| |
Hi, Nathan.
In lugnet.build.ancient, Nathan Todd wrote:
So noted. :) Though I’ve moved this to ot.debate because it isn’t really a
discussion of the LEGO constructions themselves nor how I’ve chosen to
illustrate Bible passages with LEGO.
| |
but the ‘accept communism or die’ is a little more
subjective than your normal stance...
|
Hmm. I actually thought it was one of the more neutral titles, surprising
though it is. My first idea for a title was simply “Hardline Communism”. To me
what was most notable about the story was the surprising (to most modern
readers) fact that the earliest Christian community (and therefore presumably
the closest to knowing Jesus’s teachings firsthand) are depicted in Acts as
following a very strict communist lifestyle, pooling their combined wealth and
redistributing it amongst themselves according to need. This seems to be a bit
removed from Jesus’s admonition for people to sell all their possessions and
give the money to the poor (rather than simply redistributing it amongst
themselves), and certainly both of those are very, very far removed from how
most modern Christians think it best to handle possessions and money.
Anyhow, the “Hardline Communism” title by itself seemed to leave out the other
rather notable thing about the story, which is the (somewhat mysterious) sudden
deaths of Ananias and Sapphira. Although the telling of the story in Acts
leaves it unclear just exactly how Ananias and Sapphira died, it seems very
strongly implied that their deaths were a form of instant punishment for their
refusal to fully commit to the apostles’ hardline communism. This is the case
whether their murders were committed by God, the Holy Ghost, or Peter himself.
But let me address your comments...
| |
The verse you summarized (partially omitted) is fairly key...
Acts 5:4 “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it
was sold, was it not under your control?...” (Peter)
|
My omitting that part of Acts 5:4 was not an attempt to change the meaning of
what Peter was saying, but rather (as I’ve done in many cases) simply to pare
down the dialogue to the point where it fits comfortably into the speech
balloons I use.
But I guess 5:4 struck me as less important to the story because I interpreted
Ananias’s crime (in Peter’s mind) to be his withholding money, and that this
withholding of money was (for Peter) somehow the equivalent of lying to the
Holy Ghost (though I admit I do not actually follow Peter’s logic here).
My interpretation is based on two things:
1. In Acts 5:3 Peter says, “Ananias, how could Satan so fill your heart that you
have lied to the Holy Spirit and kept some of the money?”
2. At no point in the text is Ananias depicted as actually telling a lie.
Ananias never says “Here is every last penny of the money I got for selling my
land” or anything of the sort. The text simply says that Ananias sold his land,
kept part of the money and brought the rest to the apostles. Somewhere in that
course of events, Peter detects a “lie”, so my best interpretation is that the
“lie” in Peter’s mind is the very act of holding back money from the apostles,
i.e. not fully committing to their adopted hardline communism.
| |
In my reading this points to lying being the central point of the story as
opposed to ‘communism’.
|
In my reading, the “lying” seems to be the equivalent (again in Peter’s mind at
least, or perhaps the author of Acts’s mind?) to the withholding of money, not
to actually telling a lie about it because Ananias never does such a thing.
| |
The Bible also has a lot to say about work... I’m
sure you’ve come across it in your thorough reading...
|
I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. The Bible says a lot of things in
a lot of places about a lot of subjects, with many instances of the Bible
contradicting itself about a particular subject.
Even if one of the Ten Commandments said “Thou shalt not practice communism” it
would still be the case that in Acts the apostles are clearly depicted as
practicing a form of hardline communism which seems to have been enforced
(whether or not with divine help) on pain of death.
| |
I’m fairly sure we’ll never agree, I just point this out because you used to
attempt to follow the original story and add (in my opinion) a twist (in
yours the truth). Here it seems to be more of a deliberate edit to facilitate
a headline...
|
As I said, I didn’t see this as a real change in my policy, but your seeing it
that way does make more sense to me now that I see how our interpretations of
this story differ.
| |
Again, please take this as only a comparison to your own standard and not me
holding you to some sort of ‘censored version’.
|
I appreciate that. I do take pretty seriously some of the methodologies I’ve
settled on for creating The Brick Testament, and if someone sees me as deviating
from my own set precedents, I certainly don’t mind them pointing it out.
Regards,
-Brendan
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament reActs
|
| Not to pick a fight, but the 'accept communism or die' is a little more subjective than your normal stance... The verse you summarized (partially omitted) is fairly key... Acts 5:4 "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it (...) (18 years ago, 10-Mar-07, to lugnet.build.ancient, FTX)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
