruitfulness. Your fruit is not going to fall to the ground ahead of time. I’ll make you fruitful in all that you do."
You’ll always do more with nine-tenths and God as a partner, than you do with ten-tenths by yourself. It’s time we began to trust the Lord!
Proverbs 3:5-10 says, "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil. It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones. Honor the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase: So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine."
…………………………………………..

Matt 7:9 Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone ?

First, Rogers does not know the biblical definition of the HOLY tithe as only food from inside God’s HOLY land of Israel. True HOLY tithes could not come from what man increased or from outside Israel. Nobody tithes today.

Second, Rogers does not know the difference between the Old and New Covenants. The Old was only commanded to national Israel who was commanded NOT to share its covenant with Gentiles. OT tithes were never used to send out missionaries to Gentiles.

Third, Rogers does not understand that the early church, in Acts 15 and 21, refused to place Gentile Christians under the law. Gentiles never were under any part of the Old Covenant Law. And Hebrew Christians continued to tithe to the Temple system per Acts 21:20-21.

Fourth, Rogers does not understand that he poor widow in the Bible was not tithing. She was giving a sacrificial freewill offering. Today many churches would not let her join afterwards because she then had nothing.

Fifth, Rogers does not understand that the “Prove me” text in Malachi 3:10-11 was part of an indivisible Law which required obedience to all 600+ commands before God would bless. Obey all to be blessed; break one to be cursed per Galatians 3:10-13. An OT Hebrew would hot be blessed for tithing if he violated any of the other commands of the law.

Sixth, Rogers does not understand that, if he teaches the Law-blessings of tithing, then he must also teach and obey the entire tithing statute of Numbers 18:21-28. As a Levitical tithe-recipient he must (1) allow tithes to be given to Levites (ushers, deacons, choir, musicians, church builders, politicians), (2) only pay ministers with 1/10th of the tithe, (3) KILL anybody else who attempts to enter the sanctuary and worship God directly and (4) forfeit all land and property ownership rights.

Seventh, Rogers does not understand that “firstfruits” and tithes (tenth-fruits) are never the same thing per Deu 26:1-4; Neh 10:35-37, etc. Firstfruits were very small token offerings which must be eaten by priests inside the Temple. In 1 Tim 5:8 Paul told New Covenant Christians that their first obligation was for essentials such as medicine, food and basic shelter. Rogers does not grasp the importance of this text.

Eighth, Rogers needs to study Church History. For the first 300 years almost nobody even attempted to teach tithing and it did not become legally enforceable until AD777. Non-state churches in the USA did not begin teaching tithing until around 1895. It is a new and false doctrine.

Ninth, Rogers does not understand that God is NOW dealing with the Church in terms of the New Covenant which does not teach tithing. He is truly “hard-hearted” when he falsely promises a blessing based solely on “vanished” Old Covenant promises per Heb 8:13.

Tenth, Rogers does not understand that the tithing system of the poor widow supplied her basic needs from a second and third tithe throughout the year (23%). She would leave the Temple with food or money and citizens were expected to give her lodging. He wants to say “bless you”, give her a stone and send her away empty handed with no place to sleep.

Friday, June 04, 2010

LIST OF TITHING OPPONENTS THROUGHOUT HISTORY

LIST OF TITHING OPPONENTS IN HISTORY

Tithing opponents throughout the years as compiled by Dr. David Croteau, Liberty University, You Mean I Don’t Have to Tithe?, p271-292. www.slaveoftheword.blogspot.com/ See Footnotes for transcript evidence.

Clement of Rome 100
Didache 100 (also see my site and book)
Justin Martyr 165
Tertullian 230
Origen 255
Cyprian 258 (my site)
Waldenses 1150+-
Thomas Aquinas 1275
John Wycliff 1384
John Huss 1415
German Peasants 1520
Anabaptists 1525
Erasmus 1536
Otto Brumfels 1534
Martin Luther 1546
Philip Melanchthon 1560
Separatists Amsterdam 1603
John Smythe 1609 Baptist
John Robinson 1610
English Parliament 1650+-
Puritans & Plgrims Mass 1650+-
John Cotton 1652 Puritan
Roger Williams 1636 Baptist
Little Parliament 1653
Oliver Cromwell 1658
John Milton 1658 Puritan
Particular Baptists 1660
John Owen 1680 Baptist
Francis Turretin 1687
John Bunyan 1688 Baptist
Quakers 1768
John Gill 1771 Baptist
John Wesley 1791 (my site)
BAPTISTS IN AMERICA 1800s
Adam Clarke 1832 Baptist
Charles Buck 1833
J C Philpot 1835 Baptist
Charles H Spurgeon 1832 Baptist
Parsons Cooke 1850
Samuel Harris 1850
Edward A Lawrence 1850
John Peter Lange 1876
Henry William Clark 1891 Engllish
S H Kellogg 1891
G Campbell Morgan 1898 Congregational
Albert Vail 1913 Baptist
Frank Fox 1913
David MaConaughy 11918 Episcopal
William Pettingill 1932
John Harvey Grime 1934 Baptist
John T Mueller 1934 Lutheran
H E Dana 1937 Bapt Historian (my site)
R C H LENSKI 1946 Lutheran
Lewis Sperry Chafer 1948 DTS Foundeer
W E Vine 1949
James F Rand 1953
Francis Pieper 1953 Lutheran
Ray Stedman 1951
L L McR 1955 Catholic
Paul Leonard Stagg 1958 Baptist
Hiley H Ward 1958 Baptist
Roy T Cowles 1958
Elizabeth P Tilton 1958
R C Rein 1958 Lutheran
Robert A Baker 1959 Bapt Historian
Wick Bromall 1960
John Byron Evans 1960
Norman Tenpas 1967
James Edward Anderson 1967
Alfred Martin 1968
CHARLES C RYRIE 1969 DTS
Jerry Horner 1972 S Baptist
Pieter Verhoef 1974
Dennis Wretlind 1975
Jack J Peterson 1978 Pres
Donald Kraybill 1978
Jon Zens 1979 Baptist
Richard Cunningham 1979 S Bapt
Gary Frieson 1980
JOHN MACARTHUR 1982-2000
Paul Fink 1982
George Monroe Castillo 1982
Tony Badillo 1984
James M Boice 1986
Michael E Oliver 1986 Rest
W Clyde Tilley 1987
Scott Collier 1987
Ronald M Campbell 1987
R E O White 1988
William McDonald 1989
Charles Swindoll 1990 Dallas Seminary
Rhodes Thompson 1990
J VERNON MCGEE 1999
Jerome Smith 1992
CRAIG BLOMBERG 1993 Denver Seminary
J Duncan M Derrett 1993
Walter Kaiser Jr 1994 Gordon-Cromwell
Moises Silva 1994
Benny D Prince 1995
Brian K Morley 1996
Linda L Belleville 1996
Ron Rhodes 1997
Ernest L Martin 1997
Michael Webb 1998
R Johnston 1999
Mark Snoeberger 2000 Baptist
Stuart Murray 2000 Eng
George W Greene 2000
Old Line Primitive Baptists 2000
Jaime Cardinal Sin 2000 Cath Archbishop
RUSSELL EARL KELLY 2001 Baptist
Jonathan Kitchcart 2001
Frank Viola 2002
George Barna 2002
Michael Morrison 2002
Elliott Miller 2003
Matthew Narramore 2004
David Alan Black 2004 Baptist SEBTS (my site)
Andreas Kostenberger 2007 Baptist SEBTS (my site)
Danny Akin 2007 Baptist SEBTS (my site)
Mark Driscoll 2008
Roman Catholic Church
Jehovah’s Witnesses
New Worldwide Church of God

Thursday, June 03, 2010

Atheism June 3, 2010

Bernie: …”there are obvious copying errors recorded in DNA. You can't have copy errors without descent! And there's no reason for God to create man from scratch but include errors from lower forms of life. This is what makes it so obvious that man evolved from animal rather than being a separate creation from scratch.”

Russ: Let me see if I understand your point. You say that “If God had started from scratch (even though using some pre-existing workable format) then He would have corrected the copying errors in His new creation of homo sapien.”

Isn’t that the same logic Windows uses every time they come up with a newer operating system? Wasn’t 98, XP and Vista supposed to correct the mistakes of their predecessors?

You argument has validity only if we assume that the first homo sapiens were created with absolute physical and mental perfection. However Adam was created with the “propensity” to sin. Sooner or later he would have sinned. Why? Perhaps because he was created with some of your “copying errors.” Perhaps God deliberately did not want to create him as a robot.

Bernie: …”there is a movement amongst the evangelical scholars to fully accept evolution,,, as God's chosen way to create."

Kelly: I would like to know exactly which conservative denominations they belong to. My gut tells me that they are really moderates or liberals masquerading as conservatives.

Wednesday, June 02, 2010

Atheism2-June 2, 2010

"“A... See More” gap? I just bought an 1100 page college Biology textbook stressing evolution to better inform myself. Contrary to what you claim, there are gaps everywhere between every major kind. There are thousands of gaps. How many solids lines of evidence do you have that one species changed into another species? You cannot even prove that great apes and chimpanzees and humans are linked."

There are many gaps in evolution. However, there is also evidence that evolution (of man from animal) actually happened, by studying the DNA. Pseudogenes. There are many evangelical scientists who fully accept biological evolution of man from animal because of the evidence in our genes. Even man evolved from animal, or God designed it in such a way as to deceive us into thinking so (which would make God a liar and deceiver). The DNA evidence shows the footprints of travel between species. There is more evidence in DNA besides just pseudogenes, too. But pseudogenes are enough to demonstrate it beyond a reasonable doubt."

Atheism-June 2, 2010

“The goal of DNA is procreation, survival of the species in general and of the genes (NOT the individual organism, but the genes!). If my genes are passed on, I've done my job.”
……………………………………
Kelly: First, according to your own godless theology, DNA cannot have a “goal” because it is random and mindless. It does not give a poop whether the species survives or not. Second, if you DIE childless saving friends by falling on a grenade or rescuing them, your DNA ends!
……………………………………
“THAT is the best case self-preservation of the DNA and as a parent I am driven like a crazy person to help my kids reach reproductive adulthood at all costs.”
……………………………………….
Kelly: “Reproductive adulthood” or merely “adulthood.” If your child has inherited horrible genes which only lead to great suffering, you do not want that child to reproduce more suffering.
…………………………………
“If I can't pass on my genes, but my sister or my brother or my uncle does, then at least part of my genes carry on as well. If no one in my family survives to pass on their genes, but a group of humans does, then the species carries on, and the genes are happy.”
…………………………………………
Kelly: Happy genes. Sounds like a Mother Goose fairy tale to me. You are fantasizing.
………………………………………..
“Altruism is an argument in favor of evolution, not against it.
………………………………………..
Kelly: It is your replacement for God.
……………………………………
“A 3 year old does not pitch a temper tantrum because it feels good. They do it as a means of testing boundaries, as in how much can I get Dad to break the rules if I cry and yell? And yes, sometimes that does backfire, and sometimes it succeeds in stretching the boundaries.”
…………………………………………….
Kelly: Let that 3 year old achieve his/her goal and you will be raising a very selfish domineering brat who does not respect you or others. Why even bother if the child’s preprogrammed DNA determines how it is going to act?
………………………………………………..
“So it's like gambling. And a win, when you gamble, does indeed light up the same part of the brain as an altruistic act does. The part scientists call the reward, or pleasure center.”
…………………………………………………….
Kelly: Theologians call it self-gratification and often SIN. That is why many take drugs, overeat and commit crimes.
………………………………………………..
“So, there it is, the mechanics of altruism. The HOW (Sorry! I couldn't help myself!) In that sense, your behavior comes from the genes you got from your parents, AND your environment as well.”
……………………………………………
Kelly: My argument from your logic is, since my behavior comes from my genes, then I am not responsible for my actions! And I can justify anything I do and not call it sin. What you call antisocial “genes” we call “the sin nature.”
………………………………………….
“Genes can be turned on and off. For instance, identical twins raised in separate homes have identical genes. But the way one was raised may trigger a gene to be switched on, while the way the other was raised may cause a gene to stay off. This determines what proteins (amino acids) are produced and released into the blood stream. And this can alter behavior.”
………………………………………………
Kelly: Now you are contradicting part of your previous statement – “your behavior comes from the genes you got from your parents, AND your environment as well.” So, you can actually CHANGE WHO YOU ARE and are not captive to your genes. You can actually THINK yourself into a better or worse person. Sounds like freedom of the will to me –today you will choose whom you will serve—the inner nature or the image of God.
……………………………………
“This is a somewhat plastic system, since changes in environment can change the expression of certain genes (on or off). In some cases I believe a strong will can achieve the same! Biofeedback works with other systems of the body, such as raising temperature or increasing circulation.”
…………………………………..
Kelly: You are actually describing one set of preprogrammed DNA sequences overriding another set of preprogrammed DNA sequences –none of which actually cause the genes to MUTATE to be passed on. You sound more and more like a theist.
………………………………………………
“Another fact to consider is that much adult criminal behavior is rooted in mental illness.”
…………………………………..
Kelly: Defective dominant MUTANT genes. Who are you to say that they should be the NORM and YOU are the abnormal? After all, both they and you came up through the same ranks of evolution. Aren’t you playing God to say that their behavior is wrong?
…………………………………………
“Dear Russell, I am not foolish enough at age 58 to think I can convert you to atheism. I would not want to. Your faith is important to you, and I'm happy for you that you have it! (However, if you tell me I can't have a desperately needed abortion, or can't marry the woman I deeply love as a soul mate and sexual partner because I am a woman myself, then we have a problem in our definition of morals.”
………………………………….
Kelly: I am merely trying to use your own logic against your arguments. In my opinion you have no consistent working definition of “morals.” For instance, you picked out abortion and gay marriage. I then ask you “Why did you leave out murder, rape, sex with animals and marriage to animals?” Do you see my argument? You have “moral” boundaries but you do not want to attribute the existence of morality to anything but blind mutant chance.
………………………………….
“Finally, you speak to the hunger for knowledge, or at least that's what I call it. You call it seeking for a meaning in life beyond ourselves. I see the need to grow and stretch and explore in all creatures.”
…………………………………………
Kelly: Since our discussions began I have purchased a college textbook which uses evolution as its foundation, Biology, Raven Johnson, McGraw Hill. I am not in this discussion to play. I am here to learn and to help my friend, Berne (and you).
………………………………………..
“Myself, I wanted to know what was going to happen when I die. I believe I have figured it out, and I am thrilled with the idea that I will go back someday to where I came from. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Elementary particles swirling in a nebula. Stardust. My thinking self will die when I do, and I'm perfectly happy to let it go.”
…………………………………………………
Kelly: I am happy knowing that my books are impacting millions for good change. I hope to see my children achieve something good before I die. I expect to spend eternity with God asking questions and learning. I sleep well and do not fear death.

Tuesday, June 01, 2010

Atheism-2-June 1, 2010

Did non-life produce life?

“According to evolution, yes. How? Science doesn't know yet. All we have are theories. This is a gap in knowledge.”
………………………
Kelly: “A” gap? I just bought an 1100 page college Biology textbook stressing evolution to better inform myself. Contrary to what you claim, there are gaps everywhere between every major kind. There are thousands of gaps. How many solids lines of evidence do you have that one species changed into another species? You cannot even prove that great apes and chimpanzees and humans are linked.
………………………
“But people who use this for evidence for god are accused of believing in a 'god-of-the-gaps' kind of god.”
…………………………….
Kelly: You do the same thing except your “god” is unintelligent mutant chance.
…………………………..
“That god shrinks whenever a new discovery in science is revealed, because that gap doesn't need god's miracle anymore.”
………………………
Kelly: It will take a lot of shrinking before you can prove that one species evolved into aother. Even a “shrunk God” is much greater than your “BB god which got over-heated and exploded all by itself.
…………………….
“I think the best theologians advocate avoiding any god-of-the-gaps type of arguments. For believers, it is better to say God ordained and sustains the natural processes. That way, God's not out of a job when a new science discovery comes along."
………………………………….
Kelly: I’m not in the least bit worried about God being out of a job as long as atheists have a conscience.
………………………..

ATHEISM June 1, 2010

“Why does a mother hen or a soldier give their life to protect another? Because it feels really good. It feels satisfying and rewarding. That's WHY.”
…………………………….
Russ: Incredible. You are destroying your own logic. If a mutant DNA produced a few rare individuals who resist their basic DNA of self-protection, that mutant DNA strand would be REMOVING itself in the “sacrifice.” Another mutant DNA would have to evolve to replace it.
…………………………..
“I could tell you HOW we know that, scientifically; how we know what is going on in the brain when someone behaves selflessly. I could tell you how science believes chickens and humans developed that sort of feeling from that sort of behavior over the eons. But the bottom line is, it feels good. (WHY does it feel good? That's all a HOW is, really. Every answer to a WHY brings up another question.”
…………………………..
Russ: The “feeling” is self-destructive and very short-lived. The doer cannot tell his/her generation how great the feeling was. You said that a HOW is really only a WHY which feels good. So that is WHY people rape and steal –because it FEELS GOOD. No accountability. No justice. No repayment. No sin. No morality. If it feels good, do it. And you actually think you are convincing me to become an atheist!
…………………………..
“Hang around a 3 year old for 5 minutes to see that in action!!)”
…………………………
Kelly: So a 3 year old pitches a temper tantrum because it feels good – even thought the consequences might NOT feel so good.
……………………………
“Evolution actually does provide reasons for why animals behave in morally acceptable ways. The survival of the social unit increases the chances for survival of the species. The social unit provides protection, and increases the opportunities for getting food. There are many benefits for getting along and not making enemies.”
………………………………………
Kelly: This is also the justification for criminal gang mentality. Adherence to the rules of the social unit increases the opportunities for survival of the gang’s goals.
…………………………..
“Russell, you seem to be certain that I excuse immoral behavior. I don't believe I've ever said anything to you to indicate that is true. You stereotype me, based what you believe is atheist logic. I hang out with a lot of atheist friends, and none of us excuse immoral behavior. None of us go around with big anger issues, or cheat on our spouses, or go on killing sprees. We work hard for a living, we pay our taxes. We are very much like you. The only thing that is different about us is that we don't pray. When we need help, we turn to each other. Our faith is in our fellow man.”
………………………………………….
Kelly: Atheists explain immoral behavior in the same identical way that they explain moral behavior – both are the result of blind mutant genetics. Is that true or not? That is my logic. Do you agree or not? If not, then tell me what is wrong with my conclusion. This is important.

How can I, or why should I, condemn your apparent moral behavior? As a DNA preprogrammed MORAL atheist you have surrounded yourself with like-minded friends for the betterment of all. However you cannot deny that there are also DNA preprogrammed IMMORAL atheists who have surrounded themselves with like-minded anti-society friends for the same reason.
………………………
“My husband is bipolar. He engaged in immoral behaviors for many years. He stopped drinking because I would not marry him unless he did. Then after we married, he saw doctors, got medication and counseling, and now is one of the most moral people I know. He did that without any conversion, without any god. He did it because he wanted to be a good person.”
……………………………..
Kelly: Your husband is bi-polar and I have an inherited disease called cone-dystrophy. I do not deny that either mutant genes or damaged genes from disease or drugs caused both. Both are physical imperfections. He has been helped with drugs and counseling. There is no cure for my disease. Your husband allowed his love for you and desire for interaction with you to motivate him to seek help. Having said that, all three of us still have spiritual needs to be fulfilled through conversion. God has still placed into all of us a seeking for a meaning in life beyond ourselves.