Threatening to shoot the president is not the same infraction as threatening to shoot a citizen. Treason against one's company is not the same infraction as treason against one's country. I don't know what you have the opinion that lying to the Holy Spirit should be the same infraction as lying to a person. The Holy Spirit is God, and it's a completely different target (and motive, I might add).

I'm not aware of the text where the Pharisees were lying to the Holy Spirit as well, but if they were, I'm sure they were judged for it too, all in good time. Why were A&S judged so quickly, and as they were? I explained that the church was in a very vulnerable stage of its infancy, and one simple flaw could destroy it. (It's very different putting a local software company out of business than it is tackling Microsoft or Apple.) God was determined to preserve his people, a very common biblical theme.

Sorry about that, I made a typo. I've corrected it to say that "lying about a voluntary offering was [i]not[/i] punishable by death," imo. I'm saying that lying to the Holy Spirit should be the same infraction of lying to a person. And weren't A&S bringing esteem to themselves by posturing as well? I see the two situations as the same sin, because the Pharisees were lying to the Holy Spirit as well (or so I was taught in my church upbringing).

I'm confused. You maintain that lying a a voluntary offering is punishable by death, but when God follows through on that verdict, you're uncomfortable and scared. I guess you need to explain further. The Pharisees were bringing esteem to themselves by their posturing, a sin that God has to put up with continually from human beings. But Ananias and Sapphira had come very close to blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (and they may have actually been guilty of it). Notice that Peter says to him, "You have lied to the Holy Spirit" (v. 3). This is not a little white lie, but a sinful betrayal rising out of an unrepentant heart.

I don't see how that's comforting. I maintain that lying about a voluntary offering is punishable by death. If god visited judgement on these two people whose only infraction was not being perfect and saying that they gave everything when they only gave a portion is scary to me. Jesus said that the Pharisees "had already received their reward" by making sure that everyone noticed them praying. Where was this attitude with Ananias & Sapphira? Had they not also received their reward by making sure everyone knew that they had given "all their assets from their assets!

Jealousy can be a bad thing or a good thing. It's bad to protect the petty; it's good to protect the precious. If jealousy stems from self-centeredness, it's wrong. If it comes from concern for another's wellbeing, it's not only appropriate but moral. Jealousy can be a vice or a virtue. In the Bible God is a concerned lover seeking to protect the objects of his affection from dangerous and destructive intrusions. A husband who doesn't get jealous when someone makes inappropriate advances to his wife that threaten to ruin their relationship is just a jerk. Stand up for your love! Outrage, pain, and anguish are appropriate responses.

God isn't petty, He is jealous for our best interests. He wants to guard against destructive advances against us, whether from external aggressors or even self-harm. That's the action of honest love, not neglecting his own rules.

God's jealousy is not the childish outburst of immature anger, pride or weakness, malice or meanness. It's not spiteful and petty: "I want what you have, and I hate you for having it!" God's jealousy is a reaction to evil that threatens not only our wellbeing but also our existence.

"Zealous" might be a better translation than "jealous," since jealous has turned into an English word with exclusively bad connotation.

> Killing

I'm curious why you set aside all instances of justifiable killing to accuse God of only unjustifiable killing. It's altogether possible that the only time we see God killing in the Bible is in instances of justifiable judgment.

In the case of Ananias and Sapphire, it is a parallel story with Achan in Joshua 7. Both were liars and cheats. in both bases God delivers what seems to be unusually harsh discipline on key families, but note that in both cases it's a critical turning point in the young communities of Israel and the church. The community is vulnerable, designed for greatness, but also right on the edge of extinction. Decisive action is necessary to set the course on "Day 1".

Notice also that possessions in Luke and Acts (as well as in the OT) function as symbols of response to God. Zacchaeus's uncoerced generosity is a sign of repentance and faith (Luke 19.1-10), whereas the rich man's refusal to part with his money—or even worse, the conniving dishonesty of Ananias and Sapphire betrays and evil, unrepentant heart, closed to the work and purposes of God. Without decisive action at this particular juncture, the whole endeavor flushes down the toilet and Christianity fades away quickly.

You are mistaken that God routinely breaks his own rules. It is even inaccurate to claim that he [i]ever[/i] breaks his own rules.

According to the bible, God is infallible. He never does wrong, never makes mistakes, and yet I see instances when he seems to neglect his own rules. The most prevalent one is the matter of his being a "jealous god" (Exodus 34:14). Now I've never seen anything in the bible that explicitly states that jealousy is a sin, but I was raised in a conservative christian setting and was taught that it was, and that god doesn't want us to be jealous. So if god is jealous, isn't that a violation of christian principles? Also, the commandment "thou shalt not kill" is stated plainly in the 10 commandments. Now putting aside all the instances of war, self defense, and other "justifiable" instances of killing in the bible, God blatantly kills Ananias and Sapphira after the small infraction of lying about how much they gave in offering to the church. So, is God, being a divine being, not bound by the moral laws that he lays out for us, and if he isn't, then why should we be okay with it?