The Book Of Acts

Because it is dishonest and not a valid argument. By using this comment you invalidate your whole argument.

Where does it suggest any unusual unification of mind and heart to the extent that this passage suggests?Here is the passage yet again: The only thing in that passage that might not be found in a secular socialist or communist community is "praising God".

It does not suggest anything directly in that passage...but a bit later... When was the last time you let someone borrow your car? Your guns? Your clothes??(not that you wouldn't do so....but admittedly this type of community sharing is unusual)Lets say though for arguments sake you are correct. There are other parts of Acts that suggest an undue influence by said Holy Spirit. Though I'm not sure what point I wish to prove.....Add by edit: Check this out: Give And Take: How The Rule Of Reciprocation Binds UsEdited by Phat, : No reason given.

And again, read the passage you provided as support. Once more the passage simply says that they developed a communistic/socialistic society. It says NOTHING about spiritual beliefs or the Holy Spirit.The problem Phat is that you are not reading or studying Acts, not examining what the book actually says, but rather inserting your own additional editorial comments to make it "MEAN" what YOU want it to mean.But does YOUR interpretation have anything to do with what Acts actually says?

Tell me when you have seen the following behavior exhibited in a "normal" secular society? Im saying that what was happening in the book was not normal human behavior. and I challenge anyone who claims they would gladly live this way. It just aint normal.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Again, it is normal socialist/communist behavior and a pretty common behavior even under capitalism.Have you ever been to the Denver Public Libraries, driven on roads without paying a toll, have a Fire Department require a payment before responding to a fire?Did you know that there are almost 2000 Carnegie libraries in the US.In Baltimore I spent many hours in the Enoch Pratt free library, another example.

ok i think i see where this is going. You would allow that the behavior in the Book of Acts is possible in any normal human society and that we dont require any special blessing or favor from God to accomplish what we know to do.And yes, perhaps I want there to be such a special bestowing, and admittedly will continue to believe it. I am not as optimistic about humans being responsible without help as you perhaps are......

Again, what does the book actually say, not what does Phat want the book to say.There are many examples of similar societies, for example most of the Native American Indian societies. They did not "own" land or resources and had rules seeing that women and children got fed first and that widows and orphans were taken care of.

So your accusation that some people "reject the idea of god simply because of wishing to preserve the right of one to think freely without limits or constraint on behavior that such a Spirit may impose on a human conscience" is a hypothetical scenario that you "cant see being valid"? Is that correct?If so, you should be aware that that is a common accusation made towards atheists/nonbelievers by religionists. Furthermore, if it is a hypothetical scenario, why would you say you can't see it being valid? What purpose does it serve to construct a hypothetical scenario, an accusation which is actually laid by other members of your religion as a serious one and not a hypothetical scenario; one they actually believe, to say that you can't see it as being valid?Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

I say that I DO see it being valid and, in fact, rather common.

You said in Message 15, Is that the word CAN'T as in a conjunction of CANNOT, or CAN? These two words are exactly opposite and have different meanings.You can't say that you erroneously added a T at the end because you used it as a contrary example to the other two that you can see the logic of.Which is it Phat?edit:
Furthermore, I will ask the same as jar. Since you think there are actual cases where non-believers don't believe simply because they wish to be free from the shackles of this dictator god, you could provide them. I hope if you do so, you will provide solid evidence of their reasoning and not merely "Phat thinks that is their reason for not believing the bible".You've gotten yourself in a bit of a jam here.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Then I imagine you can provide examples to support your assertion.

oh ok, my bad. in context, can't is what I meant.I can't see that as being a valid reason.

Ok. Back to Message 17What kind of argument are you laying out here? Neither can anyone else. Which is why it is asonine for you religious types to constantly bring it up or mention it, yet you do constantly. It IS a strawman that you can easily knock down. It is NOT a position that ANY non-believer holds, nor a reason any non-believer uses as a basis for their non-belief.

oh come on! Do you expect me to believe that? Just for fun, I'll give you that point...though I think that you are stretching reality at least as far as I was.The issue can't simply be framed as "because God is fiction."That is a belief and not a fact. Or am I again constructing a strawman.....??