|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
In the actual text Peter makes it clear that it was WRONG of them to hold back part of the money and that they had no excuse for ho,ding back part of them money. And why should they not be punished for doing wrong ? Because it isn't a punishable wrong. And since they had a right to dispose of their possessions as they pleased, which Peter very very clearly spells out, there is no wrong at all in holding back some of it. Their wrong was in the context of voluntary giving of possessions which everybody did but themselves. There is nothing punishable about that, it's just a sign of their lack of complete commitment to the cause. And you certainly can't think God would take their lives for such a withholding, but lying to the Holy Spirit is a great sin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I had already read the beginning of Act 5, and the end of Act 4 as well, when I asked you to quote the Bible passage where Ananias and Sapphira tell this lie. You still haven't done it, since Ananias never said a word before he "gave up the ghost." Only Sapphira lied. But the narrator, the writer of the Book of Acts, Luke, and Peter, both say he'd lied, so just because Ananias himself says nothing at that point we know he lied. Unless you are calling Luke and Peter liars instead. Besides which, he DID "give up the ghost" as punishment for lying, and if he hadn't lied he wouldn't have lost his life for it.
I'm in effect making the same point as Ringo - people see what they want in the Bible, whether it is there or not. Certainly seems to me that unbelievers do that a lot, but I can't see any motive whatever for a believer to "want" to see anything in particular in the Bible since the Bible is our source of knowledge of God. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
The only right they had to the land was under Roman law.
It is clear from the fact that they had a right to their land to dispose of it however they wished that they couldn't be punished for holding back part of it, that makes no sense at all. Faith writes:
Whatever God deems punishable by the death penalty is punishable by the death penalty. Lot's wife got the death penalty for looking over her shoulder. They were in the wrong because everybody else was giving all their possessions but that isn't a punishable wrong, especially not punishable by the death penalty. It is very plain from the text that Ananias and Sapphira were punished for lying AND for holding back. AND.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
That would be the same motive that Ananias amd Sapphira had. I can't see any motive whatever for a believer to "want" to see anything in particular in the BibleAnd our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Just the fact that they were punished by death for such an offense is reason enough to ignore and oppose that entire platform. I don't care who the leader is.
If someone told me that I would somehow be punished for not surrendering all that I owned, I would oppose such a person and platform and ideology 100%.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That's ridiculous, ringo. Peter would not have talked about how he had complete control over his land, meaning the right to dispose of it at will, if he was doing anything wrong with respect to that fact. I suppose you'll just go on and on with the ridiculous argument and refuse to get the point though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Why isn’t it ?
quote: And there you go repeating the same misrepresentation again. Peter clearly says that holding the money back WAS wrong. He says that they had control of the land and the money from its sale to emphasise that they COULD have given all the money to him.
5 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, 2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. 3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. 5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
quote: From the actual text the lying to the Holy Spirit seems to mean Ananias holding back money (it doesn’t mention Ananias saying anything) and Sapphira telling Peter that they had given all the money.
8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. 10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
I'm sure you would. You've been poisoned by right-wing politics to the extent that you would defy God. After all, the "platform" that you're so vehemently opposed to was instituted by Jesus and enforced byGod Himself. Just the fact that they were punished by death for such an offense is reason enough to ignore and oppose that entire platform. I don't care who the leader is.If someone told me that I would somehow be punished for not surrendering all that I owned, I would oppose such a person and platform and ideology 100%. And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
You've been poisoned by right-wing politics to the extent that you would defy God. After all, the "platform" that you're so vehemently opposed to was instituted by Jesus and enforced byGod Himself. Says the guy who believes neither exists! Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
And yet he did. What part of AND do you not understand? Peter would not have talked about how he had complete control over his land, meaning the right to dispose of it at will, if he was doing anything wrong with respect to that fact. The only relevance of the "right" to the land is to underline the fact that God's law supersedes Roman law.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
My beliefs don't change the meaning of the English language. The Bible says what it says. Says the guy who believes neither exists! And Shakespeare said, "Methinks you and Faith protest too much." Deep down, I suspect that you can see the truth.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
ringo writes: As does any book and any message. The problem, as you yourself would have accused us of, is when someone claims truth through one message over another.
The Bible says what it says. ringo in message 678 writes: So even if you can claim that this message says what it says, you have provided no reason why such a message should be accepted. There is no place on earth where all of the people are expected to surrender all that they have to a central governing authority. And though some societies have strived for this "ideal" they all fell apart. Whether this system would even work is highly questionable, given the reality of human nature. Moreover, few would want it. Many of us respect working for what we have and being responsible for our own survival and welfare. Granted I can say that limited social welfare is useful...Social Security is a case in point...but I paid into it in order to reap benefit from it.
...Well, that's exactly how science works. Nothing is accepted unless it can be verified. ringo writes: The point of contention is whether the governing authority should have the right to force me to give. I believe that I myself should and will keep that right. I will continue to argue with Jesus because I sure won't convince you. You expect to have to fully support others (even lazy ones) and also expect others to support you (which is naive and idealistic). So we will never agree. If you were my neighbor I would always make sure you had enough to eat, but I'll not pay everything I have to clothe and house you and be mandatorily forced to do so.
It's a theme: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Deep down, I suspect that you can see the truth. I see the truth in the ideal. I see no truth in being forced to fork it over in reality. You have been poisoned by Left Wing ideology. Far far left.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
I don't claim "truth" of any message. I happen to agree with Jesus' message about helping each other - because it works. It makes the world a better place.
The problem, as you yourself would have accused us of, is when someone claims truth through one message over another. Phat writes:
Where did I say it should be accepted? I do wonder why people would claim to accept Jesus when they reject His message.
So even if you can claim that this message says what it says, you have provided no reason why such a message should be accepted. Phat writes:
And I have suggested no such thing. The instruction is to believers and no central governing authority has been mentioned. Get your head out of the right-wing propaganda.
There is no place on earth where all of the people are expected to surrender all that they have to a central governing authority. Phat writes:
No it isn't.
The point of contention is whether the governing authority should have the right to force me to give. Phat writes:
Nobody has suggested you should be forced to do anything. At best that's a strawman; at worst, it's an outright lie.
. I see no truth in being forced to fork it over in reality. Phat writes:
It's what the Bible says.
You have been poisoned by Left Wing ideology. Phat writes:
You have no clue, do you? Far far left.And our geese will blot out the sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Faith writes: I had already read the beginning of Act 5, and the end of Act 4 as well, when I asked you to quote the Bible passage where Ananias and Sapphira tell this lie. You still haven't done it, since Ananias never said a word before he "gave up the ghost." Only Sapphira lied.
But the narrator, the writer of the Book of Acts, Luke, and Peter, both say he'd lied,... That's like saying both Charles Dickens and Sydney Carton said, "It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done." Peter is merely a character in Luke's tale, even Luke's authorship is of questionable provenance, and you cannot quote any Bible passage where Ananias tells a lie.
...so just because Ananias himself says nothing at that point we know he lied. Unless you are calling Luke and Peter liars instead. I'm not calling anybody anything. I'm saying that much of the Bible is a work of fiction written for religious purposes, and that you're mistakenly claiming it says something that it does not.
Besides which, he DID "give up the ghost" as punishment for lying,... Again, then quote where he lies.
...and if he hadn't lied he wouldn't have lost his life for it. He only lost his life in the same sense that Sydney Carton lost his.
I'm in effect making the same point as Ringo - people see what they want in the Bible, whether it is there or not. Certainly seems to me that unbelievers do that a lot, but I can't see any motive whatever for a believer to "want" to see anything in particular in the Bible since the Bible is our source of knowledge of God. I can't speak to the motivations of any individual Christian's interpretation, but interpretations do certainly vary else there wouldn't be so many Christian sects. The interpretational differences are so severe that you don't even believe Catholics are Christian. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
How would one know it was God doing the commanding and not some form of psychosis?
"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024