Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith

You don't find it surprising that the followers of Jesus murdered a married couple? I think most people, believers and non-believers alike, would think your analysis has gone off the deep end. Doesn't it make much, much more sense that the story was apocryphal and intended to serve as an object lesson about the importance of sharing the gifts of your life with the church? If by "involved" you mean a participant, I think it would be more accurate to say Paul was merely an approving observer.But whatever misimpressions the apostles had of the nature of the battle for God's kingdom, murdering their fellow "soldiers" with no due process bears no resemblance to what happened to Stephen, and it is as far from Jesus's teachings as possible. His miracles restored health and life, not the opposite. The Apostles didn't need Paul's supposed letter to the Ephesians about the spiritual nature of the battle to know that murder was wrong. There might even be a commandment about it. I don't see how you can feel that way and still be a member of such a religion.I believe the story is made up. The true origins of the Christian church are buried in antiquity, including whether there was ever really a person named Jesus, let alone that he did all the things claimed.I do think there was a person named Paul. Whatever the truth about Jesus, whether he was completely made up or was based on a real person (the Teacher of Righteousness perhaps) or was an actual person, it died with Paul.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Sure I can. If you get a bill in the mail, does it matter what colour the envelope is? What matters is that you pay the bill. Nope, still false, no matter how many times you repeat it. The message was already here. That particular messenger was just a reminder. (We are currently in a postal strike in Canada. If my bills don't come, I'm still responsible for paying them. I might have to use a different messenger, such as the Internet, but the amount owing is the same.) Putting the messenger ahead of the message is not accepting the message. I don't think I've ever said you were. I have said that being "selective" is often an excuse for being stingy.Giving a dollar to a panhandler is more than just a down payment on a sandwich or a beer. It's treating him like a human being. They seem to like that. Then vote wisely. Never trust a politician who promises to cut taxes. The library is a ten-minute walk from my house. I have a dozen or so "library friends" that I know only at the library. The library encourages it to be a gathering place. (Imagine kids gathering to play computer games. It isn't as quiet as it used to be but we have to move with the times - resources aren't what they used to be.)Edited by ringo, : Spellin.

I did. There was a picture of somebody believing that talking snakes are factual. You're being dishonest. If you saw a newspaper article about a talking snake you wouldn't believe it for a second.

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?

---

I guess when someone's as wrong as you, obfuscation is their only recourse. This isn't relevant. You claimed that both Luke and Peter claimed that Ananias had lied to the Holy Spirit. The reality is that only Luke claims that Peter said Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit. You have nothing from Peter about whether he ever said anything like that or not. You have only one person, Luke, asserting something, not two. What positive impression can be garnered of a church that murders its congregants for minor infractions. First, the story is made up. It's apocryphal, sending a message to early Christians of the importance of sharing the gifts of their life with the church community. No Ananias/Sapphira couple was ever struck dead by the Holy Spirit, and likely there was no such couple anyway.Second, nothing in Luke's account relates either Ananias or Sapphira lying to the Holy Spirit. Ananias says nothing, while Sapphira lies to Peter. Gee, how Catholic of you. According to Wikipedia, "Roman Catholicism counts this fear as one of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. In Proverbs 15:33, the fear of the Lord is described as the 'discipline' or 'instruction' of wisdom."So you're saying that the Holy Spirit not only took into account the supposed seriousness of Ananias and Saphhira's crime, but also that murdering them would have the "salutary effect" of increasing fear of God. Putting the two together (the crime and the need to increase fear of God) the Holy Spirit decided to murder them.My own wisdom is that people should avoid religious flimflam. There is no passage in the Bible where either Ananias or Sapphira lied to God. There's no passage where they ever said a single word to God. I hear the boogey man has first dibs on me.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Interesting how adamant you can be about a biased opinion of your own against the whole history of Christianity. Luke is a real person, the author of Acts, he is reporting on an incident involving the real people Ananias and Sapphira, who appear nowhere else in the New Testament, and Peter the apostle, who appears in lots of places. All are real people, the incident is real etc etc etc. So it's my opinion against yours, but really it's the opinion of the Church through the ages against yours.Again, Luke says they lied, Peter asks Ananias why he lied since he didn't have to since he had the right to dispense of his property however he wanted to, I don't need Luke to quote Ananias speaking the lie, then Luke says they fell down dead, nobody killed them, and a reasonable reading of scripture simply takes what it says at face value. Gosh that's actually cute. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The Bible is not a newspaper.

quote:

---

Interesting how adamant you can be about a biased opinion of your own against the whole history of Christianity.

---

The part you quoted isn’t a biased opinion, it is a fact. You have the Book of Acts claiming that Peter accused Ananias of lying. You do not have any statement from Peter on the matter.I hardly believe that the whole history of Christianity has been lying about that, but even if it were true it would only condemn Christianity.

quote:

---

Again, Luke says they lied,

---

Luke does not say that Ananias lied. Percy kept asking you about that remember ? And it wasn’t there, was it ?

quote:

---

Peter asks Ananias why he lied since he didn't have to since he had the right to dispense of his property however he wanted

---

No he doesn’t. Try reading in context. The words attributed to Peter condemn Ananias for not giving all of the money to Peter. Since Ananias had control of the land and the money he had no excuse for holding any back.
If you disagree quote the part where Peter says that it would have been alright to hold back part of the money.. Or admit that you can’t because there is no such statement.

Don't be silly, I have Luke's account of what he said to Ananias, and that is all that is needed or nobody could ever believe anything written about what someone said ever.The idea that Ananias' having control of his property could have anything to do with giving an excuse to hold any of it back or not is too absurd to even consider. Get real. Peter's mentioning it is to point out that he had lied to no purpose at all except his own pride.

quote:

---

Don't be silly, I have Luke's account of what he said to Ananias, and that is all that is needed or nobody could ever believe anything written about what someone said ever.

---

You have an account written by someone who wasn’t there, based on unknown sources, written at a time when historians routinely invented the words they attributed to their subjects. That may be all you need but rational people are aware of the limits of the evidence.No matter how much you pretend to have Peter’s statement you don’t.

quote:

---

The idea that Ananias' having control of his property could have anything to do with giving an excuse to hold any of it back or not is too absurd to even consider. Get real

---

If Ananias had not had control of the land or the money he would not have had the right to unilaterally hand over all the money to Peter. He would have had to have the agreement of the other interested parties. Maybe you consider that absurd but very few other people would. Including the courts.

quote:

---

Peter's mentioning it is to point out that he had lied to no purpose at all except his own pride.

---

Except that there is absolutely nothing to support that claim. Which makes more sense if Peter is emphasising that Ananias had no excuse for not handing over all the money.

Apparently all you have to offer is fallacies and bald, unsupported declarations. This is the "Fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong" fallacy, plus I doubt "the whole history of Christianity" is of one mind on this point. Obviously the author of the New Testament book known as the Gospel According to Luke was a real person, but whether that author was Luke the Evangelist or even just someone named Luke has scarce evidential support. That Ananias and Sapphira were real people is just a bald, unsupported declaration. Had they appeared elsewhere in the New Testament, perhaps in a Pauline letter, it would have provided at least a bit of support, but as you note, they appear in that one place in Acts and nowhere else. This argues against them being real people. Right, exactly my point. That Peter is mentioned in many places, especially that he is mentioned by Paul himself for whom there is good evidence he was a real person, is fair evidence that Peter was a real person. Ananias and Sapphira have barely any mention at all, and that their story is apocryphal and obviously intended to send a message casts a great deal of doubt on their being real people. Concerning them all being real people, I'd place Peter somewhere between possibly and probably being real, and I'd place Ananias and Sapphira in the "not likely real" category. More bald, unsupported declaration. Actually it's the opinion of a realist against the opinion of a fabulist. If yours and the Church's opinion are on such solid ground, where is the evidence that convinced them of the truth of their opinion? That you call it opinion is telling, revealing you know there's no evidence. I don't know why you're continuing to have this problem with something so simple. Luke does not say they lied. Luke writes that Peter said Ananias lied, and he quotes Sapphira lying. Nowhere does he write anything along the lines of, "Ananias and Sapphira lied." He's telling a story. Yeah, pretty weird since Ananias didn't say a word. This is a weird thing for you to say. The whole point of the passage was that because the early Christians had agreed to share all they owned with one another, that they therefore did not have the right to dispose of their property (and the proceeds thereof) however they wanted. You pretty much do. Peter accuses Ananias of lying to the Holy Spirit when he uttered not a word. Later Peter accuses Sapphira of lying to the Holy Spirit when she only lied to Peter. The whole passage is pretty much of a mess. Actually, a reasonable reading of scripture would include understanding that religious people make up stories.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

That's what I'm telling you. You're the one who said it was simple factual reporting.

Don't think you can claim this fallacy and people here don't get it right about fallacies most of the time anyway. You can't compare Frenchmen to believers taught in a theology sharing an opinion. Really stupid comparison.Yah, my bad: to me the whole history of Christianity means true Christianity which basically means the theological positions held by the followers of the Protestant Reformation.

The stupidity is all yours, madam. "Fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong" is just a familiar (to most people) catchphrase, a sarcastic way of referring to the fallacy that when many people believe something then it must be true. It isn't meant to be taken literally. (Looking it up just now, it traces back to a 1927 song that was also sarcastic. The lyrics are available online if you're interested.) The formal name of the fallacy is Argumentum ad populum.So it wouldn't matter if the whole of all mankind throughout history believed that both Luke and Peter claimed that Ananias lied to the Holy Spirit, a simple reading of the Gospel According to Luke still says they're wrong. Plus there's still no meaningful evidence of authorship, or that Ananias and Sapphira were real people, or that they lied to the Holy Spirit, or that the passage is anything more than apocryphal and intended to strike fear and teach a lesson. So where you've been saying that inerrancy traces back to Christianity's beginnings, you really only mean the 1500's. That's still wrong, but at least you're 1500 years closer to being correct.--Percy

No, the Protestant Reformers traced their conclusions back to the beginning too.