Originally Posted by SkazzK

"Don't think this as a way of fleeing from the discussion"
You said it, not me... And I rather think there is more for you to say, since I dispute the credibility of your sources, and for argumented reasons, in the first place. The whole point of this discussion is the explanation of our points of view, and reasoning why they are true. I have called the legitimacy of your point of view into question, and you can't presume to be done with it by giving me more of the thing I call into question in the first place.
Of course, I can't force you to continue discussing this with me... But let me put it this way... If you choose not to defend your point of view by answering my questions, please admit defeat before you leave.

Besides, I did have a more specific question for you, about the nazi article, remember? I'd appreciate your thoughts on that, if anything.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Foxie

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)

I have yet to hear a quote which says the whole of the bible should be taken literally. Please show me that quote so I can study it myself.

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.

Quoting that site was a mistake on my part. A spurr of the moment decision if you want to call it that. However, I recall now that no early reliable manuscript which has mark 16:9-20 has ever been found. So until you can show me something that would verify that these are actually part of the original manuscript I won't address this issue.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...=16&version=31

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))

And speaking in tongues? Oh please. Das ist eine gut arsch. Ar du bіk? 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 dэ nagilak. That takes no talent at all.

Easy to counter this. New here probably meant new as in that they had not spoken it before and had no past experience in talking it. It also says that it would be a sign, which probably meant that it would be something that drew attention. Being able to talk a new language with no past experience in it would surely be seen as a sign by many. But since I have no early manuscript in my hand this is purely speculation on my part.

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.