Biff the unclean

First of all is Peter a cult leader??? I would say no, you've already said yes.
I've gone through three rather sizable dictionaries looking up the definitions of the word "cult." They are all surprisingly mild and describe the situation perfectly. Worship; reverential honor; devoted attachment to, or extravagant admiration for, a person, principle, etc.

My personal definition would say it was also small and outside main stream religion and had charismatic controlling leaders.

The way to find the answer would be to determine what is the definition of a cult. If your definition is different than mine of what a cult is, then we could both be right at the same time.

…I see it more like a person who goes to court because he has agreed to pay something and didn't.
The punishment for that is usually being forced to pay what you promised.

God's standard with judging sin is death, both spiritual and physical.
Careful where you are going with this. If you'll check the commentary url-ed above you find that the money A kept was his wife's dowry which was meant to be saved in case of divorce or A's untimely death as a kind of 1st century insurance policy to take care of S. So of course a loving husband would protect his wife. But you have God not only killing A but also sending him to hell for doing so.

This, however, does not negate the death penalty for sin.
And yet God doesn't go around striking people down like Zeus for offending him. And Jesus probably hadn't gotten himself comfortable in his throne at God's right hand after his time bringing forgiveness to the people of Earth when this happened.
So I don't see why you would pin the rap on God. He didn't do things like that before Jesus and He so loved mankind that he gave his only begotten yadda yadda yadda…

One of the main differences between believers and non-believers is that God see's the death of His only Son in the place of believers.
A & S were believers. Nobody died in their places they did that themselves, which contradicts your next statement.

In the case of A & S they, as believers sinned against God, were immediately judged, and died. We know that not everybody immediately dies throughout scripture upon sin.
Actually we know that nobody does.
Taking that into account does not mean that God changes in character. He consistently shows Mercy when and how He chooses through the scriptures.
Which has you saying that God is arbitrary in the very sentence after you say he is consistent. And you are saying that Jesus brought the forgiveness of sin but will murder, and send to hell, a nice couple over a few dollars. Which would mean that the whole salvation thing was a fraud.

Are you sure God is a suspect in this heinous crime?

I'm going to be traveling for the next week and will be computerless untill Monday a week from now.
If the thread goes cold I'll give it a bump for when you get back.

offa

Offa; When Jesus Christ "Gave up the Ghost" and said, "It is finished" he was a Samaritan and a member of the Many. He was crucified and did not suffer rigor mortis because he lived another 36 years. He was able to become St. Paul's figurehead without blasphemy because St. Paul (a descendant of King Herod with the All being subject to king Herod) was not a member of Jesus' original cult. BTW, Ananias and Sapphira were buried "metaphorically".

And, please do not compare me with Amos. He is a few levels ahead of me ... and I beg his pardon.

Grad Student Humanist

While I like your explanation, I doubt most Xtians would agree with it. After all, the gospels are supposed to present an accurate account of the life of Jesus Christ. So he either inexplicably cursed the fig tree or he didn't. If one takes the gospels literally (which most Xtians do) it really paints a poor picture of Jesus.

Biff the unclean

Most of todays Xians have never even heard of Mithra.
Most, if not all, of the people that this story was written for had.
Mithra's faith is without fruit, his holy chuch will wither at the word of Jesus. Mithra is a big pooh pooh head. Vote for Jesus H. Christ YEAH!!!!!

I mean if you think that's just a plain old fig tree then Jesus is just some jerk looking for a snack.

Biff the unclean

Ya know there's many more "SENSELESS ACTS OF VIOLENCE" besides the murder of poor A&S
For instance, there's this attack on a guy named Barjesus. It says he's s Jewish sorcerer. I imagine that means that he was into the Cabal and not a Harry Potter sort.
------------
13:6 And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus (7) Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God. (8 ) But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. (9) Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him. (10) And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? (11) And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.
----------------------
Okay, can we hear from some Christian on how this is Christian "love?" Barjesus heard what Paul had to say thought it wasn't right and said so to his friend Sergius. Paul strikes him blind--he can do this because he has superpowers from being "filled with the Holy Spirit."
Like the killer Peter, Paul is a saint. He strikes men blind because he disagrees with them. Eventually the Romans arrested the two of them….I should hope so.

[ November 16, 2002: Message edited by: Biff the unclean ]</p>

Biff the unclean

bump for wardy

wardy

Thanks for the Bump and your patience.

We are told all the time that God (Christian God) is the source of all morallity, the Bible is the most perfect book ever written, that it provides the only true moral compass there is.

I agree with the above.

Live your life like the Saints and Apostels!

This only applies to people that have believed in God through faith in Jesus. We can do absolutly nothing for God until we accept what He has done for us.
The rules and regulations of Godly living have the following purposes in Scripture
1. to reveal God's character.
2. define sin.
3. be a tutor to lead us to Jesus.
4. should be followed by a believer only dependent upon the strength the Lord provides and for His glory so that the outside world will see a radical life of love and be drawn and attracted to the beauty of the God who provides the ability to love like that.

And then they have the nerve to blame the worlds problems on non-believers. This book has done more to screw peoples minds than any other, if you can rationalize the evil deeds done in it, you can rationalize anything!

It's obvious by your words that you have been in contact with believers or professing believers that have condemned non-believers for the World's problems. They were wrong to do that. Sin is the cause for the Worlds problems not sinners. It's not a believers place to judge non-believers, any teaching that would indicate a believer seperating himself from loving an unbeliever is not biblical teaching.

i wrote: God is Holy before He is love. He cannot tolerate sin.
you wrote: "Then why these poor people that believed in him and worshiped him and not all the evil sinners around them?" From where I'm sitting, God tolerates sins aplenty."

i should have explained more. I can easily see how that would be confusing. there is a difference between sin and sinner. We know from scripture that Christ came to save sinners. we know from scripture that all have sinned and continue to sin (believers too) We know that He desires forgiveness and love but also He values above all else the Holiness and glorification of His Name. The people that were condemned by the Lord were the people who believed they had no sin. 1 Cor. 5:9-11 shows how believers should disassociate themselves from a professed believer living in immorality. (this clearly does not apply to unbelievers)

God hates sin to the point of the death of His only Son. He loves sinners enough to make the sacrifice of His Son for them. I know i was confusing and not clear earlier, i'm sorry for that. Thanks for your patience.

Worship; reverential honor; devoted attachment to, or extravagant admiration for, a person, principle

with the principle being defined as glorifying God, then i'm all for Christianty being a cult with this being the definition of a cult. even with it having a charasmatic leader. About being outside of mainstream religion. I would say Christianity is outside of mainstream religion because just about if not all other religions try to attain glory or whatever else by attaining it through their own power or effort. Being adopted into the family of God only occurs by trusting Jesus and the work that He did.

me: God's standard with judging sin is death, both spiritual and physical.
you wrote: Careful where you are going with this. If you'll check the commentary url-ed above you find that the money A kept was his wife's dowry which was meant to be saved in case of divorce or A's untimely death as a kind of 1st century insurance policy to take care of S. So of course a loving husband would protect his wife. But you have God not only killing A but also sending him to hell for doing so.

I didn't know that it was a dowry. i wonder what from the written text allows that conclusion? It's not necessary to answer that question. No matter what the case, they promised the money, they both were aware of it. Both were judged at that moment. Even if it was a dowry, they would still be showing a lack of trust in God that He would provide along with the fact that they lied.

God sending them to hell would be an interpretive option. It's not the one i would go with. The context highly indicates that they were believers therefore making hell an impossible option for them.

And yet God doesn't go around striking people down like Zeus for offending him.

On an appointed day Herod, having put on his royal apparel, took his seat on the rostrum and began delivering an address to them. The people kept crying out, "The voice of a god and not of a man!" And immediately an angel of the Lord struck him because he did not give God the glory, and he was eaten by worms and died. Acts 12:21-23


i wrote: One of the main differences between believers and non-believers is that God see's the death of His only Son in the place of believers.
you wrote: A & S were believers. Nobody died in their places they did that themselves, which contradicts your next statement

there are two types of death in scripture, physical and spiritual. In Gen. 2:17 God told Adam...from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

if were to literally translate that from the Hebrew language. it would be translated "you will surely die, die". Because we do not speak like that in English we only have die there once.

Dying physically is inevitable. A & S will not die spiritually because Christ paid that penalty for them and they personally received that through faith.

And you are saying that Jesus brought the forgiveness of sin but will murder, and send to hell, a nice couple over a few dollars. Which would mean that the whole salvation thing was a fraud.

1. I'm am saying that they are forgiven.
2. The context shows them being believers which would mean hell is impossible.
3. Whether is was 1 penny, 1 dollar, or 1 million dollars. They messed up and lied.

Physical death is penalty for a believer living in sin. 1 John, 1 Cor. 11, and in James and Rom. If they were believers (i highly agree that they are) then salvation and forgiveness is still granted.

Thanks again for the bump!

Biff the unclean

Wardy, if you could do me a personal favor I would appreciate it. I see that you view this topic as an opportunity to reach out with "the good news of the gospel." Please stop doing that, it is very annoying. Surely we can discuss the topic at hand without the addition of an advertising campaign.
Thanks.

The rules and regulations of Godly living have the following purposes in Scripture…
2. define sin…
4. should be followed by a believer only dependent upon the strength the Lord provides and for His glory so that the outside world will see a radical life of love and be drawn and attracted to the beauty of the God who provides the ability to love like that.
Well that is what this conversation is all about.
Christians portray the NT as the seat of their morality. Yet in fact it isn't moral at all. Christians have morality in spite of the NT not because of it. That is why I picked the Acts of the Apostles. It is filled with dreadful crimes. Crimes that if any Christian saw committed today they would call the police. But, since they are in the bible, you turn a blind eye to.

It's obvious by your words that you have been in contact with believers or professing believers that have condemned non-believers for the World's problems. They were wrong to do that.
You ignore the fact that Jesus commanded that non-believers be put to death.
Yours is a post Humanist version of Christianity, not the original version.

The people that were condemned by the Lord were the people who believed they had no sin.
That would be every Atheist on this web site.

1 Cor. 5:9-11 shows how believers should disassociate themselves from a professed believer living in immorality.
And yet when Acts tells of the immoral acts of the Apostles you find excuses for them.

Acts 12:21-23
This is another piece of immorality. The king is killed by magic.

In Gen. 2:17 God told Adam...from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."
More immorality, this time it's lying. The OT doesn't say "spiritual" death. It could have, but it doesn't. In fact, according to the Midrash, there is no "spiritual" death. Snake tells Adam he isn't going to die. Adam eats the fruit and lives for over twenty times the normal life span. Snake spoke the truth, God lied through his teeth, and you invent another type of "death" so that the bible can mean what you want it to mean instead of what it says.

Dying physically is inevitable. A & S will not die spiritually because Christ paid that penalty for them and they personally received that through faith.
I've got to tell you, that is a disgusting thing for you to say.

A has an argument with Peter about money and falls dead at Peter's feet. His body is unceremoniously dumped. Three hours later S has the same argument and she falls dead.
If this happened today at your church you would dial 911 in a flash. If anyone one said about the double homicide in your church "dying is inevitable" you might punch them in the nose.
I can only conclude that you don't see these murders as an historic event, but as a piece of metaphorical fiction.

There are more crimes in Acts than the double murder and the killing of the king.
There's 13:6 where Paul gets pissed over a guy called Barjesus not agreeing with him and he BLINDS the poor bastard.

And there is 19:19 Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.
A book burning! I'm not sure how many codexs 50,000 pieces of silver bought but the implication is quite a few.

This book burning is exactly what Hitler did. Books on exactly the same subjects were burned both times. Hitler was universally condemned for his book burning. Would you defend the identical Act when an Apostle does it?