How Do You Respond To Some One When They Say.....

[vargo]

The quote below is from me.

 

What is the Mark 16:18 challenge, you ask? In Mark 16:18, Jesus says that when true believers "drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all". From a scientific standpoint, this is an easily tested hypothesis. Assuming that your opponent claims himself to be a true believer, ask him to drink a lethal dose of cyanide in order to test Mark 16:18. Of course, if he won't do it, then obviously, his faith in the Bible is not as strong as he says it is

 

The quote below is what I'm referring to.

 

That is such a stupid comment that it does not deserve a response. This shows that you cannot read Bible verses in context.

 

I would not be so brash, instead, I would be gentle hoping to win you to Christ. But it is clear to me that you are only here to argue

.

[Ouroboros]

First of all, its in context. Stupid remark from the Christian. The easy cop-out, "if you don't agree, blame the other for reading out of context".

 

But, of course, anyone could make a claim it's not supposed to be literally poison etc, but spiritual blah blah... that's the second kind of cop-out.

 

Lastly, unfortunately that verse is not in the original text, but an addition that is not supposed to be in the Bible. It's a later addition, and it's well known that it is. Or at least fairly certain that it is.

[Checkmate]

I'd demand that he prove how I've taken anything out of context. I'd also quote 1 Peter 3:15 and tell him that he's supposed to be prepared to give an answer for the hope that lies within him. It doesn't matter what YOUR attitude is. HE is supposed to "win" you over with the love of Christ. (You're "blind" and in the grip of "Satan", right? How can he hold this against you? What kind of "love" is this?)

 

If he still refuses to answer, and JUDGES you, and avoids the question, then declare yourself the winner since he obviously doesn't have an answer. And he doesn't give two shits about you, except that he wants to WIN an argument. Then tell him to go fuck himself.

 

THAT is what I would do. For real. I don't play around with idiots. If they insist on throwing Christ in my face, then they'd better have a damn good answer. If they refuse, then I curse them for fools and never speak to them again.

 

(Note: I don't have any friends! )

[vargo]

This is somthing else he said earler.

 

There is not a scientist on the face of this planet who can began to refute the evidence that Francis Crick, referred to. And it seems that you do not know the difference between evolution and origin of life theories. Crick's evidence does not have anything to do with the design within living things. The evidence against a natural origin of life is PRE cell development. For instance, we need an Ozone layer to keep out radiation. Radiation would destroy pre cell products. That situation requires oxygen within the atmosphere. But pre cell products would be destroyed by an oxygenated atmosphere because oxygen reacts with amino acids. So how do you avoid this catch 22 situation?

You know how you solve that? An intelligent being is required. This is only one of many examples that demonstrate that life did not start naturally upon this planet. I suspect you are simply unaware of these things.

 

When we understand that God exists, these facts should lead honest men to seek out their Creator

 

SO I did some Homework and I found this to post in response.

 

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions. The plain fact is that the time available was too long, the many microenvironments on the earth's surface too diverse, the various chemical possibilities too numerous and our own knowledge and imagination too feeble to allow us to be able to unravel exactly how it might or might not have happened such a long time ago, especially as we have no experimental evidence from that era to check our ideas against." (Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)

 

Crick's book is about his proposition that life on Earth may have been the result of "directed panspermia." It should be noted that, in the book, he assumes that the aliens who he posits might be "seeding" the universe are, themselves, the product of evolution. In this quote, Crick is simply pointing out how, in the absence of evidence, the appearance of life on Earth might seem like a miracle. But he specifically admits that abiogenesis may have occurred on Earth as a result of ordinary chemical processes that require no resort to outside intelligence.

[vargo]

OK So responded back to him and this is what I got in return

 

 

 

I'd demand that you prove how I've taken anything out of context.

 

 

quote:

1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in you hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

 

 

 

Your supposed to be prepared to give an answer for the hope that lies within you.

 

 

This what I got in return

 

That's silly, if you could demand, you would get the answer, but since you don't understand the meaning of the word I'm not gonna tell you.

 

Then he goes on to say in the next post.

 

Thats true, I am prepared. If you are interested in hearing my testimony or reasoning together, I'm happy to talk. But to challange Christians to handle snakes, that is just silly.

[Poonis]

The quote below is what I'm referring to.

 

That is such a stupid comment that it does not deserve a response. This shows that you cannot read Bible verses in context.

 

I would not be so brash, instead, I would be gentle hoping to win you to Christ. But it is clear to me that you are only here to argue

 

Why respond? I would gloat in knowing another christian has lost hope in winning me to Christ.

[Thurisaz]

There is no "in context" if you take the whole babble into consideration. Show me one single verse that isn't contradicted somewhere else in the shitty book!

 

Frankly, that "out of context" bullshit only works for a select part of the babble anyway, so...

 

And anyway, what babble? There are as many babbles as there are believers since everyone interprets the original shit different.

[Asimov]

Tell him to stop committing an ad hoc fallacy. The only way something is "out of context" is if the paragraphs preceding and following the paragraph do not follow.

[Lycorth]

There is no "in context" if you take the whole babble into consideration. Show me one single verse that isn't contradicted somewhere else in the shitty book!

 

Zackly. The entire thing contradicts itself, on virtually every point of belief that Xians hold dear. It's utterly riddled with contradictions.

[Amethyst]

I would say, the Bible is a work of fiction. There is no context except that it is fiction, and unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt to me that it is not fiction, I'm not going to accept it as literal truth. Those who use context as an argument simply want to support whatever they believe.

[godlessgrrl]

If they use the Stick-their-fingers-in-their-ears-and-go-LA-LA-LA Defense, as this guy has done, you've won the argument by default.

[Ouroboros]

I looked into the verse, and this is the context:

14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

It didn't change the meaning, did it?

 

Gee! I didn't know that "and he said unto them" would change the meaning of it?

 

But here's a very interesting point to bring up about this verse:verse 15-16 is read literally, and verse 17 is read figuratively by some Christians and literally by some, and verse 18 is completely read figuratively. You should ask him why they don't read all of it as figure of speech or all of it literally. That is the context.

 

Context means, read the whole goddam shit the same way and don't play tricks by chaning the meaning when it fits your belief. So the context either means, (figure of speech) serpents are evil people, poison is evil ideas, "baptized shall be saved" means everyone shall be saved without believing, you know... whatever way you like to interpret those verses, because they're only figure of speech anyway. Or (literal) people have to believe to be saved, and get baptised, and drink poison, and make miracles.

[KT45]

Tell him to stop committing an ad hoc fallacy. The only way something is "out of context" is if the paragraphs preceding and following the paragraph do not follow.

 

If this is so, should the culture of the people who wrote it, the time/history in which is was most likely written, and the state of the jewish community all be discarded when showing context?

 

Also as time passes, definitions for words may change or lose meaning, thus altering the context of those who read it.

[AgnosticBob AtheistPants]

I understand the christian view that this is being taken "out of context" although that's not exactly the correct term. I can't think of exactly what to call it. The thing is, they don't believe that Jesus is actually saying for them to pick up a flask of poison and chug it to prove that they are true believers, but something more along the lines of this; if they are out spreading the "good news" and someone poisons them, they won't be harmed.

 

So here's what you do. You invite this guy to dinner, bring a vial of cyanide with you, and empty it in his glass when he's not looking.

 

If he lives, he's a true believer and you better convert right then and there.

 

If he keels over, you win the debate.

 

10 to 1 odds you'll win.

 

[mwc]

I looked into the verse, and this is the context:

14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

A trap you can get stuck in with is these verses only apply to the apostles and/or to the disciples that they directly instructed and not to the xians of today. So only those first one or two generations of xians were able to pull off these stunts (in order to convert) but now this is not needed and we are unable to do so.

 

Also, deliberately taking up serpents and/or poison is testing god and you are not to do that so even though you could do these things you are not to test god so you should not do these things (since you might be allowed to die for your prideful ways).

 

Yes, these are answers I've gotten and other than wanting to hit the person I had no real answer since the answers were so obviously dishonest. Apparently, the great commission no longer applies to the xians of today. Maybe this is a good thing?

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

A trap you can get stuck in with is these verses only apply to the apostles and/or to the disciples that they directly instructed and not to the xians of today. So only those first one or two generations of xians were able to pull off these stunts (in order to convert) but now this is not needed and we are unable to do so.

Yup. That's also a way of "turning the tables", which means the "spread the word" command from Jesus was only to the disciples, and not to the followers today. And the "believe/be baptized/be saved" statement doesn't have to apply to today eiter.

 

Most Christians want to eat the cake and keep it at the same time.

 

Also, deliberately taking up serpents and/or poison is testing god and you are not to do that so even though you could do these things you are not to test god so you should not do these things (since you might be allowed to die for your prideful ways).

Well, that isn't in the context. It doesn't say that. So by making an apologetic explanation to the verse that way is definitely the Christian doing the "reading out of context", and not the skeptic.

 

Yes, these are answers I've gotten and other than wanting to hit the person I had no real answer since the answers were so obviously dishonest. Apparently, the great commission no longer applies to the xians of today. Maybe this is a good thing?

Yup. At least according to this verse. But of course there are other verses to commands the followers to preach to the headens. For instance the notion that the end times will come when the whole world have heard the Gospel.

[mwc]

Yup. That's also a way of "turning the tables", which means the "spread the word" command from Jesus was only to the disciples, and not to the followers today. And the "believe/be baptized/be saved" statement doesn't have to apply to today eiter.

 

Most Christians want to eat the cake and keep it at the same time.

Well, considering you have verses that support faith alone, works, baptism, any combination of these, the xian can easily say that it applied only to the apostles and be right.

 

And the way the bible is written I bet you could have your cake and eat it too.

 

Well, that isn't in the context. It doesn't say that. So by making an apologetic explanation to the verse that way is definitely the Christian doing the "reading out of context", and not the skeptic.

True, but not testing god is supported elsewhere so you might work it in on a technicallity. Jesus did it with Satan in the desert (which is funny since the temptations were testing god but god calling upon himself shouldn't have been testing god if you think about it...I mean I'm calling upon myself to type this message but I wouldn't call it testing myself).

 

Yup. At least according to this verse. But of course there are other verses to commands the followers to preach to the headens. For instance the notion that the end times will come when the whole world have heard the Gospel.

Well, the end times should have happened a long, long time ago too and without the whole world hearing anything.

 

There's just too many ways for xians to slip out of committing to any of this stuff.

 

mwc

[RHEMtron]

Crick's book is about his proposition that life on Earth may have been the result of "directed panspermia." It should be noted that, in the book, he assumes that the aliens who he posits might be "seeding" the universe are, themselves, the product of evolution. In this quote, Crick is simply pointing out how, in the absence of evidence, the appearance of life on Earth might seem like a miracle. But he specifically admits that abiogenesis may have occurred on Earth as a result of ordinary chemical processes that require no resort to outside intelligence.

Exactly... he's arguing for a man who believes life was put on earth by aliens. He's arguing for a guy who was a militant atheist.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick#Religious_Beliefs

Crick wrote, "The age of the earth is now established beyond any reasonable doubt as very great, yet in the United States millions of Fundamentalists still stoutly defend the naive view that it is relatively short, an opinion deduced from reading the Christian Bible too literally. They also usually deny that animals and plants have evolved and changed radically over such long periods, although this is equally well established. This gives one little confidence that what they have to say about the process of natural selection is likely to be unbiased, since their views are predetermined by a slavish adherence to religious dogmas." (source: The Astonishing Hypothesis)

 

In a 1987 case before the Supreme Court, Crick joined a group of other Nobel laureates who advised that, "'Creation-science' simply has no place in the public-school science classroom."[42] Crick was also an advocate for the establishment of Darwin Day as a British national holiday[43].

It's just funny how he quotes Crick and what he says about abiogenesis (in which Crick is the only well qualified opponent of), but doesnt quote him on his beliefs for how life started on earth: Directed Panspermia.

[Asimov]

Tell him to stop committing an ad hoc fallacy. The only way something is "out of context" is if the paragraphs preceding and following the paragraph do not follow.

 

If this is so, should the culture of the people who wrote it, the time/history in which is was most likely written, and the state of the jewish community all be discarded when showing context?

 

Also as time passes, definitions for words may change or lose meaning, thus altering the context of those who read it.

 

Of course not, that is also extremely important, especially when they are referring to prophecies that are supposedly having to do with issues of today.

 

Obvious stuff like flipping to a sentence that says "cut off your hand", and not looking at what's being said around the passage is taking something out of context.

[RHEMtron]

That's silly, if you could demand, you would get the answer, but since you don't understand the meaning of the word I'm not gonna tell you.

Ask the person what is the meaning then. Whatever answer they give, literal or figurative, just refer back to Han's post:

 

But here's a very interesting point to bring up about this verse:verse 15-16 is read literally, and verse 17 is read figuratively by some Christians and literally by some, and verse 18 is completely read figuratively. You should ask him why they don't read all of it as figure of speech or all of it literally. That is the context.

 

Context means, read the whole goddam shit the same way and don't play tricks by chaning the meaning when it fits your belief. So the context either means, (figure of speech) serpents are evil people, poison is evil ideas, "baptized shall be saved" means everyone shall be saved without believing, you know... whatever way you like to interpret those verses, because they're only figure of speech anyway. Or (literal) people have to believe to be saved, and get baptised, and drink poison, and make miracles.

 

Then he goes on to say in the next post.

 

Thats true, I am prepared. If you are interested in hearing my testimony or reasoning together, I'm happy to talk. But to challange Christians to handle snakes, that is just silly.

I would say, i didnt ask about your testimony. I want to know why would it be silly to handle snakes if the bible says youll be able to? Im also asking what is your interpretation of the verses Mark 16:15-18. Again i emphasize you are required to answer honestly and lovingly as commanded in 1 Peter 3:15.

 

And again, whatever he responds, refer to Han's post.

[Ouroboros]

Oh, I just thought about something.

 

Paul handled a snake, and didn't die. That was the affirmation on the Mark 16 miracles promise. Paul wasn't with Jesus when he said it, so he didn't count. Why does he then do that kind of miracle? Apostle or not, he wasn't with Jesus that day.

[vargo]

Ok I got her response from what I ask for.

 

 

THis is Me ......

OK then please explain to me what I said is out of context. I just posted a quote from Peter 3:15. Was that taken out of context? How easy it is to pick and choose what is in context and what is not in context.

 

 

This is Him but I think him is a her, not to sure....

 

Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, F46 and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

 

19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

*********************************

There are several interpretations of this scripture. Notwithstanding the various interpretations, I don't think you can test the validity of scripture by administering poison and snakes.

 

There are clear instances of casting out devils, speaking with new toungs and healing of the sick. As far as take up serpents and drink deadly things, even using a current literal interpretation, it would have to follow that these protections are upon those who are being led b the Holy Spirit. The signs follow those that believe - follow not confirm the belief. There are many instances of divine protection of those following after God's will. There is an instance in Acts were apostle Paul was bitten by a viper without harm.

 

We are admonished not to put the lord to the test, so these signs follow, indicating Gods protection will be with converts doing his will.

 

Another view says these passages were fulfilled by the works of the 12 Apostles.

 

The text itself verifies that the Lord confirmed the word of the Apostles with signs following.

[julian]

Here's my take on his/her post (this is only my opinion and I may be way off).

 

 

 

Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, F46 and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

 

19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

*********************************

There are several interpretations of this scripture. Notwithstanding the various interpretations, I don't think you can test the validity of scripture by administering poison and snakes.

 

Why not? It says it right there, does it not? If so, it should hold up to reality, which it does not.

 

There are clear instances of casting out devils, speaking with new toungs and healing of the sick. As far as take up serpents and drink deadly things, even using a current literal interpretation, it would have to follow that these protections are upon those who are being led b the Holy Spirit. The signs follow those that believe - follow not confirm the belief. There are many instances of divine protection of those following after God's will. There is an instance in Acts were apostle Paul was bitten by a viper without harm.

 

So now you're using the Bible to rationalize a Biblical passage? If you couldn't figure this out by yourself, using the Bible as evidence of the Bible is patently insipid and mistaken (for obvious reasons). Furthermore, your "clear instances" are not clear at all, they are highly suspicious and have never been verified. In fact, if one looks at the facts, they can clearly conclude that they are acts. Please show how these are truly clear instances.

 

We are admonished not to put the lord to the test, so these signs follow, indicating Gods protection will be with converts doing his will.

 

But this, too, doesn't hold up. How is there extra protection for converts "doing 'his' will", exactly?

 

Another view says these passages were fulfilled by the works of the 12 Apostles.

 

The passage is in general and never specifies anyone but also because "God's will" wasn't supposedly automatically done just by them.

 

The text itself verifies that the Lord confirmed the word of the Apostles with signs following.

 

The text implies that these things will occur, and they don't.

 

That's just the way I see it. Others will probably have different (and better, most likely) points, so make sure you take those into consideration as well.

[mwc]

There are clear instances of casting out devils, speaking with new toungs and healing of the sick. As far as take up serpents and drink deadly things, even using a current literal interpretation, it would have to follow that these protections are upon those who are being led b the Holy Spirit. The signs follow those that believe - follow not confirm the belief. There are many instances of divine protection of those following after God's will. There is an instance in Acts were apostle Paul was bitten by a viper without harm.

 

We are admonished not to put the lord to the test, so these signs follow, indicating Gods protection will be with converts doing his will.

 

Another view says these passages were fulfilled by the works of the 12 Apostles.

 

The text itself verifies that the Lord confirmed the word of the Apostles with signs following.

Okay, so this is sort of a variation on the answers I got.

 

If I read this right the "answer" is that these "signs" just sort of follow a true believer around (a play on the passive word "follow"...I'd like to know how to passively "cast out a demon" but that's just me). So if you're just wandering through a field and you're bit by a snake then you're covered. A divine insurance policy. Out in the garage and take a drink from the wrong bottle? No problem. You're covered.

 

But, there's an insurance policy to cover that insurance policy. If you pick up a snake or drink poison to test your faith (and god)...you'll probably die...or maybe you're not a true believer (so you'll die)...or maybe this only works for the original 12 and Paul (this is the one preferred by most xians I've come across to explain why none of their magic tricks work today...they won't accept there aren't any true xians anymore)...so you'll die...or it's just god's will that you live (or die).

 

Hell of an answer. (S)He's a real xian alright.

 

mwc

[HuaiDan]

I guess it's my Libra nature (although I really believe astrology, along with all things described as paranormal, are bullshit) that I often choose to play devil's advocate. As such, I know I'm supposed to take a literalist approach in dubunking yon apologists argument, because that's the most direct, convenient route. However, I must give the bible's rendition of Jesus' comments here the benefit of the doubt.

 

Jesus (assuming his existence) spoke in parables and metaphors, if not predominantly, certainly quite frequently. Plugging "drink poison" into that equation, I would take it to mean that a true believer's pure spirit will not be tainted by the evil of the world. A broader examination of the chapter will yield a deeper understanding of the meaning of the term (CONTEXT).

 

However, an apologist runs into OTHER serious problems if he takes the metaphor/parable approach. Certainly, the wisdom of heaven would be riddles to the ears of mortal men, but WHY would a TIMELESS entity like a god speak in TIMELY metaphors? Sure, he was speaking to the men of that day and age, blah, blah, blather, but I seriously doubt the character, the validity, the exsistence of a god who demands our obedience and adherence to his absolute law, yet does not provide clear, indisputable, timeless instruction for his creation across the ages.

CHALLENGE TO APOLOGISTS: Go ahead. Call the bible clear, timeless, indisputable. I dare you.