Re: Talk is cheap It has always confused me when people say life begins at conception...it seems a conflict of terms. Shouldn't it begin at realization...ya know, reality?
Re: Talk is cheap Well, if it's adultery if you even think about ********ing your neighbor's wife, then the conception is just as important as the reality, so they're at least being internally consistent....
Then why were they killed when they only gave half? Then why wasn't only half accepted? Why was it the deal that you had to give everything - later churches didn't need that. And even in the worst case, they could have just been thrown out of the group (and the failed donation given back). But the deception still lead them to doing more than anyone has done since. Is there any comparison to what they did and what the best Christians in modern America do? Modern American Christians live immensely material based lives, indistinguishable from other religions or those of no religion.
because they lied. the clear implication is that they brought 100 bucks to the church, telling Peter & Co. that it was the total received. the property was theirs. they didn't have to sell it. they chose to sell it and wanted people to think that they were more generous than was the case. this would not have been a big deal, but the couple conspired together to create a deception. if A & S had said "we sold some property of ours and here's half of what we got for it", everything would have been cool. the biblical model is to tithe, give 10%, and everything above that is "an offering". the NT says that we should not feel compelled to give but also that we should give generously. if a person pledged to give half of what he earned, gave one-third but said it was half, it would surprise very few Christians who take the Bible seriously if the person died prematurely. i have no idea whether such things happen, but it certainly is within the realm of possibility.
Re: Talk is cheap So you're saying you don't think it's true, or you don't care that millions of human souls are snuffed out every day? Seems a bit of a raw deal, all things considered.
If they wanted to be Christian, they had to. No, it would have been a big deal because there was only one rule for everyone - give everything you have. You could not have any property of your own without deceit, and if you think having property is a good thing you have to sympathize with the dead couple. Can you provide a passage that says this? I understand why are are fighting hard to ignore the whole communism thing because it isn't possible to actually live like that. But you are the end result of two thousand years of watering down the original message. You are part of the world in a total and complete sense. You enjoy the benefits of all its comforts and don't have greater restrictions than what the secular society around you proposes. You no longer have to be poor. You no longer have to obey Jewish rules. You can divorce. You can charge interest. You can play a part in politics.
you're making stuff up that isn't consistent with the scripture. there wasn't a rule. you can't make the scripture say there was a rule. it's not working, this muddling up what the bible says thing you're doing. 2 Corinthians 9:7 from a biblical perspective there is no such thing as secular. things are either sacred or profane. having a good income and enjoying the proceeds thereof isn't wrong, by any stretch. the churches of Corinth, Phillipi, Ephesus, Thessalonaika, Galatia, Colossae and Rome didn't have "everything in common", as the church in Jerusalem did. as i said before, that practice ended up in a situation where churches like the ones at Corinth and Thessalonaika ( IIRC ) had to send money to Jerusalem, partly because of the persecutions and partly because of the fact that everyone liquidated their assets. nowhere in the NT will you find a teaching that instructs any group to impoverish itself. attend to the needs of the members of the church who have needs? certainly. but sell everything and give to the church? no. some things that Jesus said have direct application to groups and some things have application to individuals. when Jesus told the "rich young ruler" to sell all he had and give it to the poor, that directive doesn't apply to everyone. if it did, he would have made it clear that it applies to everyone by addressing "the multitude" rather than that specific individual.
Re: Talk is cheap i'm saying that characterizing the situation in the terms which you have determined to apply is laughable.
Re: Talk is cheap I think characterizing early term fetuses with a very tenuous hold on existence, as evidenced by the fact that such a large proportion are "aborted" naturally, as human beings, is laughable. Or cryable. Or something. And seriously, if you do believe all fetuses are human beings from the point of conception, doesn't it bother you the least little bit that God allows all these unique souls to die without even a chance to live? I mean I believe in some form of reincarnation, so it at least would make a little more sense in my cosmology, and I still think the idea that every fetus is an incarnated soul from the beginning is absurd. But hey, YMMV. Which is why they call it "pro-choice." You think that 4-week-old organism is a human being, don't get an abortion. Oh, and sorry for the threadjack, it's just a sore point for me....
Re: Talk is cheap i will give you this, that it's sad, for the moms and dads that babies die before they are born. from a biblical perspective, the babies get to spend eternity in heaven with God, which, if you believe Browning ( "be our joys three parts pain" -- Rabbi Ben Ezra ) isn't such a bad thing.
oh, and another thing: the bible view is that death is the result of sin, not the sin of the baby, in the cited case, but sin of Man. i suppose you would claim it's not fair to deprive a person of life, but life comes from God in the first place. from the Christian perspective, it's better not to pursue our preferences too assiduously. we don't know what's good for us.
Of course it was a rule. Everyone did it. Acts 4:34-35: Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. Everyone with land gave everything to the apostles for distribution. Were they wrong for trying to live like that? If so, why did they live like that? Of course it is. It is worldly. Being comfortable in the world is not a good thing. There is a whole parable about it in Luke 16:19-25. Here is the ending: But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. The guy is going to hell only because he was enjoyed a rich life. You can't serve both God and mammon. They are not complementary - they are enemies to each other. That was something that only that group seems to have done. But clearly there are some things that have been recognized among Christians for long periods of time. For example, Catholic priests have to take a vow of poverty, but they are not destitute by any means. And for most of the history of Christianity there have been pronouncements against certain financial activities, such as usury. That these sorts of things go away as the world becomes a more fun and comfortable place is not a coincidence, I think. So what is the pronouncement to the general public? Your position seems to me that being Christian involves no physical sacrifice of any sort, nor even any guilt about sacrifices.
Catholic Diocesan priests don't have to take a vow of poverty, I once had a parish priest who drove a Ferrari. Many priests of religious orders will though, Dominicans, Franciscans, etc... Don't know about the Jesuits.
I'm sick and tired of this whole religious idea that we're too stupid to understand the world, how degrading.
Says you. There is a lot wrong with you reasoning and method, starting with the basic fact that American Christians and religous folks are more generous than secular ones, even when giving to secular organizations. http://www.mint.com/blog/trends/charity-who-cares/ You are misreading Acts 5 and trying to pick a bone. The issue wasn't what they did or didn't give, it was that they tried to lie to God. The teaching on giving throughout the Old and NEw Testament is that it should be given out of love and free will, not compulsion. The couple in question hid the fact of their land sale to make themselves look greater, when in fact they were harboring bitterness and a lie. Yeah, it seems unfair, but I suppose God knew what he was doing. I am not going to surmise beyond that because everyone will just pile on, but if you want to play hermenuetics then you have to play fair. But we all know that ain't going to happen.