Importance of Original Sin

Why would 'god's word' need two thousand year's worth of interpretation? It's a simple message for simple people. It is what it is.As for 'self-serving unbelievers', I don't have a dog in this fight, I just report what is written. As far as I'm concerned it's all pure fiction anyway, but I can read. It says what it says, it doesn't require 'interpretation'.Was your god the Puzzler?

It seems to suggest that God killed them - goats, everlasting fire, y'know. It might be worth your while to keep that in mind the next time you give 99%.

There is no doubt that God killed them, but if they were believers in spite of their sin it doesn't necessarily mean damnation. It may but it may not.Their sin of LYING TO GOD. That's just plain nonsense about 99%.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry, you read wrong.

And holding back. It's right there, whether you're willfully blind or not.

You are exaggerating what I was wrong about, and in the end I don't think I was anyway.

They were not punished for holding back and THAT is what is clearly in the text.

The text is right here:

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?

---

Do you not see where it says, "and to keep back part of the price of the land"?Because everybody else can see it. You're not doing your position any favours by openly lying about it.

It's obvious that you were wrong. What you claimed was diametrically opposite to what Jesus said.

Do you see where it says they had the right to their possession? Clearly not. Context means nothing to you.

I also see where they were killed for holding it back, so clearly the "right to their possession" was not absolute. It's a case of having the right to choose heaven or hell and they chose hell. It's a stupid doctrine, I know, but it's your doctrine, not mine.

quote:

---

Do you see where it says they had the right to their possession? Clearly not. Context means nothing to you.

---

It says that he owned the land and had control of the money - the point being that he had no excuse for holding back. Nowhere does it say that holding some of the money back was acceptable - clearly it was not. That’s what you see if you read it in context.

I agree it was wrong to hold it back, it was morally wrong in the context since everyone else was giving all, but since he legally had a right to dispose of it as he pleased that was not why they were punished. They lied about holding it back and that was what they were punished for.

they were killed for lying about holding it back, not for holding it back.

So how is that possible? It's the word of god, how can it be read wrongly? Why would that be possible? Doesn't your god want to be understood by all? Is it only you that can read it 'right'?