Killing Ananias and Sapphira

irondork

I happened to be reading this part of Acts yesterday, Ananias and Sappira getting zapped for lying about keeping a portion of their profits. It occurred to me, that is, like, oh my gawd, soooo old testament!

What's up with that?

Is there any other place in the new testament where a person was immediately executed by God for their error? Judas doesn't count, he hung himself. I thought after Jesus died a kinder, gentler God was in place for people to follow and we didn't have to be under the iron fist of Jehovah anymore.

What's next? Villages full of dead men, women, children and animals because someone reached out and touched something he wasn't supposed to? This is how God incites people to worship him out of love and not fear?

Whut-EVERRR!

Sparlock

Mythical creations of the humans will reflect the human mind that created them, including the violent tendencies and hatred that resides there.

irondork

Aren't the crimes of the Watchtower Society WAAAYYY worse than tucking away a few shekels of silver?

mP

The passage is actually all about paying money to the church. If God can talk to them every other day about stuff, its a shame he never gives financial tips or gold from heaven.

mP

irondork:

Judas doesn't count, he hung himself.

mP:

In one scripture he hangs himself in another hes walking along and his insides explode. Take your pick.

NewChapter

Well think about this. If there is a god, He Is Who He Is. He would have a personality, values, and requirements. He would not be something that you could recast as you see fit, because he would be real and not merely a concept. We have a great deal of history on this god's personality, and what happened to Ananias and Sapphira is exactly in line with what we have seen. Did Jesus change his father's personality? That does not make sense. His father was already perfect.

So what is going on here? Why did A & S get zapped if a kinder gentler god had been introduced? This passage was written by a Jew who knew this older god all his life. Did this god change? Then we look at Revelation, and we see this OT god acting in totally familiar mode, assisted by------------his son. What does that say about his son? Was this really a kinder, gentler era, or just a diplomatic speaker?

If this god still had the power and inclination to zap, then why A & S? What had they done? They lied about their donation. Why did they do that? It was certainly selfish and a reaching out for prestige. This was their big sin.

Pol Pot, Hitler, Televangelists, WT, Crusades, Inquistion, Witch Burnings, Stalin anyone? If this god is still zapping, then how does this happen? And what time did A & S have to repent? The message was that anything could be forgiven. Not so with A & S. They weren't given a chance. They hid money, and apparently this grave sin was worse than mass murder.

There are inconsistencies, and it is completely valid to question and research them. This is only one. They are everywhere. This account would suggest a flip-flop. Judgmental god doling out just punishment severely and quickly, flip kinder-gentler god, flop judgement god is back, flip now we are back to kinder gentler god that does not intercede even when suffering is beyond imagination (we call this kinder-gentler, and there is a debate there, but another time).

I wish you well on your investigation.

panhandlegirl

One of the reasons I stopped going to the meeting was because I felt I was not good enough and could not live up to all the borg required and that I would be zapped like those two. OH! the guilt trips. What type of God would

kill you without a trial, even the US doesn't do that re: Drew Peterson. He is not even going to be executed. I have alway found God to be very unfair; killing a man for trying to keep the Ark of the Covenant for falling?

PHG.

NewChapter

Yeah, PHG, the ark was a harsh judgement. It would seem the earlier incarnation of this god that has not changed, is extremely legalistic like the WT.

But there were many other accounts that used to bother me.

The idea that a young wife would be stoned to death if it turned out that she was not a virgin. Nothing like that for men, but I have a theory.

If this came from a god that created us, then why the double standard?

But if it came only from men, then the double standard is understandable. Only women have a physical sign that they have had sex for the first time. Men don't change physically, so there is no way to know. From a HUMAN standpoint, if virginity was going to be an issue, then it could only be applied to women. If this was from a GOD, then there is a double standard---only women obligated to keep their virginity etc. Otherwise he could have created men with a physical sign to indicate virginity, and because he didn't, if he does exist, then he is biased.

Then there is Jacob and Tamar. Tamar was married to Jacob's son, who died. She was then engaged to another of Jacob's sons, who was a child, so she had to wait until he grew up. Jacob was feeling lonely one day and went to see what he thought was a prostitute. It was Tamar with her face covered. When she was found pregnant, Jacob set out to BURN HER TO DEATH. Yes, but then it was revealed that it had been Jacob who got her pregnant, and all was forgiven.

And another Tamar, King David's daughter. Amnon raped her. Then Absolam killed Amnon. Did David express grief that his daughter had been raped by his son? No. He went on a rampage against Absolam for killing his perveted, no good, disgusting son.

The more I took apart those accounts, the more it didn't make sense. This god did not even resemble the god that Jesus spoke of---or so it seemed. But then we got A & S and Revelation.

Some look and make a decision to only take the friendly parts, insisting that all the other parts are corrupted. Other who take it as a whole are criticized for only looking for the bad. Well---who is more honest?

Theocratic Sedition

The desire of prestige angle I find intriguing as it's a major part of the reasoning behind why A&S had to go. I find it odd and even hypocritical that one of the apostles was the messenger of doom considering there's a handful of accounts depicting the apostles as arguing amongst themselves over of all things, prestige. They were arguing over who was the greatest amongst themselves even up until the night Christ was detained.

To add to the hypocritical aspect of it, and also I should mention a lack of empathy, was the very fact that Peter off all people had to be the bearer of bad news. If anyone would have been empathetic to the mentality behind A & S' actions, you would think it would have been Peter, right? He was the apostle known to fly off at the handle which may have been a result of him being the oldest and maybe he felt as such he had a responsibility to stand up where the others would be more reserved. That likely was a result of him being concerned about his prestige amongst the other disciples, or at least his reputation. Another thing is Peter's actions when around Jews and Greeks which the accounts recorded make him look like a two faced snake. He'd converse and associate with Greeks, so long as no other Jews were around. That's another case of him being overly concerned with his reputation and Paul had to call him out on it.

I don't know man, makes you wonder some days.

edit post: Maybe Peter was the perfect candidate as someone who appeared to be the instrument of vessel of death, or at least the messenger because he would have had no qualms about A & S having to go considering he appeared to not have extracted the rafter from his own eye. Who better than someone completely unaware of his own flaws.

To be fair though, what was recorded is only a glimpse of what probably happened. Just a snapshot of the events that Acts provides an outline for us to picture.

MrFreeze

In the OT god is a miserable bastard. They say god never changes so, he is a miserable bastard.

Killing Ananias and Sapphira

Share this