Will A Man Rob God? (Or is Tithing The Law For Christian)

A typical sermon on tithing goes something like this:  

"In The book of Malachi among the sins cited in this book, we find corrupt priests, infidelity and rampant divorce. The first sin mentioned is the offering of defiled sacrifices to God (Mal. 1:6-11). The people were offering sick, lame and blind animals on God's altar. Malachi chides the people by urging them to offer this type of sacrifice to their governor. God equated their offering with a lack of reverence for Him and accused them of despising His name (Mal. 1:6).  Malachi brings this topic up again in the third chapter. He asks, "Will a man rob God? Yet you have robbed Me! But you say, In what way have we robbed You? In tithes and offerings" (Mal. 3:8)."

ConclusionBrethren, there is a part of your income that does not belong to you -- it belongs to the Lord. Will a man rob God? He might in this life. He might give unto the Lord "that which costs him nothing." He might convince his brethren he is giving the "widows mite." He might convince those around him that he is living in poverty, but God knows. There will be a day of accounting. "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap" (Gal. 6:7).  See here. for the example sermon I chosen.

I guess that this preacher is saying since tithing was a form of worship to God in the Old Testament, and since we still worship God, we must still tithe.  Well then why do we not still offer animal sacrifices in that case? 

 "Will a man ROB God?"  Consider this:

Abraham never tithed on his own personal property or livestock.

Jacob wouldn't tithe until God blessed him first

Only Levite priests could collect tithes, and there are no Levite priests today.

Only food products from the land were tithable.

Money was never a tithable commodity.

Christian converts were never asked to tithe anything to the Church.

Tithing in the Church first appears centuries after completion of the Bible.  

See here:

Tithing is something which we certainly find in the Old Testament since the Israelites were plainly required to tithe, just as they were required to observe the Sabbaths by not working, and to make animal sacrifices.  In fact, they were required to pay not one but three tithes! The tithing texts in the Old Testament are not always exactly clear but it appears that the first tithe was used to support the Levites since they received no inheritance as the priestly tribe. The second tithe was apparently set aside in order to pay for that family's attendance at the various feastdays (especially the Feast of Tabernacles). And the third tithe was used to help support the poor among the Israelites; this third tithe was payable every third and sixth year out of a cycle of seven years. This might seem to present an enormous burden during that particular year, but once we start to unravel the complexities of these tithes with the help of Josephus and other early Jewish writers, it starts to become clear that the first tithe (to the Levites) was dropped in the third tithe year.  Do you see church upkeep or preacher's salary any where in there?

Now just when did the Christian Church start asking its members to tithe?  Paul is continually writing on the subject of giving; mainly, its true, on the subject of the collection for the struggling congregation at Jerusalem. He finally expounds the principle of the 'cheerful giver' in 2 Corinthians 9:6-7. These are two whole chapters on the subject of financial giving by members of the body of Christ. Tithing is not once mentioned. 

It was Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, that said about 200 and some odd years after Christ died, Christians in his time were not giving “even . . . the tenths from our patrimony; and while our Lord bids us sell, we rather buy and increase our store.” In another statement, he says that the clergy receive “as they do in the gifts and donations of their brethren the tenth portion, as it were, of the fruits of the earth.” The emphasis of this passage is on the clergy receiving adequate support for their ministry, as the Levites and priests did in the Old Testament.

"A document from Syria around 225 A.D., the Didascalia Apostolorum, contains some important thoughts on tithing and the law-gospel relationship. Regarding the former, the document said that the laws of the “Second Legislation,” which were all the laws given after the Ten Commandments, should be avoided; they were only given after Israel worshipped idols in the wilderness. Jesus fulfilled the law, that is, “set us loose from the bonds of the Second Legislation.” While it may appear at first that the document was supporting tithing to the bishop, it also said: “No more be bound with sacrifices and oblations, and with sin offerings, purifications, and vows . . . nor yet with tithes and firstfruits . . . . for it was laid upon them [i.e. the Israelites] to give all these things as of necessity, but you are not bound by these things. . . . Now thus shall your righteousness abound more than their tithes and firstfruits and part-offerings, when you shall do as it is written: Sell all thou hast, and give to the poor.” Thus, the old system of tithing has no place in Christianity since a new system has been instituted by the New Testament."  See Here:

It was with the arrival of Constantine the first 'Christian emperor' (many historians have suspected that he was never really converted), that we see much serious thought given to church finance.  This was start of a system which led to the much despised imposed tithe. So tithing had not been practiced in the early Christian church but gradually became common by the sixth century. The Council of Tours in 567 advocated tithing. Tithes were made obligatory by civil law in the Carolingian empire in 765 and in England in the tenth century.

The tithing the preachers want you to do today has nothing to do with the tithing which the Israelite had to make.  Consider:

See Deuteronomy 12:6, 7, 11, 12, 17, 18, "And thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your TITHES, and heave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flock. And there, ye shall eat before the Lord your God, and ye shall rejoice in all that ye put your hand unto, ye and your households, wherein the Lord thy God hath blessed thee.

And of what was he to tithe from"

Leviticus 27:30-33, "And all the TITHE of the LAND, whether of the SEED of the land, or of the FRUIT, of the tree, is the Lord’s: it is holy unto the Lord. And if a man will at all redeem ought of his tithes, he shall add thereto the fifth part thereof. And concerning the TITHE of the HERD, or of the FLOCK, even of whatsoever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord. He shall not search whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it..."

So let us go back to the preachers admonition, "Brethren, there is a part of your income that does not belong to you -- it belongs to the Lord."  Where in Leviticus, or any wheres for that matter, that you have to tithe of the money you may have earned?  Yes they had money back then, in fact there is a provision for using money to facilitate tithing, but on law requiring a tithe on any income earned in money.

Deuteronomy 14:24-29:

And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the Lord thy God shall choose to set His name there, when the Lord thy God hath blessed thee: Then shall thou turn it into MONEY, and bind up the MONEY in your hand, and shall go unto the place which the Lord thy God shall choose: And thou shall BESTOW THAT MONEY FOR WHATSOEVER YOUR SOUL LUSTETH AFTER, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for WHATSOEVER YOUR SOUL DESIRES: and YOU shall eat there before the Lord thy God, and THOU shall rejoice, THOU, AND THINE HOUSEHOLD.

NOT A SINGLE NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE SUPPORTS TITHING AS SOMETHING WHICH CHRISTIANS SHOULD BE PRACTICING IN OUR DAY! Evangelicals who - in our day - have so enthusiastically embraced the tithing principle seem genuinely unaware of the often hideous record of this system, as well as the fact that this tax was not finally abandoned in England and Wales until the Tithe Act of 1936!!

I am not telling you that you should not give of your heart to your church, but any gift given should be out of goodness of you heart and not out of an obligation to a Law Christens have never been under.  Are you required to circumcise? Not to touch a woman during her period?  Not to eat pork?  And on and on, so why are you required to tithe?

This site explains it much netter than I can: http://www.bible-truths.com/tithing.html

To Freedspirit

This is an exchange I had some years back, but still pertinent today:

This post is in response to someone who calls their self “Freedspirit”.  Note that this is not about Freedspirit along, but all the other people who think that they can enter the market place of ideas, and express their opinions without a debate upon there merit.  When you go into the market and get up on your soapbox, as I am doing here, you cannot expect everyone to accept what you have to say, and you should not be surprised if someone puts up a soapbox right next to you to explain what they think is the error of your ways.

Freedspirit's post that has long since been removed concerned hell, and her belief that it did not exist, which is fine with me for I agreed and used "For this is GOOD [not evil] and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior  Who WILL have ALL MEN TO BE SAVED, and to come to the knowledge [both the good knowledge and the evil knowledge] of THE TRUTH" (I Tim. 2:3-4), as part of the justification for my belief.  For if God will have it, who can deny it?

She pointed out that she did not believe in Jesus, who is still alright with me; I believe that Jesus will get around to everyone in His own sweet time.  But then she (I am assuming that Freedspirit is a she) she answered another’s question about the why the Bible said so much about hell with the comment that the Bible was put together by Constantine the Great in 325 A.D., and not to believe the Bible because it was just put together by a man making authority for himself to tell other what to do (I do not remember the exact wording of this).  Well this is just not factual, so I had to respond with the following:

Constantine the Great put an end to the persecution went on to make other laws in favor of the Christians, but he did not himself become a Christian until his victory over Licinius. He did preside over the first ecumenical council of the church at Nicaea in 325.  This came about because the bishop of Alexandria, whose name was Alexander, excommunicated Arius for his impiety.  Constantine advising Alexander and Arius not to dispute about trifles, however, he decided that the question of whether our Lord and Savior were God or a creature was so far from being a trifle, and that it was one of the most serious of all questions.  This council is when it was determent that Sunday (a pagan holey day named after the sun and was observed because of the sun worshipers, but only a few  observed the Sabbath while man were already observing Sunday) wound be the day Christians would set aside as their rest and holy day.  No biblical authority was giving for this decision, it was just declared.

The bishop of Alexander could call together the bishops of all Egypt, and the bishop of Antioch could call together all the bishops of Syria and some neighboring countries. But there was no bishop who could call a council of the whole Church, because there was no one who had any power over more than a part of it. But now, Constantine, as he had become a Christian, thought that he might gather a council from all quarters of his empire, and this was the first of what are called the general councils.  Historically speaking pope Pius I (142-155) was the first single bishop presiding over the diocese of Rome, but he had no supreme authority as the Pope does today.

It met in the year 325 A.D., at Nicaea (or Nice), in Bithynia, and 318 bishops attended it. The emperor attended the council during the latter part of its sittings; it was the Nicene Creed, "Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father."  That was the results of this council, not the selection of the works that would be included in the Bible.  By the way the word "creed" means "I believe". We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church, in the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 364), transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.” — Peter Geiermann, C.S.S.R., The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine, p. 50, 3rd edition, 1957.  Regarding this please read this post on the 4th Commandment.

The Bible came to us by way of the Jews for the Old Testament, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls proved that there had been little change in these scriptures in over 2000 years.  The New Testament was written in Greek. The Pauline Epistles, the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Luke, and the book of Acts are all dated from 45-63 A.D. The Gospel of John and the Revelation may have been written as late as 95 A.D.

There are over 5,600 early Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament that are still in existence. The oldest manuscripts were written on papyrus and the later manuscripts were written on leather called parchment.  In 125 A.D. the New Testament manuscript, which dates most closely to the original autograph, was copied around 125 A.D., within 35 years of the original. It is designated "p 52" and contains a small portion of John 18. (The "p" stands for papyrus.)  Now to claim that the Bible did not exist until 325 A.D. is just not true, it was the Nicene Creed that did not exist until then.

It was at this that Freedspirit deleted all comments to her post, and I left a comment saying, “I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinions, but that no one is entitled to their own facts.”  With this she responded the following:

Freedspirit wrote today at 2:02 PM:

With all due respect: It wasn't meant to be a debate or an argument. "Facts" are often twisted by spin doctors and those facts that I stated, I learned in Art History in College. Those are the "facts" as I was taught by an accredited college. It was a political move - that took women out of the picture very conveniently might I add. And no matter anyway....the Bible was put together by Infallible (sic)  men. And that is a fact that can't be disputed in my book. My truth comes from within. I don't believe in "Hell" as a place and I don't believe War is the way to Peace either. I am your worst nightmare CC...I am a bleeding heart liberal. So let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Freedspirit was right in that she is a nightmare, but it is her bad dream not mine, bleeding heart liberal have cause more grief and pain  by being useful idiot that and greedy capitalist ever has.

Freedspirit:  "There is a field where there are no rights or wrongs - will you meet me there?"

~ Rumi

I commented back that she did not wish a discussion, but wanted to preach, and with this she has shut her site to any comment and no longer has her opinion posted, and wrote me back:

freedspirit wrote today at 2:14 PM:

Whatever.....

How it was not my wish to shut her up and make her go away, I just wanted her to justify the things she was saying, and pointing out some things that history tell a different tell then the what she learned in her “accredited college”.  I would like to know what collage that was, and what course taught that, but alas she has withdrawn for the field.

As for her quote from the Persian Jalal ad-Din Muhammad Balkhi-Rumi the Mawlawīyah, this is the guy who founded the Sufi Order, also known as the order of the Whirling Dervishes, and all of those folks want to either convert us or kill us, no compromise.

"There is a field where there are no rights or wrongs - will you meet me there?" I will meet anyone there as soon as force is no longer use by some men to make other men bow to their will.  She picks only the word that pleases her.  Some people want to use a bunch of gobly gook that they spew out in a seemingly coherent stream to convert as many as they can into their way of thinking.  They quickly withdraw when faced with the truth of their assertion, and do not try to defend the words they are trying to sell as true,

Just remember this, if you post I may respond.  I will only remove obscene comments from my post, not the ones who disagree with my opinion.  As far as "the Bible was put together by Infallible men" if the Bible is of God then the men who wrote it did it under His inspiration, If the Bible be of men then there is no God in it.  That is the dilemma, and the choices of worldviews.  So who’s Son is Jesus?

Karma

At the start of this weekend because I am grounded because of the broken Goose Neck hitch on my pick-up truck and stuck at home I have decided to talk to you about Karma. I have heard it about my whole life long, "What goes around comes around". Implying that you get what you deserve because of how you have treated others. This is not a Biblical concept in spite of the admonition that you will reap what you sow, and he who sows the wind will reap the whirlwind. For Galatians 6: 7-8 "Be not deceived; God has not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption, but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." is not talking about being punished or reworded for you action while on earth, rather the consequences of after the flesh or the Spirit. And in Hosea Chapter 8:7 "For they sow the wind and they reap the whirlwind. The standing grain has no heads; it yields no grain. Should it yield, strangers would swallow it up." Is an admonition that if you walk the path of destruction you will be destroyed.

Sounds like Karma to you you say, well let me explain the difference with the concept of Karma as believed by its creators, the Hindus, Karma determines the life you live by the life you have lived. When you are born into the world you are born with a karma debt that places you in whatever circumstance you are born. From the Brahamins at on top to the Untouchables on the bottom. To believe in Karma is to believe that if you help the unfortunate you are adding to their karma debt and condemning them a larger karma debt to pay so the best thing you can do for them is to let them suffer and pay the debt. For it is only when the debt is paid that the soul can move to a higher plane of existence.

I put the picture of the tornado at top to contrast the one who accepts a Christian outlook and one who believes in Karma. The Christian believes that the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike, and when a tornado comes through town and rips one house apart right next to another that it leaves unharmed that the past action of the owners had nothing to do with the damage is done or not done. While a believer in Karma has to believe that it was a karmic debt being repaid to the good on one side and to the bad on the other side.

In other words, the believer in Karma believes that one's past action explains all events that come down upon a person. While a Christian believes in but one life and then the judgment. I am grounded because of the broken Goose Neck hitch on my pick-up truck and stuck at home I have decided to talk to you about Karma. I have heard it about my whole life long, "What goes around comes around". Implying that you get what you deserve because of how you have treated others. This is not a Biblical concept in spite of the admonition that you will reap what you sow, and he who sows the wind will reap the whirlwind. For Galatians 6: 7-8 "Be not deceived; God has not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption, but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting." is not talking about being punished or reworded for you action while on earth, rather the consequences of following after the flesh or the Spirit. And in Hosea Chapter 8:7 "For they sow the wind and they reap the whirlwind. The standing grain has no heads; It yields no grain. Should it yield, strangers would swallow it up." It is an admonition that if you walk the path of destruction you will be destroyed.then the judgment.

What Peace Can You Make With Islam?

Jesus said:

“Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”

Muhammad said:

“ Who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, to make it superior over all religions”.

~

Jesus said:

“And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.”

Muhammad said:

"He who fights that Allah’s word be superior is in Allah’s cause"

~

Jesus said:

“Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven”

Muhammad said:

“Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

~

Jesus said:

“If he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.”

Muhammad said:

“O believers, many of the rabbis and monks devour the property of the people unjustly and bar others from the Path of Allah [Islam]. Those who hoard gold and silver and do not spend them in Allah’s path, announce to them a very painful punishment.”

~

Jesus said:

“I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.”

Muhammad said:

“It was God’s will to establish the truth according to His word and to finish off the disbelievers”

~

Jesus said:

“Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”

Muhammad said:

“I have been ordered to fight against people till they say ‘none has the right to worshiped but Allah’ and whoever said, he saved his life and property from me except for Islamic law, and his accounts will be with Allah.”

~

Jesus said:

“Thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.”

Muhammad said:

"Paradise has one hundred grades (virgins) which Allah has reserved for the Mujahidun who fight in Allah’s Cause, and the distance between each of two grades is like the distance between heaven and the earth. So when you ask Allah (for something), ask for the Al-Firdaus which is the middle and the highest part of Paradise”

~

I ask:

What peace can you make

With someone who will

Kill you for being you?

Pebble, Stone, Rock, and Bolder

A pebble is easy, and a bolder is

Not hard to understand.

But what about a stone and a rock?

Well the rock is between you and the hard place,

While the stone is just a throw away.

Pebble, a little thing but the thing

Jesus built His church upon, Peter.

Which becomes the monolithic Catholic

 Universal Church of the Lord

Until Marten Luther posted his Bull

And shattered that bedrock with his protest.

Pebble, stone, rock, and bolder, 

More churches now than you can shake a stick at,

And that is just on the Christian’s side.

Islam has its denomination, and they kill one another.

And the Buddhist say there is no God

Just states of awareness.

The Hindu has many gods,

All aspects of the Godhead, they say

Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Shinto,

Confucianism, Jainism, Taoism all has their point of view.

The atheist’s throws his stone away

Saying there is no God but man.

So many pebbles from which to choose

On what rock do you build your house?

"Into this world you are thrown

Like a dog without a bone",

And when the pebbles get small enough

It is no more than sand

And who wants to build their house on sand

Before finding the bedrock that holds it up?

Pebble, stone, rock, and bolder

Lost in the dark waiting for a light

.Jesus says, “I am the light, I am the way

“No one comes to the Father except through me”.

But then He says, “No man can come to me,

Except the Father which hath sent me draw him…”

So what can you do other than pray to see the light?

Why would God order the destruction of men, women, and children?

An atheist friend of mine poises this question:  Why would God order the destruction of men, women, and children?  And cited the following verse to back up his question, "Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 3 ‘Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey,” (1 Samuel 15:2-3).

There are two way at looking at this story Christopher The first, most likely the way you interrupt it, and that is it is a story told to justify the Israelites killing any who would resist, remember God told then the same thing at the battle of Jericho, just as Temujin used to tell the cities he was sieging, “Join me or die” on his way to becoming Genghis Khan.  Temujin keeping his promise to each and every city he took lead to many, many more who would not put up a fight and instead joined him and increased his army.

The second is to believe, as I do, that God did order the destruction of men, women, and children in this battle just as he did when He flooded the world, yes I believe that actually happened, and 10th Plagues on Egypt.  But your question is why He did it, not if I believe He did it.  To believe that God flooded the world requires one to believe that God’s scrip does not always run as God wants it to run.  This is tangential to the discussion on predestination and free will but I will not digress.

I believe that God has had a plan from creation to make man first mortal through Adam, and then immortal through Jesus.  God chose Israel to bring this plan into fruition, to discuss that plan is beyond the room or time we have here.  However the Amalekites were the nomads who attacked the Hebrews at Rephidim, Exodus 17:8-10, in the desert of Sinai during their exodus from Egypt: "smiting the hindmost, all that were feeble behind,", and in Numbers 14:43-45, “For the Amalekites and the Canaanites [are] there before you, and ye shall fall by the sword: because ye are turned away from the LORD, therefore the LORD will not be with you.  But they presumed to go up unto the hill top: nevertheless the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and Moses, departed not out of the camp Then the Amalekites came down, and the Canaanites, which dwelt in that hill, and smote them, and discomfited them, [even] unto Hormah.

This was what God was referring to when He said, “I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel”, and I take it the bitch is that he would not only order the destruction of the men, but both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey?  Remember Num 14:18, “The LORD [is] longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing [the guilty], visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation”?  You may not agree with God, but God is God, and true to His word.  He is the Potter and we are the clay.

Rom 9:15-23, “For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.  So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?  [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,” 

Amalek was without a doubt a longersuffered vessels of wrath which God had fitted to destruction to make his power known.  There it is, believe it or not God’s will will be done.   But Saul did not do it, even so God's will was done.

But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, the oxen, the fatlings, the lambs, and all that was good, and were not willing to destroy them utterly; but everything despised and worthless, that they utterly destroyed. Then the word of the Lord came to Samuel, saying, "I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not carried out My commands." And Samuel was distressed and cried out to the Lord all night (1 Sam. 15:9-11).  Leading thus to David's rise.

Why ET Is Important Enough To Spend So Much Money Looking For Him.

I read where scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, have now used the Green Bank Telescope in West Virginia to look for intelligent radio signals from planets around 86 of these stars. While discovering no telltale signs of life, the researchers claimed to calculate that fewer than one in a million stars in the Milky Way Galaxy have planetary civilizations advanced enough to transmit beacons we could detect. (2/12/13)

I would really like to know upon what these calculations were based upon?  As there is no way for anyone to know whether or not life exists anywhere other than on earth that would make them correct if there were no planetary civilizations to be found anywhere.  Yet to unabashedly say it is out there all they have to do is find them is pure hubris.  Why is it that they, they being the ones searching so hard to prove that life exist other than on earth, are allocating so much time and money in the search?  To prove it one way or the other will change nothing here on earth, right?

Well no, if they can prove that life exists other than on earth they will use it to beat Christians up about their belief in a creator God.  How many times have you heard an attack on Christians because the Catholics imprisoned Galileo for teaching that the earth was not the center of the solar system during the Inquisition and forced him to recant his teachings about the sun.  The belief that the earth is the center of the universe is not to be found in the Bible, yet Christians till this day are said to hold that belief by those who wish to deny the Bible as the Word of God.

They believe, imo, that if they can prove that life exists other than on earth that the case for evolution will be made, and the case that there is a creator God is debunked.

They already have plans if their search peters out on Mars: US astronomers looking for life in the solar system believe that Europa, one of the moons of Jupiter, which has an ocean, is much more promising than desert-covered Mars, which is currently the focus of the US government's attention. "Europa is the most likely place in our solar system beyond Earth to possess .... life," said Robert Pappalardo, a planetary scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California. "And it is the place we should be exploring now that we have a concept mission we think is the right one to get there for an affordable cost,". AFP  

Don't let them fool you, they don't care about the cost, this is a "Damn the cost, full steam ahead" for them.  Prove God does not exist at all cost.  Let us say that they do find some microbes on Mars, or Europa of what use could that be to anyone on Earth other than watching a documentary about it?  No, the whole expense is to prove that there is no creator God.

Pride vr. Hubris

Today I want to talk about pride.  Not the pride of your hometown or your child’s success, but the pride that precedes the fall or as Proverbs 16:18 puts it, “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.”  How does this pride differ from be pride of what you have been able to achieve in life, or of a job well done?

The pride that comes before the fall means that you have becomes over confident and stops thinking sensibly or critically because of what you think you know or the abilities you have.  This is the source of the adage, “A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing”.

A little learning is a dangerous thing;

drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:

there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,

and drinking largely sobers us again.

Alexander Pope (1688 - 1744)

When success goes to one's head and which is a sure indication of the fact that that person is bound to suffer or face disappointment because of the wrong decisions that he or she might make.  

How does this adage and the Proverb ties together and become profitable for us as instructions?  Well remember what Reagan said, “Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.”  When you go to criticize another’s views make sure that you understand the subject you are spouting off about.  To be so completely convinced that you have the correct view when in fact all you have is a small understanding is a manifestation of the pride that precedes the fall. 

This pride can sneak into our minds in any number of ways, on how best to train a horse to how best to interpret the scriptures.  While this pride can bring us to embarrassment at its mildest form,  but rebukes to death and destruction at its harshest, it does not rise to hubris unless you refuse to learn from the instruction that holding this type of pride provides.    

“And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.”  

Hebrews 12:5-6

Now as far as interpreting scriptures I take the Baptist approach that no one stand between man and god.  No preacher, no elder, or deacon, but through faith, interacting with others, through listening, conversations, reading and reflection. One should also engage not only those who share their worldview but others who are quite different from you. You will find that sometimes your conversations will help another person, but more often I have found that by talking with others I have come to a better understanding of the scriptures.

I will not tell another person this is the way you should understand the Bible, I will tell how I understand it.  I believe that God is a God of revelation, if He does not reveal Himself to you you cannot find Him.  

“And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;   (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)  It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.  As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.   What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.  For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.  So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.  For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 

Romans” 9: 10-1