Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith

Well, that's exactly how science works. Nothing is accepted unless it can be verified. And you do the same thing in real life more often than you might like to admit. Do you ignore outside information on every topic and go only with your own "subjective experience"? That's a pretty poor analogy. You want a map that has been verified as much as possible. There's no point in having a map at all if it's one you made up in your head. You can read your own head directly, without a map, but you can't trust it to be accurate. Your choice of map should be based on accuracy, shouldn't it? It might be fun to make up a map in your head of a place with an ice cream stand on every corner but is that a useful map?

I think you're moving the goalposts. Sure, there are situations where you have to weigh evidence against evidence to make a decision. But I thought we were talking about "subjective experieces" of things like God. You said, after all, that Straggler hadn't had any.

So, if we are talking about "experiences" where there is no evidence, why would you accept your individual perceptions there? Why not check them against others' experiences and perceptions?

Because you might be wrong. If you don't consider other options, how can you have any confidence in your conclusions? It's better to become right than to stay wrong.

It doesn't say that. The early Christian church certainly didn't take it that way. If you claim to have faith in somebody and that somebody tells you to do something, then yes, having faith certainly does mean doing what that somebody says.The story of the centurion is about authority, not possessions.

Do you think the story records every word that Jesus said? One story records one lesson and another story records another lesson. You can't use the lack of a detail in one story as a loophole. I'm not embracing anything. I'm just pointing out what the Bible says. Do you know how bizarre that sounds? You think I need an "excuse" to love my neighbour? You have it backwards. It's the people who hold back who need an excuse for their behaviour. You're guilty of claiming to "believe in Jesus" and then refusing to do what He told you to do. But it is. You're disagreeing with the followers who knew Jesus personally while He was alive - the ones who actually were in communion with Him.

It's what Jesus said. Argue with Him.It's what the early church practiced. Argue with them.

The early church thought He did. Argue with them. Yet they were punished for not doing it:

quote:

---

Acts 5:3 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?

---

"And to keep back part of the price of the land." I can keep quoting it as long as you can keep claiming that it isn't there.

Remember Ananias and Sapphira? AND for keeping back part of the price of the land. I don't conflate. The Bible conjoins. Do you know what the word AND means? There is no reason to think the statements are different. Appeal to popularity and/or authority - not a valid argument.

That's just silly. I sure can. It says what it says, whether you choose to reject it or not. As I've told Faith, an appeal to popularity and/or authority is not a valid argument. The Bible says what it says, whether an entire church chooses to reject it or not. And rejecting it is self-serving, which makes their conclusion doubly suspect. My socialist leaning has no influence on what the Bible says. It says what it says. Yes, that's exactly the way it's supposed to be. That's what Jesus taught: Contribute what you can and you'll get what you need.In the Old Testament, Elijah expected the widow to contribute her last morsel of food - and she didn't starve in the gutter because of it. Even Noah had to contribute all he could.In the New Testament, Jesus told the young ruler to sell what he had and give to the poor. Jesus Himself and his disciples followed the same rule. The early church followed the same rule. Jesus commended the widow for giving her last two mites.It's a theme: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

You're arguing with Jesus.

Yes he is. All of his arguments have been addressed. If you have an argument beyond, "Nuh uh," fire away.

And you're not. The context is clear that they were punished for lying AND holding back. The phrase added by AND is an important part of the context that you're ignoring.

The only right they had to the land was under Roman law. 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.It is very plain from the text that Ananias and Sapphira were punished for lying AND for holding back. AND.

That would be the same motive that Ananias amd Sapphira had.