Originally Posted by Foxie
Since i'm talking to an ignorant person who doesn't have a single clue of his religion, or it's bases, i'm going to start to selectively ignore statements too.
Mark16:17.
In my name they drive out demons, speak in tongues, they pick up snakes with their hands, when they drink deadly poisons it will not harm them at all.
And this is about every christian.
I do not take things out of context, i quote directly from the source, but i do not want to quote the whole chapter of innecessities. They are numbered for this usage. I only quote them in full.
http://www.biblecenter.com/bibleclas...lesofjesus.htm
1. In (Mark 16:17-18 ), we read, "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."
2. Certainly, we find ample evidence for some of these activities in New Testament times. Indeed, in the New Testament we witness the casting out of demons (Acts 8:7; 16:18; 19:15-16), speaking in tongues (Acts 2:4-11; 10:46; 19:6; 1 Corinthians 12:10; 14:1-25), and even protection from a poisonous snake (Acts 28:3-5).
3. A few observations are in order, however.
a. First, the construction of the verse in the original Greek of (Mark 16:18 ) utilizes "conditional clauses." The verse carries this idea: "And if they be compelled to pick up snakes with their hands and if they should be compelled to drink deadly poison, it shall by no means harm them." What this means is that if some pagan or non-Christian authority or persecutor forced a Christian to engage in such activities (a real possibility in the early church), God would supernaturally protect them. Understood in context, this verse certainly gives no justification for Christians to voluntarily drink poison or handle snakes in church services. We see no such activity in the early church. Note that Paul's encounter with the snake at Malta was completely unintentional (Acts 28:3-5).
b. Second, it should be noted that Christians today are divided over whether such phenomena as speaking in tongues and the gift of healing occur today. Some people argue that the gift of healing and tongues passed away in the first century after the Bible had been delivered and verified by miraculous phenomena. Some people say that the gift of healing and tongues have not passed away and are still available today.
(1) Whichever side one ends up on, it is very important for both sides to understand that (Mark 16:17-18 ) is most certainly not teaching that if you do not experience such phenomena, you are not a true Christian. That is an unwarranted conclusion that violates the broader context of Scripture.
(2) Let us consider the issue of tongues as an example. It is clear that even though all the Corinthian believers were "saved" (1 Corinthians 12:13), they had not all spoken in tongues (1 Corinthians 14:5). It is the Holy Spirit who decides on what gifts each believer receives (1 Corinthians 12:11), and the Spirit certainly did not give all Christians the gift of tongues in the first century. Thus it should not be considered a definitive sign of whether one is a Christian or not.
Consider this first and then tell me the bible says that you will be saved from harm if you're a christian.
Originally Posted by Chronos
Well, I consider that article bullcrap aswell, so I don't really know what more you want me to say about it.
About the articles. Please read the arguments they put forth before you say you won't accept them. Atleast that much you could do.
Thanks for your reaction on that, I'm happy you feel that way. But wouldn't you agree that me finding an article like that on a website you cite as a basis for your world view sort of, you know, discredits your credibility?
About your articles... That's a whole lot of reading you're dropping on me... I can't help but think that you're trying to overload me with stuff I can't read in a short enough time, much less counter any arguments you base on them. Could you maybe pare down the number of articles a bit, leaving only the best, i.e. most convincing? Otherwise we'll still be arguing next month.
Even so, I'm in the process of reading them. I started at Pascal's wager on Kreeft's site, because I was truly surprised to see it there. Pascal's wager leaves out probability, which I know to be demonstrably relevant to the question of god's existence. So I don't think it's an argument at all.
And besides, I've given you legitimate, argumented reasons to dismiss your arguments and sources out of hand. Let me sum them up for you.
1. There is no tangible evidence of any kind that suggests a god is present. The universe looks just as it should if there is no intelligent creator behind it. (Okay, I didn't say that literally, but I sure implied it.)
2. Wishful thinking, you want god to exist because it fits your world view, which colors your vision and damages your ability to think objectively about it.
(No, the reverse isn't true. I personally have no desire for god not to exist along those lines, because he doesn't play an active role in my life, morals or my self-actualization anyway.)
3. There is always an illogical leap of faith in the arguments you and your sources provide. I.e. you reach a point where you say "I don't get it, it must be god's work". I believe it reasonable on my part to ask that you justify that leap of faith. After all, what we can't prove today may be provable tomorrow.
A small anecdote in the words of Dawkins:
In 1835 the celebrated French philosopher Auguste Comte
wrote, of the stars: 'We shall never be able to study, by any method,
their chemical composition or their mineralogical structure.' Yet
even before Comte had set down these words, Fraunhofer had
begun using his spectroscope to analyse the chemical composition
of the sun.
4. The deeds that god does and advocates in the old testament are evil by any accepted moral standard. Yet you choose to make the leap of faith I outlined above, and base your morals on his supposed word. Again, how do you justify that? Better put, how do you justify it without admitting to not following that particular bit of scripture, thus making you a hypocrite by your own standards?
Now, if you are to have any hope of convincing me or any of our interested readers, I suggest that you either refute those points yourself or point me to articles that do. If you can't, at least have the decency to admit that you might be wrong. If you're not prepared to do that sort of thing, you should have ignored me in the first place, because there's no point in discussing this otherwise.
Last edited by Skazz; Mar 11, 2008 at 05:43 PM.
I'm back, I think... :)
Mod Pack
Mod Pack
Since the christian side is entirely undermining themselves, having not a clue of their own religion or it's teachings for the most part, constantly contradicting themselves, and in their own answers(especially you, Chronos) reply that alot of the bible is actually non-literal bullshit, and practically none of(or have i been lucky to get 100% of the same answer in different package for all of my scripture quotes? Not very likely.) it should ever be taken literally no matter what. (Which is, by the way serious hypocrisy)
Meaning, no matter what you do, you do not read bible as a book, it's a freely interprettable thing. Like a paper that's entirely blank. Or has unintelligible scribbles on it.
By the way, nice points up there, quoted from that site. Now, what would be the connection of those points to the actual scripture that tells you all christians could do this? None. Squat. Nada.
Also the strange ''conclusions'' the original author does really horribly destroy his legibility.
Besides, why do you think they're numbered in the first place? So no one would claim they're out of context. If you quote a scripture, you quote it from a number, to a number. There is no ''out of context'' in that manner. None.
And speaking in tongues? Oh please. Das ist eine gut arsch. Ar du bök? Taidat olla hieman sekaisin? C'est la vie.
I can speak in many tongues. And i'm not even christian, or holy in any manner. Even spanish, here goes. Tu e perro! And unintellgible : eine sviss dí nagilak. That takes no talent at all.
And by that, i conclude this argument as ''Fail'' on the christian side. Fail on all of, but not limited to: logic, constiency, integrity, intepretation and ignorance's part. If you wish to keep your sider strong in an argument, please don't change your agenda every 3 or so posts. Or undermine your own beliefs and words in most ridiculous manner, it's sad, really.
Meaning, no matter what you do, you do not read bible as a book, it's a freely interprettable thing. Like a paper that's entirely blank. Or has unintelligible scribbles on it.
By the way, nice points up there, quoted from that site. Now, what would be the connection of those points to the actual scripture that tells you all christians could do this? None. Squat. Nada.
Also the strange ''conclusions'' the original author does really horribly destroy his legibility.
Besides, why do you think they're numbered in the first place? So no one would claim they're out of context. If you quote a scripture, you quote it from a number, to a number. There is no ''out of context'' in that manner. None.
And speaking in tongues? Oh please. Das ist eine gut arsch. Ar du bök? Taidat olla hieman sekaisin? C'est la vie.
I can speak in many tongues. And i'm not even christian, or holy in any manner. Even spanish, here goes. Tu e perro! And unintellgible : eine sviss dí nagilak. That takes no talent at all.
And by that, i conclude this argument as ''Fail'' on the christian side. Fail on all of, but not limited to: logic, constiency, integrity, intepretation and ignorance's part. If you wish to keep your sider strong in an argument, please don't change your agenda every 3 or so posts. Or undermine your own beliefs and words in most ridiculous manner, it's sad, really.
Last edited by Foxie; Mar 11, 2008 at 08:27 PM.
What what? In the butt.
