The Book Of Acts

But is that ever really a reason except in the mind of Christians that want to assign such nonsense to those who believe differently? Isn't that just another example of Christian hypocrisy?

You do realize that is a strawman caricature of atheists you religious types have created, right? The one you "cant see being valid" is one that you have made up and one that you assume is a reason atheists choose not to believe.

So are you saying that God has no preferred way that She wants us to think or act? I suppose that I can see your point as it ties in with your belief that we are responsible (eternally, perhaps) for how we choose to think and/or behave.I can also agree with you that he evidence of historical christian behavior in regards to "teaching" the rest of the world was and is, essentially "My way(His Way) or the Highway..."Acts teaches that believers are by and large in agreement, however. Granted you may now propose this as evidence that Acts was written as a revisionist philosophy(even suggesting a seeming cult-like attitude amongst Christians) over the older Jewish teachings. I would only disagree because I trust (and want to trust) the ability of the Holy Spirit to unify rather than divide.

Why cant I be hypothetical without forever constructing strawmen?

Actually, the quote you just posted says that they lived in a Communist and Socialist commune. It says nothing about any difference between them and the other Jewish population. There is no mention in your quote about the Holy Spirit.

It seems to suggest that they were of one mind and heart. In contrast, any random sample of populations under communist/socialist rule...never-mind any other human form of government, suggests no such cohesiveness.It seems as if Peter and John were actively attempting to encourage more "outsiders" to become of this same one mind and heart.Is there any reason to believe that their motive was anything other than spiritual?

It seems that the leaders of that time disagreed with this effort at bringing the people all under one mind and heart. Would you say the leaders were more sane than Peter and John?

Sure. The rest of the passage you quoted. A great reason to join a community is security, food, shelter, clothing, mutual support.

In my opinion, Peter and John wanted the people to not simply be under one form of government, but of one mind and heart...through this belief and by way of this Holy Spirit. Clearly, the Jewish leaders disagreed with this. Again, we may ask the motive of Peter and John. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

I think this only makes sense to believers. Think about what you're saying: rejecting god to preserve the right to think freely without limit means you accept god as an authority. They reject god because they don't want to be limited, but they believe a god exists. This can ONLY be something a believer does.- Oni

Point noted. You are probably right....an unbeliever wouldn't even feel the conviction....maybe.I guess I assumed from the standpoint of the Bible being correct, as per Romans 18. Edited by Phat, : added point

But that is NOT the passage you quoted or that I was responding to. You still have not addressed that even though it was the passage YOU selected to support your assertion.

Acts 2:44 does not suggest normal behavior among any large group of people, in my opinion.

Which still does not address the question and is simply an unsupported assertion.

Granted. The rest of the book of Acts does suggest the holy Spirit, however. Whats your point? OK. Again, any normal community...at least in a secular setting, has no unification of mind and heart to the extent that this passage suggests. Am I still avoiding your point(question), and if so, what is it?