Rapture September 2015

[Wyrd of Gawd]

I'm not studied enough to offer proof on Peter's existence, but you know it was somebody who led the first church. He is said to be buried in the Vatican, and those who succeeded him were regarded as Popes, not that his church ruled consistently from the Vatican until centuries after.

My stipulation is from Acts, Chapter 4, and presuming that the story of Ananias and his wife Saphira was true. If not, then it's still no win for Randy's side. The foundation of Randy's Catholic's Cannot Be Wrong arrogance is that the church was commissioned by Jesus to Peter, and that Peter's successors are right necessarily because they are Peter's successors, not the rebels who later challenged Peter's successors. Are you yawning yet? My point of this is that Randy isn't just an arrogant asshole for Xtiandom, but an all-around Catholic bigot.

Anyway, Peter told everyone following him to sell off all of their property and bring him all the money from the transactions. Ananias and his wife Saphira decided to keep some of their own money for themselves. Peter pressed them on whether they gave him all of their money, and Ananias lied. Peter knew they were lying. According to Acts 4, Ananias, and later his wife suddenly dropped dead in front of Peter for that lie. Now I don't believe that even Randy is stupid enough to believe they "just died", especially with Peter being known for his violent temper - fuck that, you know that if this scene with these people took place at all, it was Peter killing them in cold blood. Jesus had a violent side too, as told by his violent rampage through the Jewish temple, therefore it's unsurprising if in fact he chose Peter. Therefore, presuming that the bible is true at all, Peter was a murderous thug.

Is that what the bible ACTUALLY says, NoBrains2Use?

Here's the actual passage:

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

36 Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), 37 sold a field he owned and brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Notice that part in bold? People sold their property voluntarily - not because Peter told them to. And why did they do this? Quite possibly because they were being led by the Spirit to liquidate their landholdings because the temple was going to be destroyed (which occurred in AD 70). Let's continue:

5 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

5 When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. 6 Then some young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.

7 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”

“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”

9 Peter said to her, “How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”

10 At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

Again, check out the bolded passages. I wonder if Peter himself was not shocked when Ananias died, but when Saphira also lied, Peter knew how God would respond.

So, NoKnowledgeofGod, what is it about this passage that makes Peter a "murderous thug"? Nothing.

However, the verse bolded in blue suggests that just as He did in the Old Testament, God powerfully supported His chosen NT leaders and taught the people a lesson that dramatically benefited the early Church.

The Peter, Ananias, and Saphira  story is contrary to other stories in the New Testament.  Based on human nature Peter was a thug who killed Ananias and Saphira because they didn't give him every penny.  They had sold their stuff and had no assets other than the cash.  Peter wanted every penny but they wisely kept a few bucks to spend on their own needs, like food and housing.  Why shouldn't they?  It was their money.  Peter, being the greedy bastard that he was, wanted it all.  When he found out that they kept some of it for their own expenses he quickly knifed them.  Notice that the story doesn't say that the crook Peter was able to get his paws on the few bucks that the couple kept.  Peter was an extortionist and a cold-blooded killer.  If the fairy tale was true he would be swimming in the lake of fire for eternity.

[abaris]

Your judgment is superficial, Jenny. You are not looking very deeply.

But regarding evidence for belief, are you referring to direct evidence or indirect evidence?

Let's just put it this way. As opposed to the professor I would entrust you with the launch button of a nuclear device. But otherwise I see little difference concerning unbased claims.

[Jenny A]

When looking at evidence for belief, I see little difference between you and the professor Randy.  The only difference is the professor believes in things that can be checked in the near term.

Your judgment is superficial, Jenny. You are not looking very deeply.

But regarding evidence for belief, are you referring to direct evidence or indirect evidence?

Neither of you have evidence to speak of direct or indirect.  Both of you misinterpret scripture in that you don't read it in it's historical context.  Both of you think it's divine.  But you don't agree.  Neither of you is more wrong.

[Ravenshire]

Only to those who refuse to get the fuck off their high horse.

Alternatively, you could raise your game and actually try to provide well-reasoned responses to the material I've posted.

I listed Five Minimal Facts...just five. See what you can do with them.

Tell you what Randy. When I come to your house trying to sell you something you have no fucking interest in buying and getting pissy when you don't buy it, then you can tell me what to do. Until then, get bent.

And, your five opinions carry no weight here. Post some actual facts and we'll have an actual conversation.

[Homeless Nutter]

Too late Randy, if I am here, with this same body, in October-
I already gave notice in the forum that it is bye bye time for me.
[...]

You're a disappointment, professor. A pope-bothering b**ch pokes you in the face with his knob and you run away? I expected more from you.
Not much more, mind you, but still...


See you in October - "with the same body" and on this forum, because it's not like you have many places where people tolerate you...

[Exian]

Jesus, we're gonna lose the prof and be left with Randy?! The fuck is going on?

Please, stay prof. I'm not even kidding. At the very least, you have shown us a little bit of your human side. You've talked about your wife and kids here, that's worth 1,000 dishonest apologists.

I'll be pissed if you leave. Just know that.

[Ravenshire]

When looking at evidence for belief, I see little difference between you and the professor Randy.  The only difference is the professor believes in things that can be checked in the near term.

This is exactly the point that both the prof and the randy cathy-lick both miss. They are both just as ardently committed to their beliefs as the other, and there are people just as ardently committed to every other belief, but each of them would have us believe that their particular brand of bullshit comes from the correct pile and all the others are wrong. And, they expect us to follow them blindly, without proper evidence to back up their bullshit.

[Ravenshire]

Jesus, we're gonna lose the prof and be left with Randy?! The fuck is going on?

Please, stay prof. I'm not even kidding. At the very least, you have shown us a little bit of your human side. You've talked about your wife and kids here, that's worth 1,000 dishonest apologists.

I'll be pissed if you leave. Just know that.

Poor bastard made his bed by betting the tattered remains of his reputation on the second coming happening next month. He'll probably welsh though...

[Exian]

Jesus, we're gonna lose the prof and be left with Randy?! The fuck is going on?

Please, stay prof. I'm not even kidding. At the very least, you have shown us a little bit of your human side. You've talked about your wife and kids here, that's worth 1,000 dishonest apologists.

I'll be pissed if you leave. Just know that.

Poor bastard made his bed by betting the tattered remains of his reputation on the second coming happening next month. He'll probably welsh though...

Yeah, but that bet is all part of the tradition. It's part of the professor's mystique. His crazy ideas are as much due to his personality as his manic machanic obsessions are. IOW, he can't help it and I find it endearing.

Randy, on the other hand has learned the arguments to justify the beliefs he already held. Much more dishonest and deplorable.

[professor]

Exian your grief over loosing me and keeping Randy was an absolute scream!
Best laugh I have had in a couple of days.
You guys are the gift that keeps on giving.

Snake, no, this is it, either the situation dumps or it gets off the pot.