tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6743937774106241957.post1211814971239648670..comments2008-03-03T17:25:16.113-05:00myuchahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04539008530875206053noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6743937774106241957.post-1568365087863057362008-03-03T17:25:00.000-05:002008-03-03T17:25:00.000-05:00Aren't you guilty of changing the meaning of scripture there? The ability to give very different from the act of giving.<BR/><BR/>If you hold that it is better to have the <I>ability to give</I>, than the <I>need to receive</I>, that's fair enough. However, I think it's wrong to attribute it to that passage in Acts. You are keeping most of the words, but changing the meaning entirely.<BR/><BR/>The way you have worded it implies: it is better to be rich than to be poor. In turn, this would imply that wealth is a virtue. I do not see that as being the intent to the verse you quote.<BR/><BR/>Clearly, the focus of the verse you quote is on the act of giving, not on the act of creating wealth. The focus of the verse is that goodness is derived from the giving.softwareNerdhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03953992447839442060noreply@blogger.com