"So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver."

Yup, you can give as much as you want...just remember that god wants you to give and give 'til it hurts. This is nothing more than guilting people into giving so that they will please god.

Ananias and his wife didn't die because they did not give all of their money to the postles but because they LIED.

Glad to know that lying is grounds for death. Of course, it wasn't anyone else's business how much money they had according to your previous statement that they didn't have to give their money at all. So, we end up with a situation where they withheld money and were punished for it. Alas, the situation in the bible sounds a lot like a socialist system, which I thought the religious right was very much against?

...He listened to them and did not annihilate them- God is a PATIENT, loving Father who wants His children to learn the right way...

Yup, which is why he sends people to hell, because he loves us soooooo much, right? That's why he came down so hard on Saul, David's predecessor. That's why he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah or flooded the whole world or ordered the genocide of the Amalekites or the Philistines. Yup, he's as patient and loving as any genocidal dictator.

...the same romans whose law required everyone to worship the emperor or be thrown into jail, a stadium with hungry lions or worse and who paid taxes that they would hardly benefit from.

Who told you that?

The Vicar, Peter never "basically" told the believers that God would kill them if they didn't give Him all of their money. They were to give as much as they desired.
"So let each one give as he purposes in his heart, not grudgingly or of necessity; for God loves a cheerful giver." 2 Corinthians 9:7 Ananias and his wife didn't die because they did not give all of their money to the postles but because they LIED. the last part of chapter 4 right before this story talks about how the church shared all of their possessions so none of them would need anything. Acts 4:32 says, "Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all things in common." right under that it says that those who owned lands or houses sold their properties and brought the money to be distributed to everyone. But Ananias, when he had sold his land, only brought a part of the money to the apostles without telling them, "oh, btw this isn't all of the money" which was UNFAIR because they all shared all of their stuff while he was deceitfully trying to keep a share to himself even though he would get his own share when everything had been distributed. He wasn't forced to give them any money. as Peter pointed out in verse 4 of chapter 5, Ananias could have kept the money. Further proof of his guilt shows when his wife comes and openly lies about how much money they had really gotten after selling their land.

lastly, you said no wonder the romans were anti-christianity because christians couldn't ask questions [which is a big ole lie: Abraham, King Hezekiah, Job and even Cain(who murdered his brother) questioned God and He listened to them and did not annihilate them- God is a PATIENT, loving Father who wants His children to learn the right way not some evil, psycopathic dude above the clouds with a giant hammer just waiting for us to slip so that BAM! his hammer can come down on us miserable mortals- but of course you don't believe HE exists] and supposedly had to give everything they owned. -_- the same romans whose law required everyone to worship the emperor or be thrown into jail, a stadium with hungry lions or worse and who paid taxes that they would hardly benefit from. no offense but please pay closer attention to your ancient history. ^^

Also, they make out like little children were also subject to rape. So why did God wait until after children were being abused to then burn the town down, presumably with the children inside? Why not change people's hearts so they wouldn't hurt children anymore, or at least let the kids escape instead of Lot, a man who offers his own children up to be raped...

You're right - the issue should be rape not homosexual relations. But obviously consent is not a big thing in Christian sexual morality, so long as it's all heteronormative.

1) God already decided to destroy the town for other reasons long before the angels showed up.

2) Angels aren't human so any sex that would be occuring would not be homosexual, but cross species.

3) Depending on your translation, you either have ALL the town or all the men of the town. If it's everyone in the town, that seems to knock out the idea of this being about homosexuality, since you don't invite the wife and kids to your gay tryst. If it's all the men (and hell, even everyone in the town) we're still looking at a GANG RAPE. As in FORCED SEX. As in CONSENT IS NOT GIVEN. I don't see what that has to do with a gay couple consenting to have sex with each other.

4) You don't offer you're teenage virgin daughters to a group of men that you know to be rough, horny, aggressive gay men.

It's possible that the sins of Sodom do have something to do with sex, but the story points to rape. And plenty of places in the bible talk about the sins of Sodom being inhospitality, including Jesus (and he makes NO mention of sex).

These arrogant and wealthy televangelists and preachers will surely get what they deserve. God hates their ways the same way as He hated the ways of the Sodomites.

I'd just like to point out that I, personally, think there is something wrong with the sexism of the idea of marriage that you have described, and find your claim that it doesn't imply that women are inferior disingenuous or at best irrelevant. I won't accept that every relationship needs to have one person with the ultimate power to make the decisions. Equal relationships can work, too -- my mother's a feminist and she and my Dad have been together more than 25 years. I'm very glad your husband respects your opinions, and of course you are free to live as you will, but that doesn't change the fact that women are most definitely given inferior status in the system you have described, and that strikes me as wrong.

Sounds really nice, except:

1. That verse from Galatians basically is, once again, "it really doesn't matter what you are in this world, because even if it never under any circumstances happens where you can see it, there is justice." In other words, yet another "don't try to change the status quo, even if you're a slave". As is so often the case, religion is a cover for maintaining injustice and suffering.

2. Nobody has any problems with you choosing to give up your rights in favor of your husband. If that's how you get your kicks -- I hope not literally -- then that's fine. But when you -- and if you're here trying to proselytize to atheists, you do fall in this group -- try to force others to do the same, then you are often giving the defenseless over to the care of the abusive. You sound like you've led a life sheltered from unpleasantness. Go volunteer in a battered women's shelter in a big city for a few days, and see if your perspective remains the same.

But he is very careful to make it clear that women are inferior

Most people misunderstand the concept of submission in marriage- seeing it as the oppression of women or something like that. This might be a bad example of how to explain the teaching about married men and women in the New Testament, but I'll give it a try (many Christians don't get it either, so I'm not being optimistic). It is sort of like how there is order in the government. The president has certain 'powers' and his cabinet members must 'submit' to his authority. They are all citizens of the USA and have the rights of a citizen, but he is the President, so they obey his orders. They are his advisors, so they talk things through and then he makes a final decision. Things work best when one person is making the decisions and the others follow. However, there are checks and balances in the system. If the President does something against the law, he is held accountable for it and his cabinet members are not responsible to obey him in those cases (as I understand).

Similarly (this is not a perfect analogy of course), God says that the husband/wife relationship works best with submission- it is a matter of ORDER, not WORTH. The husband has the last say- this is not to say that a woman is a doormat. I certainly don't feel that way in my marriage. We talk things through and he values my opinion on things. Usually we can come to an agreement on a decision that needs to be made. However, if a disagreement comes about, the husband makes the final decision. And, with the checks and balances system, if he chooses to do something that is sin, the wife is not obligated to obey him or submit to his authority in that instance.

As for WHY God chose the man to be the head of the household instead of the woman, I can't say. I guess I don't really care. I am married to a man who loves and respects me and values my opinion about things (which is how it should be). However, when it comes down to the final decision in areas where we disagree (which actually is very few things), it is his choice that stands and I choose to live with those consequences, be they good or bad. I guess if that's what you call a doormat, then I'm a doormat.

Sounds like they were abstaining to me.

The call to abstinence was for those not yet married who could control their sexual desires. "But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

Also- I would like to carry on a decent conversation with you, but sarcasm isn't really necessary. Thanks.