LP675

It is the clear implication, and not only Christian readers of Acts understand the story to mean it, most non-Christians do as well (hence the “look how nasty God is for striking them down!� comments, and your own previous comments).

Good for you. Excellent exegesis.

That wasn’t the question I asked.
But yes, I can imagine those livestock getting really peeved.

Magdlyn

A simple rereading of the text caused me to doubt God's hand in this. Peter asked a question, they died. With no witnesses and no outside corroboration, we seem to be taking Peter's word for cause of death. It is a legend, nothing more.


"Acts understand the story to mean it," what does that mean? How can a story understand itself?


Sarcasm again, not a refutation.

LP675

Read it a bit more slowly, I think the grammar is fine, though I confess it is a little awkward.
You said the text doesn’t say God killed the couple. I said this is the clear implication of the story. Not only Christian readers of Acts understand the story to mean ‘it’ (God killed them), but most non-Christians understand the story this way too.


Careful! When you point the finger you have three fingers pointing right back at you.
Remember this snide piece of sarcasm?
I fear we might have come to an impasse. Like Lazarus at Abraham's bosom, I look across and see a great chasm between us. I believe the story in Acts is a true account, that God exists and the scripture can be trusted. You don’t believe the story is true, don’t trust the scriptures, and I presume you don’t believe God exists (or at least interacts with humanity in this sort of way. Please correct me if I am wrong).

So I don’t know that continued discussion in the same vein will be very profitable for either of us.

LP

<><

(edited to add awsome fish symbol!)

Baidarka

One question. What do you think Peter did with the Money?

Baidarka

Wouldn't the Christian thing be to give the money back to their family.

LP675

Dunno.

Baidarka

LP675

If you were Paul what would you do with the Money?

LP675

I was going to say ‘I’d pay off my goons/henchmen’, but that is actually a good question.

I suppose if they had dependants the Christian community would feel obliged to care for them in some way, so perhaps the money should be given to that end (today setting up a trust fund might be a way to do it, but trust law didn’t exist back then obviously). If they had no living relatives maybe giving the money to orphans or something might be the right thing to do.

What do you think the right thing to do would be: (1) if they had dependants? Or (2) if they had no living relatives?

Baidarka

LP675- "What do you think the right thing to do would be"...."?"

Matthew 27
6The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the treasury, since it is blood money." 7So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for foreigners. 8That is why it has been called the Field of Blood to this day.

It is obvious, the money should have been used to buy a potter's field as a burial place for foreigners, a Field of Blood.

gravitybow

You're kidding, right? There will always be an impasse in this one regard: you believe in God, the infidels among us don't. However, this is the second time you have referred to it as a pretext for ending discussion. Guy, did it escape your attention that you're posting on a site called "Internet Infidels"? Disbelief in supernatural acts and deities is a given before discussion even begins! But, whether a profitable discussion can be achieved on another basis is a different thing. I believe it can.

For the sake of argument, let's agree that Acts 5 is accurate on every level:
1. Ananias and Sapphira sell land and give part of the proceeds to the church, but represent it as the entire sum.
2. Peter confronts Ananias, who drops dead unexpectedly.
3. Peter confronts Sapphira, tells her she will die, then she drops dead as predicted.
4. Great fear grips everyone, yet the church continues to grow.

Additionally, let's agree that God, not Peter nor natural causes nor shock, kills both Ananias and Sapphira for lying.

Don't you think this story could be used to advance profiteering in the church? Isn't that really the primary purpose of this story? I don't presume to speak for GermanHeretic, however it seems to me this is where he was going with this when he said he "didn't care" about how the story came about, but emphasized how this story could be used to control members of a church. Control them financially through fear. The church has a history of aggrandizement through coercion and fear, and such a story encourages financial fealty to God on pain of death. If you lie, you die.

Now add to that the fear of a misstep in a moment of weakness.

Where is the justice in such a scenario? Ananias and Saphirra belonged to a church whose members cared enough to share their fortunes with each other. Yet, in a moment of weakness -- a lie to God over money -- they both perished. Before Ananias, had anyone in the Bible dropped dead the moment he lied to God? How would Ananias have known that lying would lead to his immediate demise? Wouldn't real justice entail knowing something of the consequences beforehand? You say that Christians understand the clear implication of Acts chapter 5. Who afforded Ananias the same clarity? If Ananias stands as a warning to other Christians, why wasn't Sapphira given the same warning -- that her husband died three hours before because of his lie-- before she was asked about the money? A God who can harden a pharaoh's heart surely can soften his follower's. With a gentle rebuke, Ananias and Sapphira could have added ten times the sum they lied about to the church's coffers had they lived.

What I find most troubling is that you see it as establishing a "healthy fear" of God, and I see it as an intellectually bankrupt solution by an all-powerful, all-wise deity who could have created a win-win situation out of the whole affair, but didn't. The Bible and you both agree that the church lost potential members because of this episode. You're loving version of God isn't much different from a Don Corleone-type godfather who mixes respect and fear tempered with a skewed sense of "justice" that one should avoid doing business with. And as long as you behave, you'll leave his presence vertically instead of horizontally. You won't like that particular analogy either, but can you think of another that incorporates love, respect, community fear, and death?

Even if you and I were to agree that every clause of the story is true, it is not true in an absolute sense. There is a disconnect the size of the Grand Canyon between what God did to A&S for lying and what he will do to me for a similar lie. I have no fear that the Almighty will strike me down. Allow me to demonstrate as I recite the following aloud: "God, I promise I'm writing a check to you at this very moment for $1000. This is no lie. I really, really mean it."
(gravitybow folds arms and waits)
.
.
.
.
.

I'm still here.

Again, where is the "justice"? If there is a God, he acts on whim and is very inconsistent. At least I, an infidel, will be afforded the time to repent, where A&S, caring Christians in Peter's church, were not. Other people have lied to God and lived (see above demonstration), and God himself has put a lying spirit into others, so lying per se is neither an automatic death sentence nor distasteful to God. So, what is the difference here?

That's a mighty big "if." So, are you agreeing with the converse that Ananias and Sapphira's going to Hell would constitute an injustice? You could protest God's decision?

This from an article about a famous preacher and his money:

Many Christians believe that lying to God assures Eternal Damnation.