The Church as protection racket: Ananias and Sapphira

[Pendaric]

Acts 5
Ananias and Sapphira
1Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2With 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.
3Then 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? 4Didn'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 to men but to God."

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

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

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

10At 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. 11Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

Sometimes, you hear the argument of why would the early founders of the Church have done it if it was untrue. I think this passage speaks a lot about the motivation of the early Church, and pretty much most religions - it's about fleecing money off the followers.

What is described is basically a protection racket - you will give us all the money you make, and if you don't you will be killed as an example to the rest.

[Ray Moscow]

God loves us -- as long as you do exactly as his alleged prophets, apostles and spokesmen say.

[Lisa0315]

Sometimes, you hear the argument of why would the early founders of the Church have done it if it was untrue. I think this passage speaks a lot about the motivation of the early Church, and pretty much most religions - it's about fleecing money off the followers.

What is described is basically a protection racket - you will give us all the money you make, and if you don't you will be killed as an example to the rest.

Not at all. You need to read that again especially this part...4Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal?

Ananias and Saphira were killed because they lied. They pretended to sell a piece of land for say $1000 and they gave $1000 to the church. In reality, they sold it for $2000 or whatever.

God doesn't want what we do not want to give. He wants us to give out of love and out of faith. They gave for some other reason, and one would supposed that it had to do with making themselves look good.

God is an all or nothing kind of God. Give all your heart, all your mind, all your soul to Him, or not. Do not pretend to give these things. That was the example and the lesson that was given that day.

Lisa

[Uthgar the Brazen]

I have powerful all-or-nothing tendencies, but I recognize them as hindrances and something bordering on mental illness... ;)

[Pendaric]

Not at all. You need to read that again especially this part...4Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal?

Ananias and Saphira were killed because they lied. They pretended to sell a piece of land for say $1000 and they gave $1000 to the church. In reality, they sold it for $2000 or whatever.

God doesn't want what we do not want to give. He wants us to give out of love and out of faith. They gave for some other reason, and one would supposed that it had to do with making themselves look good.

God is an all or nothing kind of God. Give all your heart, all your mind, all your soul to Him, or not. Do not pretend to give these things. That was the example and the lesson that was given that day.

Lisa

The situation had nothing to do with God, or any kind of divine message. It's about the financial impetus and motivation to get followers that the early church leaders had.

And don't you think that having to give every penny you have or be killed is a ridiculous demand?

If that story came up in today's papers, that a priest had ordered members of his congregation killed because they didn't put all their cash in, how would that sound?

[Lisa0315]

The situation had nothing to do with God, or any kind of divine message. It's about the financial impetus and motivation to get followers that the early church leaders had.

And don't you think that having to give every penny you have or be killed is a ridiculous demand?

If that story came up in today's papers, that a priest had ordered members of his congregation killed because they didn't put all their cash in, how would that sound?

Where is your support for this? I have 2000 years of traditional interpretation on my side.

Again, it was not about ALL they had, but rather the pretense and lying that they did.

Lisa

[Pendaric]

When the traditional interpretation is being done by the church, it's not exactly free of agenda is it?

I'm just reading the story as written. 2 people are killed on order of the church elders because they don't give over all the proceeds of a sale. That seems pretty straightforward (and barbaric) to me. I don't see how it can be justified.

You didn't answer the rest:

And don't you think that having to give every penny you have or be killed is a ridiculous demand?

If that story came up in today's papers, that a priest had ordered members of his congregation killed because they didn't put all their cash in, how would that sound?

The religions which demand total obedience and all your possessions are rightly regarded as manipulative, controlling cults. Their motivations are pretty obvious, and this is an analogous situation.

[Lisa0315]

When the traditional interpretation is being done by the church, it's not exactly free of agenda is it?

I'm just reading the story as written. 2 people are killed on order of the church elders because they don't give over all the proceeds of a sale. That seems pretty straightforward (and barbaric) to me. I don't see how it can be justified.

You didn't answer the rest:

And don't you think that having to give every penny you have or be killed is a ridiculous demand?

If that story came up in today's papers, that a priest had ordered members of his congregation killed because they didn't put all their cash in, how would that sound?

The religions which demand total obedience and all your possessions are rightly regarded as manipulative, controlling cults. Their motivations are pretty obvious, and this is an analogous situation.

The Apostles did not kill Ananias and Saphira. They simply observed and predicted that it was about to happen in 3 2 1...dead!

God killed the two of them. If an autopsy had been done, one would have found natural causes. There was no murder.

God judged them and took them.

If it were to happen today, do that autopsy. If some "prophet" is responsible, put him or her in jail.

Again, I ask you to read the Scripture that I pointed out to you. It is significant in that it shows the motivation of Ananias and Saphira and why God struck them down. It is not about whether they gave all they had, but about lying to the men of God, the church, and attempting to purchase something that cannot be bought.

Lisa

[Anne]

Where is your support for this? I have 2000 years of traditional interpretation on my side.

Again, it was not about ALL they had, but rather the pretense and lying that they did.

Lisa

Where is you support for this?

It looks to me like it's the keeping some cash for themselves that did it, not the lying.

What was their motivation to lie? It sounds like to keep some money on reserve, not to screw over the church...

[Garnet]

Pendaric, consider that Lisa is correct in her interpretation (which by the way, I think she is).

Now, think about it...really think.

The contradiction isn't in the motivation for killing Ananais and Sapphira it's that it portrays a primitive, evil God who demonstrates that it's appropriate to kill a liar. And you had better be grateful for the lesson and love Him!!!!

There are many, many different ways to deal with someone who lies. You'd think an omni-max being would be able to come up with several without resorting to striking them dead.

Or maybe, just maybe, rather than being the actual handiwork of a god, it's a story reflective of the culture in which it was written.

[Brother Daniel]

The story doesn't even say that Ananias lied -- only that Peter accused him of lying.

Sapphira lied, yes, but she was obviously intimidated by Peter.

[Brother Daniel]

There was no murder.
Why do we hold God to a lower moral standard?

[Lisa0315]

Why do we hold God to a lower moral standard?

Because it is not murder for God to take life that He has created. Death is not the same for God. It is but moving from one life to the next.

Lisa

[Danhalen]

I have never understood the differing moral standard God adheres to. Just because God is the creator does not mean God gets to end life prematurely. I cannot accept humanity is so far removed from God at the level of moral agency that God's agency is a different ball game than ours. Were we not created in God's image?

[Lisa0315]

I have never understood the differing moral standard God adheres to. Just because God is the creator does not mean God gets to end life prematurely. I cannot accept humanity is so far removed from God at the level of moral agency that God's agency is a different ball game than ours. Were we not created in God's image?

God does not end life. He simply crosses over a person from one kind of life to another. We now live in a physical world. The next world is spiritual, but you go on the same as you are now. Who you are does not change. Where you are does.


Lisa

[Brother Daniel]

But isn't that also true (in your view) if I kill someone?

[Garnet]

And if those people are unrepentant sinners, what kind of life does God cross them over to?

[Lisa0315]

But isn't that also true (in your view) if I kill someone?

Are you able to bring them back to life if you do?

Lisa

[Ray Moscow]

Are you able to bring them back to life if you do?

Lisa

Has "God" done this lately?

Really, to me the story is just meant to strike fear into the heart of the folk who might not give generously enough to the church or obey its leaders. It's got no moral value otherwise.

[Ray Moscow]

And if those people are unrepentant sinners, what kind of life does God cross them over to?

Well, that's it. Instead of rebuking them -- embarrassing them, perhaps -- and giving them a chance to straighten up, they are sent to hell.

Way to go, God! One of your children lies, and you strike him or her dead and send them to hell. What sort of parent is that?!!!

What gets me is that people believe these stories and then expect us to believe that Bible God is merciful.

[Brother Daniel]

Are you able to bring them back to life if you do?
See, now you're jumping from one justification to an entirely unrelated one, thus showing that your previous justification didn't work.

So, once again, why do we hold God to a lower moral standard?

[Anne]

Are you able to bring them back to life if you do?

Lisa

I can.

I just choose not to.

Much like God.

[Lisa0315]

I can.

I just choose not to.

Much like God.

Glibbed

[Anne]

True.

When's the last time he raised anyone he killed?

[Lisa0315]

True.

When's the last time he raised anyone he killed?

2000 years ago or so. When was the last time you did it?

Lisa

[Anne]

That's the point. If you believe he has the right to kill because he has the ability to bring back, but chooses not to for 2000 years, than he's morally corrupt.

I can just as easily say I simply choose not to.

Killing someone because you can bring them back is like kidnapping a child because you can bring them back. It's never right to do.

[Lisa0315]

That's the point. If you believe he has the right to kill because he has the ability to bring back, but chooses not to for 2000 years, than he's morally corrupt.

I can just as easily say I simply choose not to.

Killing someone because you can bring them back is like kidnapping a child because you can bring them back. It's never right to do.


Well, of course I do not agree. The reason is because I acknowledge the authority and right of God to do as He pleases. Second, as I have said, previously, death to an eternal being is not the same as it is to us. We are also eternal beings, but we do not understand that when someone dies. It is more of a move than it is a death.

[Brother Daniel]

The reason is because I acknowledge the authority and right of God to do as He pleases.
That's not the explanation. That's the thing that needs explaining.

Again, why do we hold God to a lower moral standard?
Second, as I have said, previously, death to an eternal being is not the same as it is to us. We are also eternal beings, but we do not understand that when someone dies. It is more of a move than it is a death.
And when I pointed out the irrelevance of this, you dodged away, and jumped to a different topic: my (in)ability to raise the dead. Why are you jumping back to it?

[Ray Moscow]

Whew! And here I thought that human death was a big deal.

It's a relief that people don't really die.

[Lisa0315]

That's not the explanation. That's the thing that needs explaining.

Again, why do we hold God to a lower moral standard?

And when I pointed out the irrelevance of this, you dodged away, and jumped to a different topic: my (in)ability to raise the dead. Why are you jumping back to it?

I did not dodge. You are in the easy seat of asking the questions. I am in the uneasy position of attempting to explain what cannot truly be explained.

My "dodge" as you call it had a point. If you can give life, and I do not mean giving birth, but if you can from nothing, create life, then, you have the power and authority to take it. More so, if you can see all of the consequences of that "death", then, again, the authority and power is given to you.

So, can you create life from nothing? Can you take life and look across time and see every single consequence that will occur? If so, then, you have the judgment to make such a decision.

The moral standard of human beings was given to us by God BECAUSE we are not able to see the consequences and because our reasons for taking life are not usually just.

Lisa

[Anne]

Lisa--- if your view is the true one, would you say God is compassionate?

[Uthgar the Brazen]

Do as I say, not as I do!

Or, to borrow from the most merciful and humble president in the history of the United States: when god does it, that means it's not immoral.

[Lisa0315]

Whew! And here I thought that human death was a big deal.

It's a relief that people don't really die.

Pithy, but lends nothing of value to the discussion.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Lisa--- if your view is the true one, would you say God is compassionate?

Good question. I find God mostly confusing and no, not very compassionate. He is a perfectionist and we will never measure up. I accepted salvation which was supposed to take care of the measuring up part, and found myself more alone than I had ever been in my life. It was not what I understood should have happened.


Lisa

[Ray Moscow]

But you just said that human beings were eternal and just "move" instead of dying.

I'm just saying that this is a tremendous relief to those of us who thought that untimely death was some sort of "big deal".

[Anne]

Good question. I find God mostly confusing and no, not very compassionate. He is a perfectionist and we will never measure up. I accepted salvation which was supposed to take care of the measuring up part, and found myself more alone than I had ever been in my life. It was not what I understood should have happened.


Lisa

If God is not compassionate, why the whole Jesus sacrifice to 'save' 'us'?

Or do you feel that Jesus is not God, but is his son? And took it upon himself to become a mediator between man and God/Yahweh?

[Uthgar the Brazen]

If God is not compassionate, why the whole Jesus sacrifice to 'save' 'us'?

Or do you feel that Jesus is not God, but is his son? And took it upon himself to become a mediator between man and God/Yahweh?

The Son died that I might spend eternity with the angry, violent Father.

Milton didn't understand what he wrote: it is better to rule in Hell...

[Brother Daniel]

I did not dodge. You are in the easy seat of asking the questions. I am in the uneasy position of attempting to explain what cannot truly be explained.
If it cannot truly be explained, then can it truly be believed? (Just a "thought for the day". It probably deserves a separate thread.)

More to the point, why is your position so uneasy? Seriously. Is it because you feel that you are expected to provide the "right" answer -- an answer that will satisfy everyone of the OK-ness of this story and lead to no further questions? That would be a tall order, indeed. I don't think anyone will hold against you your failure to do that.

Aim for something easier. Tell us why YOU think the story of Ananias and Sapphira has a good lesson. Tell us why YOU think Christianity (as portrayed in this story) is not just a protection racket. Tell us why YOU think these two deaths were justified.

When you say things like "cannot truly be explained", that's a dead giveaway that you're not telling us what YOU think. You're trying to convey what the answer "should be". And that's not what we're asking for.
My "dodge" as you call it had a point. If you can give life, and I do not mean giving birth, but if you can from nothing, create life, then, you have the power and authority to take it.
I think Anne has already demolished that line of argument.
More so, if you can see all of the consequences of that "death", then, again, the authority and power is given to you.
Now you're on to something. This actually makes sense. And I'll get back to it in a minute.

But my point about "dodging" was more about what you're not saying here: The business about death being a mere "move", not something permanent -- a point that has no impact whatsoever on the moral significance of killing someone. Either the nature of death is as you suggest, or it isn't, regardless of who is doing the killing. When I pointed this out, then you changed your line of argument entirely; I took that as a tacit concession that the "mere move" line of argument had no value. But later you returned to it, as if you had forgotten our earlier exchange. Hmmmm.

Anyway, let's get back to the God's-eye-view of all the consequences. In general, this may be a pretty good argument. But in the context of this thread, it doesn't work so well.

What happened to Ananias and Sapphira? If death is a mere transition from one state to another, then in what state did they end up?

Heaven? In that case, how was their death supposed to teach anyone a lesson? I don't think that's what we're intended to think.

Hell? In that case, how can God's all-seeing eye possibly be used as a justification for this death? What happened to the idea of confronting them with their "sin" and giving them a chance to repent? Huh?

I can't see any way around the conclusion that God, as portrayed in this story, is evil.